• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Latest boxing crack


This whole thing circling social media about prime Tyson v prime Fury.

I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would see Fury winning? Yes he’s taller and a better reach but the 80’s Tyson was an animal.
 
safcforever said:
This whole thing circling social media about prime Tyson v prime Fury.

I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would see Fury winning? Yes he’s taller and a better reach but the 80’s Tyson was an animal.
Click to expand...

Mike lost to a much poorer fighter than Tyson Fury when he was still 23 years old so it's easy to see people's argument for it. For a Heavyweight to be past their prime by the time they're 23 is unusual.
 
Ciro_DiMarzio said:
Mike lost to a much poorer fighter than Tyson Fury when he was still 23 years old so it's easy to see people's argument for it. For a Heavyweight to be past their prime by the time they're 23 is unusual.
Click to expand...
His lifestyle and personal life was a disaster.
He was immature and had leeches hanging on. If he had better guidance he would likely have kept that dominance going.

In his peak though, he was untouchable
 
safcforever said:
This whole thing circling social media about prime Tyson v prime Fury.

I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would see Fury winning? Yes he’s taller and a better reach but the 80’s Tyson was an animal.
Click to expand...
It would be a great fight, Fury is an all time great imo and would give anyone from the past trouble.
 
safcforever said:
This whole thing circling social media about prime Tyson v prime Fury.

I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would see Fury winning? Yes he’s taller and a better reach but the 80’s Tyson was an animal.
Click to expand...
Good debate that actually. Boxing maths is a fools game but I suppose we can’t resist it.

I’d give fury a hell of a chance against Mike, even at mikes peak although he soundly outpointed you seen a wasn’t as effective agains the likes of smith and tucker. Big tall 6ft 4 or 5 lads who knew their way around a ring, they were both still intimidated but fury wouldn’t be.

Make Mike a slight favourite…..but value bet would be fury imho.
Ciro_DiMarzio said:
Mike lost to a much poorer fighter than Tyson Fury when he was still 23 years old so it's easy to see people's argument for it. For a Heavyweight to be past their prime by the time they're 23 is unusual.
Click to expand...
A reason why I can’t consider him in the True upper echelon of atg heavies.

By that I mean Louis, Marciano, Ali, holmes and Lewis. Doesn’t mean necessarily they are the top 5 ever. More so from a legacy perspective.
 
Last edited:
f.t.metro said:
Michael Spinks fight
Click to expand...

So despite knocking Bruno out in 5 and Carl Williams out in the first in his two fights between Spinks and Douglas you saw a visible decline in him in those fights? I haven't seen the Williams fight personally but a first round KO is still and emphatic win.

For comparison we saw Fury coming back from his weight gain with some lackluster performances before 3 really good performances against Wilder then a comfortable win against Whyte.

I'm not saying Tyson wouldn't win because it's very difficult to compare eras as so much has changed but I can absolutely understand why people would think Fury would win.
 
Ciro_DiMarzio said:
So despite knocking Bruno out in 5 and Carl Williams out in the first in his two fights between Spinks and Douglas you saw a visible decline in him in those fights? I haven't seen the Williams fight personally but a first round KO is still and emphatic win.

For comparison we saw Fury coming back from his weight gain with some lackluster performances before 3 really good performances against Wilder then a comfortable win against Whyte.

I'm not saying Tyson wouldn't win because it's very difficult to compare eras as so much has changed but I can absolutely understand why people would think Fury would win.
Click to expand...
Almost a pointless debate but good and fun nevertheless. 😎
 
Love comparing fighters from different eras. Prime Roy Jones Jr v canelo at super middleweight would have been unreal.

The iron Mike v fury debate I just can't call it either way. The stuff of dreams
 
Motor City Cobra said:
Good debate that actually. Boxing maths is a fools game but I suppose we can’t resist it.

I’d give fury a hell of a chance against Mike, even at mikes peak although he soundly outpointed you seen a wasn’t as effective agains the likes of smith and tucker. Big tall 6ft 4 or 5 lads who knew their way around a ring, they were both still intimidated but fury wouldn’t be.

Make Mike a slight favourite…..but value bet would be fury imho.

A reason why I can’t consider him in the True upper echelon of atg heavies.

By that I mean Louis, Marciano, Ali, holmes and Lewis. Doesn’t mean necessarily they are the top 5 ever. More so from a legacy perspective.
Click to expand...

Tyson crammed alot into his short prime mind to be fair. Been looking at his record he and fought 15 times in 1985 and 13 times in 1986 before slowing down to 4 fights in 87,3 in 88 and 2 in 89. Those first couple of years are some serious activity that you don't really see these days in boxers of obvious talent.
Motor City Cobra said:
Almost a pointless debate but good and fun nevertheless. 😎
Click to expand...

Completely pointless but I get drawn into them anyway. :lol:
 
Chubbs said:
Love comparing fighters from different eras. Prime Roy Jones Jr v canelo at super middleweight would have been unreal.

The iron Mike v fury debate I just can't call it either way. The stuff of dreams
Click to expand...
Jones at 168 outpoints canelo 9 times out of 10. In the last 25 year I only give Calzaghe a chance at beating Roy prime for prime at 168lb. Btw Joe beats canelo at 168 everyday of the week, too adaptable , fit and active .
 
Ciro_DiMarzio said:
Tyson crammed alot into his short prime mind to be fair. Been looking at his record he and fought 15 times in 1985 and 13 times in 1986 before slowing down to 4 fights in 87,3 in 88 and 2 in 89. Those first couple of years are some serious activity that you don't really see these days in boxers of obvious talent.


Completely pointless but I get drawn into them anyway. :lol:
Click to expand...
I know man , I’m also posting. Can resist.


And yes those 28 fights is some going. But strip out and you see the light. 😎
 
Ciro_DiMarzio said:
So despite knocking Bruno out in 5 and Carl Williams out in the first in his two fights between Spinks and Douglas you saw a visible decline in him in those fights? I haven't seen the Williams fight personally but a first round KO is still and emphatic win.

For comparison we saw Fury coming back from his weight gain with some lackluster performances before 3 really good performances against Wilder then a comfortable win against Whyte.

I'm not saying Tyson wouldn't win because it's very difficult to compare eras as so much has changed but I can absolutely understand why people would think Fury would win.
Click to expand...
What I meant was the performance against Spinks was his absolute peak, on that night he would have been competitive with any heavyweight and beaten most of them
 
f.t.metro said:
What I meant was the performance against Spinks was his absolute peak, on that night he would have been competitive with any heavyweight and beaten most of them
Click to expand...
To be fair spines was beat before the fight, fair play he did swing but fuck me, even with the spine jink I never seen a way he could win. I watched. that fight.
chunkyshitehawk53 said:
Who wins, Bruno or Foreman at their peak?
Click to expand...
This a whoosh. Not even funny how hurt Bruno would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PTR
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top