Tyson Fury Takes Aim!!

First topic message reminder :

In the first Presser of many, Tyson Fury has hit out at Wlad Klitschko, stating "You have as much charisma as my underpants"

Well, what do you think?

Does Wlad have as much charisma as Fury's underpants?

Thoughts.

Marlonz wrote:Even if he does, the chance of Wlad letting him off the hook or being unable to follow up is slim.

Disagree with that point. Wlad will happily let someone off the hook if it brings less risk.

Marlonz wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote: A big over hand right from a HW can drop any other HW. Fury walked onto Cunningham's best shot and got back up like nothing happened.

But Cunningham is NOT a HW! That's the point he's driving at. He's a cruiser who had little power at 200 pounds let alone up a division. Pajkic was a small HW with a 27% KO ratio and also dropped Fury heavily. Yes, Tyson showed good powers of recovery, but that was against light punchers who were unable to follow up. IF Wlad lands a flush left hook or big right hand, there's a very real possibility Fury won't be getting back up. Even if he does, the chance of Wlad letting him off the hook or being unable to follow up is slim. Moreover, Wlad has recent KO's vs guys with good chins - Thompson, Pulev and had Wach - a guy as big as Fury and arguably a bigger puncher - really intimidated by his power. Yes, Wlad has been dropped and stopped but all 3 guys were genuine punchers, even then, he was saved by the ref vs Sanders - not KO'd cold, gassed out vs Brewster and avenged that with a KO of his own. I still think it's a worrying sign for Fury.

Cunningham is a HW. He was a CW. The punch that dropped Fury would have dropped any HW if they were stupid enough to walk onto it with their chin in the air. If Fury had a weak chin we'd know about it because he gets hit flush in pretty much every fight yet has never looked badly hurt. If Fury was "chinny" he wouldn't fight the way he does.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Marlonz wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote: A big over hand right from a HW can drop any other HW. Fury walked onto Cunningham's best shot and got back up like nothing happened.

But Cunningham is NOT a HW! That's the point he's driving at. He's a cruiser who had little power at 200 pounds let alone up a division. Pajkic was a small HW with a 27% KO ratio and also dropped Fury heavily. Yes, Tyson showed good powers of recovery, but that was against light punchers who were unable to follow up. IF Wlad lands a flush left hook or big right hand, there's a very real possibility Fury won't be getting back up. Even if he does, the chance of Wlad letting him off the hook or being unable to follow up is slim. Moreover, Wlad has recent KO's vs guys with good chins - Thompson, Pulev and had Wach - a guy as big as Fury and arguably a bigger puncher - really intimidated by his power. Yes, Wlad has been dropped and stopped but all 3 guys were genuine punchers, even then, he was saved by the ref vs Sanders - not KO'd cold, gassed out vs Brewster and avenged that with a KO of his own. I still think it's a worrying sign for Fury.

Cunningham is a HW. He was a CW. The punch that dropped Fury would have dropped any HW if they were stupid enough to walk onto it with their chin in the air. If Fury had a weak chin he'd we'd know about it because he gets hit flush in pretty much every fight yet has never looked badly hurt. If Fury was "chinny" he wouldn't fight the way he does.

I don't think Fury is chinny but he has adopted a more protective and cautious style since Cunningham and if he wants to be champ he is ding the right thing.

It really wouldn't have dropped any Heavyweight, I seriously doubt that punch would bother men like Wach, Pulev or even Wlad.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It really wouldn't have dropped any Heavyweight, I seriously doubt that punch would bother men like Wach, Pulev or even Wlad.

I can see you're on the WUM. Wlad gets wobbled by jabs. The punch wouldn't bother the likes of Wach because Wach doesn't walk forward hands down with his chin in the air.

DuransHorse wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Marlonz wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote: A big over hand right from a HW can drop any other HW. Fury walked onto Cunningham's best shot and got back up like nothing happened.

But Cunningham is NOT a HW! That's the point he's driving at. He's a cruiser who had little power at 200 pounds let alone up a division. Pajkic was a small HW with a 27% KO ratio and also dropped Fury heavily. Yes, Tyson showed good powers of recovery, but that was against light punchers who were unable to follow up. IF Wlad lands a flush left hook or big right hand, there's a very real possibility Fury won't be getting back up. Even if he does, the chance of Wlad letting him off the hook or being unable to follow up is slim. Moreover, Wlad has recent KO's vs guys with good chins - Thompson, Pulev and had Wach - a guy as big as Fury and arguably a bigger puncher - really intimidated by his power. Yes, Wlad has been dropped and stopped but all 3 guys were genuine punchers, even then, he was saved by the ref vs Sanders - not KO'd cold, gassed out vs Brewster and avenged that with a KO of his own. I still think it's a worrying sign for Fury.

Cunningham is a HW. He was a CW. The punch that dropped Fury would have dropped any HW if they were stupid enough to walk onto it with their chin in the air. If Fury had a weak chin he'd we'd know about it because he gets hit flush in pretty much every fight yet has never looked badly hurt. If Fury was "chinny" he wouldn't fight the way he does.

I don't think Fury is chinny but he has adopted a more protective and cautious style since Cunningham and if he wants to be champ he is ding the right thing.

I think he's just taking boxing more seriously now. Against the top guys he's going to have to do cleaner work to rack up points. His come forward orthodox brawling style was a bit of a mess.

Wasnt just Cunningham though, he was down heavily and nearly completely out against Nevak Pajkic.

Hes just a better managed and luckier David Price, who has managed to get himself a world title tilt, he will get KOd soon.

shenglong2015 wrote:Wasnt just Cunningham though, he was down heavily and nearly completely out against Nevak Pajkic.

Hes just a better managed and luckier David Price, who has managed to get himself a world title tilt,  he will get KOd soon.

He wasn't "nearly completely out against Nevak Pajkic." it was just the same as against Cunningham. Walks on to a huge overhand right with his chin in the air and Poopie footwork. Fury got straight back up and fought on unaffected stopping Pajkic next round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOjMA2a9Tpc

He can't be as careless vs WK or he'll get KO'd.

shenglong2015 wrote:Wasnt just Cunningham though, he was down heavily and nearly completely out against Nevak Pajkic.

Hes just a better managed and luckier David Price, who has managed to get himself a world title tilt,  he will get KOd soon.

Really? He was back up with no real issues and after tying Pajkic up for 30 seconds or so was back on the front foot. Then proceeded to get a TKO the following round. It was also 4 years ago and he has improved in that time. Despite all of his flaws it's hard to label him chinny because of a couple of knock downs, for me. It's how he reacts after that counts and that is what separates him from Price on that front.

To put it into perspective - do people think Marquez is chinny?

Getting knocked down by Cruiserweights and complete no marks, your defence of this man is flimsy at best.

He is chinny and useless, for such a big man that claims "you only get fighters like me in every 1000 years".

Yeah your right there Fury, thank God.

I don’t think either fighters chin is exactly Chuvalo like in its quality. However as Fury has never been stopped and Wlad has not been stopped or indeed lost in 11 years think both probably do not deserve to have the chinny tag attached to them. However do think their punch resistance in this is a massive factor in this fight. There are a number of questions about the fight and their respective chins, firstly if we accept both have weaknesses in this department the first question is which fighter has developed their style of fighting to best avoid exposing their chin. Secondly which fighter has fought over the preceding few years the better level of opposition and finally which fighter possesses the power to expose any weaknesses in the others resistance?
 
When it comes to all of these questions for me the answer to all these questions has to be assuredly Wlad. For me I can envisage a scenario where he knocks Fury out far easier than I can visualise the reverse of that happening.

Rowley wrote:For me I can envisage a scenario where he knocks Fury out far easier than I can visualise the reverse of that happening.

Dave has got more chance of making sweet passionate all night love to Mrs Froch then there is in Fury knocking out Wlad.

I've just been looking at Paddy Power and for the sake of argument, you have £600 to blow.....

You put £50 on Wlad to knock out Fury in any of the 12 rounds....

R1: 22/1
R2: 18/1
R3: 16/1
R4: 16/1
R5: 14/1
R6: 14/1
R7: 14/1
R8: 12/1
R9: 12/1
R10: 12/1
R11: 12/1
R12: 20/1

So if he knocks Fury out in Rounds 8-11 you get your money back. Off £50..... Round 1 returns £1100, Round 2 returns £900, Rounds 3 & 4 £800, Rounds 5, 6 & 7 £700, Round 12 £1000

Of course if Wlad engages Fury in a snoozefest you've just lost £600.

Just take the D4 betting approach and hedge it with the Wlad decision, Fury KO, Fury decision and draw.

l*l

If he sets himself up southpaw he'll be knocked out by a left hook. I promise.

There's nothing wrong with fury chin either

Outside of Britain this fight is considered another easy defence, just like the Wach and Pianeta fights.

Amazing how British fans get hyped up over a loud mouth born in the same country as them.

Lance wrote:Outside of Britain this fight is considered another easy defence, just like the Wach and Pianeta fights.

Amazing how British fans get hyped up over a loud mouth born in the same country as them.

Inside Britain it is, but nice baiting.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Getting dropped by a non punching Cruiserweight might have something to do with it, Wlad has however been dropped and stopped by genuine Heavyweight punchers.

He was not a Cruiserweight though, as it was a Heavyweight bout.. to be fair he was also quite off balance, but he got back up and recovered in seconds... he also took another clean shot and took it moments after, at that weight any clean shots wont tickle... as much as people say he is chinny, I have never really seen him really hurt.

Fury is a laugh, does not take him self so seriously and knows how to wind up a fight... WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

I think Fury will get KOed in about the 7th but will give it a good go.... just not fit enough, good fighter, poor athlete...

Struggling massively with John Macdo Macdermott doesn't tend to give weight to the arguement he's a "good fighter" tunes. Not to mention the other struggles he's had. Wouldn't catch Joshua not knocking 7 shades of utter crap out of the guys Fury has looked wanky against.

Coxy001 wrote:Struggling massively with John Macdo Macdermott doesn't tend to give weight to the arguement he's a "good fighter" tunes. Not to mention the other struggles he's had. Wouldn't catch Joshua not knocking 7 shades of utter crap out of the guys Fury has looked wanky against.

We need to see Joshua fight someone with a pulse first. HW history is littered with the 'next big thing' getting sparked out when they step up. Look at Price.

tunes666 wrote:WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

What does that even mean?

No one knows what it means, but it's provocative.

Coxy001 wrote:Struggling massively with John Macdo Macdermott doesn't tend to give weight to the arguement he's a "good fighter" tunes. Not to mention the other struggles he's had. Wouldn't catch Joshua not knocking 7 shades of utter crap out of the guys Fury has looked wanky against.

Clearly a hater, how far back gave you dug into hus record? forgetting has been a young and learning fighye, I think he has put together some better wins since where he has not struggled.. Hence why he has put him self as a mandatory Challanger..

I just wish a fighter had to do more to become mandatory for the HW titles.

Who has Fury beaten? Who did Wach beat? Even Tony Thompson only stepped up his opposition after two shots at the titles. With these opportunities given so easily it encourages every HW out there to play it safe and wait for their turn.

Fury is just latest in a line of protected guys with poor experience at what they need. He just happens to have a big mouth

Tunes once again throwing out the "hater" line, haven't seen that one since Degale fought. Your argument falls apart once you start throwing that term around.

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

What does that even mean?

Corporate, Fake

Lance wrote:Outside of Britain this fight is considered another easy defence, just like the Wach and Pianeta fights.

Amazing how British fans get hyped up over a loud mouth born in the same country as them.

Fury is 7/2 with the bookies. Pianeta was 20/1.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Lance wrote:Outside of Britain this fight is considered another easy defence, just like the Wach and Pianeta fights.

Amazing how British fans get hyped up over a loud mouth born in the same country as them.

Fury is 7/2 with the bookies. Pianeta was 20/1.

If you believe he wins every 3.5 times then, well... Good luck with that.

tunes666 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

What does that even mean?

Corporate,  Fake

I understand what the two words mean, but by the same token I understand what the words banana and dartboard mean, but were you to say to me Wlad was a banana dartboard it would make little more or less sense than saying he was a corporate fake, it is the context and application I am struggling with, not the meaning of the words.

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

What does that even mean?

Corporate,  Fake

I understand what the two words mean, but by the same token I understand what the words banana and dartboard mean, but were you to say to me Wlad was a banana dartboard it would make little more or less sense than saying he was a corporate fake, it is the context and application I am struggling with, not the meaning of the words.

I guess he puts on a personality to please his sponsors?

Coxy001 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Lance wrote:Outside of Britain this fight is considered another easy defence, just like the Wach and Pianeta fights.

Amazing how British fans get hyped up over a loud mouth born in the same country as them.

Fury is 7/2 with the bookies. Pianeta was 20/1.

If you believe he wins every 3.5 times then, well... Good luck with that.

It's not my belief it's the bookmakers.

If you are so sure the odds are wrong why don't you stick a load of money on Klitschko @ 2/7.

Because if Fury is 7/2 Klitschko will be worse than 2/7.

Paddy Power have Fury 3/1, Wlad 1/4.

Fury is worth a fiver at 3/1

I will use Wlad at 1/4 certainly. But thats pretty much my point. Fury getting hyped up and given a chance because of his mouth not his ability.

Id pick Pianetta to beat Fury. Hard to call though. Neither have many decent wins

It's just a shame that Fury's got Wlad instead of Wilder. Wilder-Fury would be 3 or 4 rounds of knockdown filled fun. This is likely to be much duller.

Scottrf wrote:Because if Fury is 7/2 Klitschko will be worse than 2/7.

Not if you use oddschecker.

http://www.oddschecker.com/boxing/wladimir-klitschko-v-tyson-fury/winner

Fury - 7/2
Klitschko - 2/7

On different sites I suppose.

I don't think using the odds from two different sites disproves Scotts point.

Scottrf wrote:On different sites I suppose.

They are the best odds available for both, it's not like I'm picking the longest odds for WK and the shortest for Fury. Bookies general consensus is if they fought 9 times WK wins 7 Fury 2.

British bookies. Pianetta wasnt 20/1 in Italy

Lance wrote:British bookies. Pianetta wasnt 20/1 in Italy

You either didnt get what I meant or you are still upset that I criticized your loved one GGG

Lance wrote:You either didnt get what I meant or you are still upset that I criticized your loved one GGG

Yes, I love Gennady Golovkin and your opinion - revered as that is - has hurt me deeply (I can barely sleep). This is why I was incredulous at your assertion that the Italian was only a huge underdog outside of Italy. It wasn't because that was a ridiculous remark. Honest.

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

What does that even mean?

Corporate,  Fake

I understand what the two words mean, but by the same token I understand what the words banana and dartboard mean, but were you to say to me Wlad was a banana dartboard it would make little more or less sense than saying he was a corporate fake, it is the context and application I am struggling with, not the meaning of the words.

A banana dartboard would imply a dartboard made of banana. It probably would not retain darts when thrown. Rather like a chocolate fire guard, I would presume it means not fit for purpose.

Ergo 'Wladimir klitshko is a banana dartboard' would clearly imply he is useless. Any fool could see that rowley. As I have just proved.

i'm sure you're glad I cleared that up.

Now, a 'corporate fake'. Haven't a scooby what that means.

Yeah Rowley, what Milky said! Der!

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

What does that even mean?

Corporate,  Fake

I understand what the two words mean, but by the same token I understand what the words banana and dartboard mean, but were you to say to me Wlad was a banana dartboard it would make little more or less sense than saying he was a corporate fake, it is the context and application I am struggling with, not the meaning of the words.

OK, it means he is just playing a roll that will make him as much money as possible and is not him self.

milkyboy wrote:

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

tunes666 wrote:WK is a great fighter but is just a corporate fake.

What does that even mean?

Corporate,  Fake

I understand what the two words mean, but by the same token I understand what the words banana and dartboard mean, but were you to say to me Wlad was a banana dartboard it would make little more or less sense than saying he was a corporate fake, it is the context and application I am struggling with, not the meaning of the words.

A banana dartboard would imply a dartboard made of banana. It probably would not retain darts when thrown. Rather like a chocolate fire guard, I would presume it means not fit for purpose.

Ergo 'Wladimir klitshko is a banana dartboard' would clearly imply he is useless. Any fool could see that rowley. As I have just proved.

i'm sure you're glad I cleared that up.

Now, a 'corporate fake'. Haven't a scooby what that means.

I guess I Could have put, "A Corporate figure who is fake " to save confusion..