David Price fight off - Dec 6th

First topic message reminder :

Price has pulled out with a bicep injury.

Apparently not serious and he will be okay a few weeks later.

Still beats David Haye mind you.

Joshua has way more potential than Fury but Fury has shown he is far from the ducking, useless heavyweight people are determined to see. It was a boringly accomplished performance against Chisora which didnt fit with his haters profiling of him at all. Its amusing seeing all the grasping at straws, specially from those who predicted an "in shape" Chisora makes short work of him. Chisora is shot dontcha know!

Hammersmith isn't a Wladimir fan. In fact I think that would be an understatement

He fought Haye for the pounds, not for the glory. Otherwise he wouldn't have run like Billy Whizz when Price called him out the first time.
He's still not fought any top opposition either.

Man's got a savvy business sense though and probably knows himself he's not up to hanging with the top crowd. think you'll see him, take a beating of Wlad (or anyone else that can give him a decent payday) and then slink off.

Thats a brilliant argument. He could fight every top heavyweight in the division and you would dismiss it as just fighting for the money.

Call me cynical but that was your exact argument for why Mayweather fought Alvarez, solely for the money and not the challenge.

Thats the only reason Mayweather takes on any fight

Which is also true of Tyson Fury.

So why did he refuse to fight Price when them 2 were being looked at as 2 big rivals, yet signed to face Haye whom everyone thought would splat him (especially seeing what Cunningham did to him)

And isn't that the epitome of ducking (just fighting bums for money) or are you changing your tune now?

Er 5 million quid for fighting Haye??? Of course he is going to take it. He was willing to fight him though. He was willing to fight Pulev in an eliminator until Haye mugged him off. He fought Chisora in an eliminator. You are talking absolute balls about the man. Like any other boxer he boxes for the money but he has shown he is willing to fight top names to do it. Something you are accusing him of avoiding. He didnt avoid Haye when the challenge was put to him. I dont think he will avoi Klitschko either. What is inavoidable is people talking Love sacks no matter who he faces. What the heck do you think Joshua is fighting for? The glory of beating the boxing old folks home?

So why is it okay for Fury, but not for the likes of Mayweather then?

Tyson Fury was so willing to fight Pulev that he didn't.

Is Fury being compared to Sugar Ray Leonard? Give me a break. It takes the biggest purse in boxing history to get the so called TBE into the ring the legendary Saul Alvarez and his fan club use this a unequivocal proof that Mayweather IS NOT a cherry picker! Fury signs to fight Haye and becomes mandatory for Klitschko but apparently its just for a pay day and he only wants to fight bums.

When Fury is being rated on a par with Ali and it takes a world record purse to get him in with an opponent who might actually pose him a challenge then come back to me.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Tyson Fury was so willing to fight Pulev that he didn't.

Because a much bigger fight came along instead. Brain fart alert.

Did he actually sign to fight Pulev, because wasn't he already talking about facing someone else when Pulev was first mentioned?

Which top names has he shown he's willing to fight, he vacated the title to avoid Price, not convinced he'd have faced Pulev and I believe at some point he even stated he wouldn't face Wlad.

I don't like him and will criticize him for the same things I criticize other boxers. Don't matter if their names Mayweather, Fury or Warrington.

The two situations are exactly the same but unsurprisingly you treat them differently, without the £5mil purse Fury isn't going to get in the ring with Haye for an embarrassing beating.

Fury is broke and Mayweather has earned over 300 million dollears fighting guys out of their prime or at weights that a f ing anorexic teen would struggle to make. The guys a disgrace to boxing for that, sets a terrible precedent for the sport I love.

Fury fought Del for peanuts at 22, how can you say he ducks anyone? He cleaned out all UK opposition and would have fought Price had he not got beat up by that guy with the walking stick and plastic hip.

Haye's shot. Fury would pancake him now. He looked gassed after 4 rounds against Del Boy. Got lucky. LUCKY.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The two situations are exactly the same but unsurprisingly you treat them differently, without the £5mil purse Fury isn't going to get in the ring with Haye for an embarrassing beating.

They are nothing alike. You would have to be thicker than pig sh1t to think this. Wander back to that village that missing an idiot tht you were on about earlier.

They are exactly the same situation, both signed for fights because of the money having previously avoided opposition because the risk was too high.

HH your missing the point, one is called Mayweather and the other is called Fury, that's more than enough difference to say it and not be a hypocrite

Fury vacated the belts to avoid Price before he got beat (twice).

This is just getting ridiculous now.

Fury didn't fight Pulev because the Haye fight presented itself and he wanted that instead. I'm yet to see anyone provide a valid reason as to why Fury should get anything even resembling criticism for this, other than them just not liking him. Was Haye considered a much tougher fight than Pulev? Yes. Was it much more lucrative? Yes. Doesn't matter if you think striving for greatness or striving for big money should come first - the Haye fight covered both bases here ahead of Pulev.

And yet Fury gets criticised for it. Right. No doubt if he'd turned down Haye and fought Pulev for a much smaller purse we'd be hearing how it shows he lacks ambition, won't get in the ring with a proven world-class fighter and wants the easy option, is ducking Haye etc.

Whether or not he signed Haye just for the money (which is just an opinion, not fact) is irrelevant. Boxing is his profession, for God's sake. As the likes of Larry Holmes and Roberto Duran openly said throughout their careers, money is more important to some boxers than others, but if you asked them to do it completely for free, they wouldn't. It's not as if it was a cynical money-grabbing ploy from Fury in any case, ala Calzaghe-Jones. Haye was, and still is (if he ever gets back in the ring) still the next best Heavyweight out there aside from Wladimir in a lot of people's eyes. He would have deserved to get well-paid had the fight come off.

This other claim that he had no desire to win against Haye (or against Wlad in the future) and would / will just turn up knowing he's going to get hammered, look for a place to lay down and disappear with his money is daft, too. What is it about Fury's fights so far which make people think he's some gutless quitter who won't back himself to win, or who won't dig deep in hard times regardless of whether he goes on to win, lose or draw? No evidence for that at all, but it's just another convenient way to diminish any credit directed towards Fury....Which isn't much to begin with in general.

I've not seen many other fighers who wind people up so much that they'll just say absolutely anything at all to avoid having to say a half-kind word about them the way Fury does. Suddenly now taking bigger and tougher fights ahead of smaller, more easily winnable ones is a rod to beat fighter's with, instead of being something to commend them for?

The guy is a class A cretin and deserves every shred of abuse he gets, what is there to give him credit for exactly?

I don't see what his personality has to do with anything here, though. There's plenty fighters more vile than Fury on a personal level and for me that's no good reason to hold him to more exacting standards than you would others.

I'd say he's due credit for getting up in fights where he's been decked and going on to win, beating guys that you and others said he'd lose to and actually backing himself to take a huge step up in class against Haye when most fighters aged 25 with only twenty-one fights on their record are still considered prospects playing the long game, but I know that's a no-go area and you'll flat out refuse to give him credit for that, and it seems you're not alone.

So forget giving him credit. I'm asking why he's getting this criticism for taking on Haye ahead of Pulev when it was a bigger and harder fight, and why it's somehow become another tool to deride him with in this thread. The people who spend their time running Fury in to the ground can't even bring themselves to just be neutral or indifferent on that point - it's clearly something Fury deserves criticism for judging by the comments on this thread. Nobody has given me or anyone else who has posed that question an answer yet.

I have the good fortune of having a couple of friends who have the misfortune of being related to the fool Chris so it has everything to do with it.

It's the fickle nature of some fans who will laud Fury for taking a money fight he had no chance of winning but at the same time berate those who do the exact same thing. It was purely a fight for the money, it had nothing to do with proving himself or testing himself, if it was about that he'd have fought Price when it was offered to him instead of relinquishing his belts.

So to clarify, you think Fury should have picked Pulev over Haye then, Hammersmith?

Again, if you don't want to laud him for going after Haye then you don't have to, but I don't see why he should actually be criticised for it on the total opposite side of the coin.

Weren't you saying earlier today that Paul Smith and Matchroom would have been mad to turn down the chance to fight Abraham for a world title and a career-high pay day (even though Smith's a domestic level fighter and he hadn't really done much to earn the shot) as it could be a once-in-a-career opportunity? The Haye fight and the kind of money if offered would likely be a once-in-a-career chance for Fury as well. You're saying it's others being inconsistent but as far as I can see when it comes to Fury it's the complete opposite.

Brook turned down a chance to fight Bradley for a world title in the summer / autumn of 2012 and made no bones about admitting that. His next four opponents were Saldivia, a Carson Jones rematch, Senchenko and Robles. Didn't you find yourself during that run wishing that he'd shown a bit more ambition and just taken a punt on the Bradley fight? I know I did. As usual, I didn't see Brook getting the same kind of heat for that as Fury did for vacating the titles that Price ended up picking up in his wake.

I thought it was disappointing that the Price-Fury fight didn't happen in 2012, but I don't see how it has any bearing on Fury signing to fight Haye or whether or not he'll enforce his mandatory status against Wlad. Let's face it, if he'd have beaten Price (particularly if he took him out with the same innocuous-looking shot that Thompson did in the first fight) then it'd just have been a case of Price being overrated and Fury not deserving any kudos for beating a chinless wonder.

At the end of the day I'm not going to criticise someone for showing a bit of ambition and taking on a big test just because they're a long shot with the bookies or because their personality puts a few noses out of joint.

I've not once suggest he should have taken on Pulev instead of Haye but to suggest he's willing to take on anybody because of one big money fight doesn't wash with me.

You can come up with all the examples you want Chris but Smith isn't a prat, Brook certainly isn't and has since proved himself to be a top level Welterweight so trying to justify Fury on the back of that is benign. During that run Brook was at least showing class and ability, the guy is a top class talent and doesn't have to resort to foul shots and a back handed jab.

I understand the site has to put in a good word for him because of the podcasts but you're trying to defend the indefensible.

Nobody has to put in a good word for him at all. I couldn't care less if he's done podcasts for us or not. You're still arguing that his persona or demeanour should come in to consideration and give him less margin than other guys because they're not "prats" - I'm just saying that I don't think that makes any sense.

So what if Brook is more talented? He'd have virtually no chance of beating Mayweather, probably less chance than Fury would have of beating Haye. Wouldn't you give Brook a great deal of credit if he took the huge money fight against Floyd where he'd be a massive outsider ahead of some routine defences against the likes of Bundu, Gavin or Guerrero? Somehow I suspect the fact that he was showing ambition would come a long way before you started bemoaning the fact that he was only in it for the money, or that he knew he couldn't really win and wouldn't make an effort to.

I'm trying to illustrate that Fury should be evaluated the same as all other fighters, it's you who seems to be saying he shouldn't. Nobody said that Fury is a fearless warrior who'll fight anyone, anywhere, anytime. What we're arguing is that there's not really anything to suggest he would look to duck Pulev and that he shouldn't in any way, shape or form take any derision for picking Haye ahead of him.

Brook would have more of a chance of beating Mayweather than Fury would of beating Haye but yes Brook would deserve credit because he's proven himself against Porter. Guerrero would be a good fight for Brook to take to be honest, not a guaranteed win by any stretch of the imagination.

He shouldn't be evaluated the same at all, you can choose to give him some margin for error but while he still comes out with non stop garbage and can't even throw a proper jab i'll judge him based on that.

The ducking of Price is an indication that he would duck Pulev and do remind me when he showed any inclination for taking that fight before Haye even became an option?

Don't see how Brook would deserve more credit, it'd be a similar scenario give or take, for me. But there you go. You've basically admitted with your second paragraph above (as far as I can tell) that you make a conscious effort to just focus on his negatives so Lord only knows what Fury would have to do just to get a "not bad" from you, fella.

Fury and Pulev were in negotiations but Haye was lurking at the time. Peter Fury confirmed that purses had been sketchily agreed and that they didn't compare to what a Haye fight could bring. Fury fought Cunningham in late April 2013 and it was only six weeks (June 1) later that Fury's team announced they were intending to fight someone else other than Pulev - and it turned out to be Haye, a much better fight in every way possible. Had it not been Haye then there'd be grounds for complaint.

There was avoidance on both sides of the Price-Fury thing (Maloney admitted that they turned down £100k for the fight because of contract wranglings), but more on Fury's part which I've never denied. Don't think anyone does. However, if one action can't be wiped out or atoned for in the remainder of a career then we really are in bother. There have been plenty of other cases of fighters carefully swerving a fight but making up for it later on in their career and in Fury's case signing twice to fight Haye and then giving it a decent go against Wlad (which I think he will) would go a long way towards making up for what happened there.

Anyway, no point arguing the points anymore as it's clear we're not going to reach any kind of middle ground. Call it an honourable draw.

Fury will fight anyone stop messing him about, after what he's been through no one would resent a pay day for him. The fines and pull outs plus death were bad enough. Leave the guy alone.

Morning Chris, HH.

I don't think Fury's wrong to go the money route. It doesn't look like he has the talent at the moment to be a great or have a long and successful career. He's stated himself on a few occasions the he falls in and out of boxing and sometimes just can't be mithered.

He did the job on Cunningham, didn't look especially good doing it, did the job on Chisora on saturday and didn't look anything good doing it (I thought he looked a bit like Valuev).

I would take a guess that most boxers are in it for the money and you can't really fault them for it BUT you cannot lambast one fighter for it and then say it's fine for another, makes you a hypocrite and (in my eyes) devalues everything you say about the sport.

Can't fault him for signing to fight Haye, but to try and say he's a fighter that takes on all comers is daft. Avoiding Price will stick with him for a while and rightly so.

Nobody has said he's a fighter who takes on all comers, merely that he's shown he's willing to fight good fighters and isn't just happy to pad his record against also-rans for as long as possible, which is what his harshest detractors plainly don't want to admit.

I see that Mayweather comparisons have been brought up above, as in Floyd makes money a primary consideration over glory, too. Difference here is, when it comes to Mayweather he's often accused of taking the bigger money fight at the expense of the more challenging ones - this wasn't the case with Fury-Haye, unless anyone thinks that Pulev is better than Haye. It was a fight which was bigger and better in every way, whereas Mayweather's in the last few years sometimes haven't been. As far as I can see, people only take umbrage to Fury taking that option and somehow look for an angle to be cynical about it because it's Fury, no other reason. There are discrepancies in both Mayweather's and Fury's record, but in this case it's clutching at straws to try to find an angle to take a pop at Fury.

I still don't see how the Price issue needs to be brought up in relation to him signing for Haye or becoming mandatory for Wlad. Two separate things. What happened with Price doesn't change the fact that he clearly wanted to fight Haye, and until he decides to give up his mandatory status or fails to make a deal with Wlad when it's time for the fight to happen there's no real basis to suggest he won't have a go at winning the titles, either. Hatton (who wasn't a 'take on all comers' man either) never fighting Witter was soon forgotten when he was getting in there with Mayweather and Pacquiao, two fighters who likewise were a clear level above him. There aren't many careers you can find where the fighter in question didn't miss out on at least one fairly obvious opponent and Fury swerving Price doesn't automatically mean he's going to swerve everyone else for the rest of his career or can't have his image repaired somewhat by fighting better guys later on.

I don't really fall either side on Fury - was critical of his handling of the Price situation (which wasn't completely one-way traffic, though that's never a popular thing to bring up), made no bones about admitting that Haye would have beaten him in my opinion and don't defend him for the shape he's been in for some fights. But if you can give him stick when he deserves it why not credit when he deserves it too? He's a much-improved fighter who has done better than most (me included) ever thought he'd do and showed ambition by signing for Haye. He's worked his way in to a mandatory position by beating someone who a few people were saying he couldn't beat. Why does all of that have to be tapered with something negative?

And Ali didn't look great against Cooper when he got chinned and given a week to recover did he? But he is a GREAT.

So negative, I'm starting to think his culture is what you dislike? no offence but this is a bit of a witch hunt.

He is a UK fighter, undefeated, traveled, willing and capable. He has talent and is learning good skills. Oh, and he is a HW, what more do you want?

You're wasting your time Chris. For what its worth, I agree with every word.

Derby, I thought fury looked excellent for the two rounds it took to dispirit Chis. Then he just went through the motions, safety first. He looks a much improved fighter to me, though maybe Chis flattered him on that front.

Well said Milkyballs.

Didn't Price also refuse to fight Fury at a later date?

I don't see anything decent about Fury as a fighter, he seems a very slow plodder that wouldn't last with anyone half decent. I was one that was expecting him to lose against Chisora but fair play to him as he put him away convincingly even if it did seem like only a shell.

You cannot fault Fury for trying to take on Haye and it wasn't his fault it never came off. I would like to see Haye coming begging back, now Fury's a mandatory just to see TF to tell him where to stick it.

Tyson Fury has called out everyone and ducked no one. What the hell do you haters want him to do? He's fought abroad, against 0 fighters, took Haye, would have taken Price if he'd not got KO'd. I mean, you can't expect him to take Price when his purse is halved? also, he is saying he wants Klitscho and AJ.

He didn't take Price at the time it was thought he was dangerous though DDG.

Regardless of what you think, you can't just ignore that as it doesn't fit your viewpoint. The same as you can't ignore his daft rants and generally acting like a twit.

One of the things that Peter Fury told us (the v2podcast) was that the Pulev fight was high risk with little reward. He mentioned it was financially unviable.

The same couldnt be said about the Haye fight which he took.

I would wager that the thought process about ducking Price was that it was a high risk fight (this was 3 years ago at least) for someone of his skills at the time. Financially bigger than anything he had previously had but when you look at how he progressed since (both as a boxer and in purse size), it was the right decision.

Do I think he was scared to face him? Not a chance. Do I think that it was tactical due to the risk and money reward? Absolutely. Do I agree with the strategy? Yes although as a fan, we all want to see competitive fights.

Fury has been managed well so far, taken on big risks if the money is there and genuinely doesnt seem to be afraid of anyone.

Fury's been managed fine but I think someone should have taken him aside and told him to knock it off with the daft rants. A bit of a more sympathetic side to him and he could have had a massive fanbase instead of a lot of people just waiting for him to lose (and lose bad.)

It'll be interesting to see him if he gets in with Wlad (Is it financially viable to face him for a smaller purse and lose?) what kind of showing he gives.

I think he's waiting for that one big payday and then he'll quit (unless he wins)

When you're the defending champion Adam you should fight the mandatory challenger, knowing it was high risk he bypassed it aka ducked the fight through fesr of losing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:When you're the defending champion Adam you should fight the mandatory challenger, knowing it was high risk he bypassed it aka ducked the fight through fesr of losing.

Disagree with him fearing to lose.

I dont think that he fears anyone (although he should).

I think his management, just played the right move for him at that stage of his career. So yes it was a duck but not one driven by fear. Just one that wasnt worth the risk for him.

It's only considered too risky if you fear losing, if he was so confident of winning he'd have taken the career high payday and won.

So why didnt Mayweather take the PAC fight several years ago?