The Boxing Thread

[Gavin82]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/7847605/billy-joe-saunders-bets-70k-on-tyson-fury-to-beat-deontay-wilder/

 

70Grand on Fury too win......!!!!!

[Len Cnut]

8 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

He is a fascinating chap. He rather has two gears. He does the whole, ''absolutely 100% I will destroy him - it is impossible for me to lose'' boxer routine then sort of uses up that tedious act and settles down to who he is which is a very British self-deference, ''may the best man win, I'll just do my best, it is just a fight and if I lose so what''. There is, I believe, a sincerity with the charitable stuff also. He seems rather embarrassed by wealth (of any description).

A psychologist could write a book on that interview.

 

Can you fill in the blanks? 

Well, apparently the needle is getting to Deontay.  I dunno if you watch the press conference but Fury spent the entire time taking the piss out of him and by the end you could see that the proceedings were starting to get on Wilders tits.  So anyway Furys been going on right, as he always does 'I'm a gypsy fighting man, i've had fighters in my family going back 'x' hundred years' etc etc, well at one point Deontay started replying something along the lines of my people have been fighting for 400 years etc...well anyway he said that a number of times (presumably he means the American black man and their struggle) so in the little media scrum afterwards (which was right after the scuffle where big Shane Fury as Asgie and all those Manc' gyppos were basically going for Wilders team) a reporter for Seconds Out by the name of Radio Raheem, who is also a black fella made the mistake of asking Deontay 'what did you mean when you said your people have been fighting for 400 years?', I guess Deontay didn't like that, a black guy, with a bit of a coconut accent standing with a bunch of white guys addressing Deontay talking about 'your people' as if he weren't black. 

To be honest I think Deontay was/is just very very annoyed and took it out on the first muppet that happened to be in range  

Quote

 

He is a fascinating chap. He rather has two gears. He does the whole, ''absolutely 100% I will destroy him - it is impossible for me to lose'' boxer routine then sort of uses up that tedious act and settles down to who he is which is a very British self-deference, ''may the best man win, I'll just do my best, it is just a fight and if I lose so what''. There is, I believe, a sincerity with the charitable stuff also. He seems rather embarrassed by wealth (of any description).

A psychologist could write a book on that interview.

 

Its all a fuckin' blag

Edited November 29, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Len Cnut]

 

He looks like he's about to knock Gareth Davies out

[DieselDaisy]

You really love all the soap opera, don't you? 

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You really love all the soap opera, don't you? 

Yes   Because in this soap opera at any given moment there's a good chance someone will get a smack in the eye, now you don't get that off of Crossroads   its all a side issue to the fight itself but its reasonably entertaining when its going on...if its real.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Iron MikeyJ]

I was listening to a Teddy Atlas podcast (Joe Rogan show) today, and of course Iron Mike gets brought up. While I agree with everything Teddy says 90% of the time, he isnt always truly honest when it comes to Mike imo. 

Teddy said "When I look at his record, I dont see 50-6, I see 0-6. Because in the fights that Mike got truly challenged, he lost." While I DO like the idea of reevaluating boxing records, and view them from a more "tough fight" or "tough opponent" perspective, I still think Teddy sells Tyson WAY short. For one, I dont like counting fights when the fighter is CLEARLY past their prime. So for Mike, I don't count the last two losses. Just like I dont hold Spinx and Berbick against Ali. I think it's fair to ALL fighters to NOT hold those late career losses against them. Do they count as a plus for the victors? Yes. Marciano does get credit for beating Louis, but I cant hold that loss against Louis. So that's the criteria I'm looking at here. Understand?

So if we are really honest about Mike's record, here is how I would rate his "tough/big" fights (I have all of Mike's fights on DVD, as well as a rather large fight collection period).

1. Quick Tillis 1-0. Tillis put together a very good fight against Mike. It was probably his best fight ever, even in a loss.

2. Mitch Blood Green 2-0. Again another great performance from Mike's opponet, fought the fight of his career.

3. James Bonecrusher Smith 3-0. While it might be considered a "boring" fight overall. It showed that prime Mike COULD overcome the jab and hold techniques that bigger fighters implement. Old Tyson couldn't overcome it, but prime Tyson could.

4. Tony Tucker 4-0. All the same things I just said about Bonecrusher.

5. Tyrell Biggs 5-0. Biggs tried the same tactics that Tucker and Smith used, but Tyson got the KO here. Plus Biggs was a HIGHLY talked about fighter, that was never the same after fighting Mike (which fights DO take something out of fighters, more on this later.)

6. Larry Holmes 6-0. While I dont count this loss against Holmes (like I said earlier). It's not right to give Mike credit for going in and dismantling a true champion like this.

7. Michael Spinks 7-0. This is the ONLY pummeling of an opponent that I count here. Why? Spinks was the lineal champion, beat Holmes, and was one of the best light heavyweights ever. Mike DESERVES credit for this one.

8. Frank Bruno I 8-0. Frank fought a good fight here, he even gave Tyson some trouble at times. I don't think Bruno was scared of Mike in this fight. Yes he was in the 2nd fight, but not this one.

9. Buster Douglas 8-1. We all know what happened here. Although if you watch the tape, it WAS a long count. Mike probably should have won with that KO, setting up a proper rematch. But that's all "ifs" and "buts".

10. Donovan Ruddock I 9-1. 

11. Donovan Ruddock II 10-1. I'll talk about both of these fights at once. When we talk about "best heavyweight fights" of the last 30 years, these never get brought up, and it's a shame. They are my personal favorite Tyson fights to watch. During these two fights, I REALLY feel they were the best 2 heavyweights on the planet. They were Tysons "Thrillain Manilla" and "Rumble in the Jungle". I'm not saying Ruddock was Foreman or Frazier, no. But if you want to watch 2 heavyweights really POUND on each other, these are the fights to watch. Not only that, but when people say "Mike never won any wars" they have never watched these fights. Furthermore, I would say that these fights took a lot out of both guys, and they were never the same after. Even though Lewis and Morrison later beat Ruddock, (Ruddock himself has said he was not the same after fighting Mike). I'm of the opinion that In 1991, Tyson and Ruddock would have beaten Holyfield, Forman, Bowe, Lewis, and anyone else you can name. Both fighters were never the same after. (I'm sure Len will respond to this, lol)

12. Holyfield I 10-2. Holy gets all the credit here. But like I just said, Tyson wasnt the same anymore. People blame prison, and other things, but I dont. The Ruddock fights took something out of him.

13. Holyfield II 10-3. The ear bite fight...

14. Francois Botha 11-3. While Botha is by no means a great fighter, he was a ranked guy. But this isnt about him so much, it was Tyson. The old saying goes "every great fighter has one great fight left in them" and this was Mike's. Tyson was a shell of his former self by this point, and Botha was actually taking it to Mike. Mike found a vicious right hand, and delivered one of the nastiest punches you will ever see. It was Mike's last great fight imo.

15. Lennox Lewis 11-4. While Mike was clearly washed up by this time, and I cant hold this loss against him too much, I think we have to include it. This marks the end of Iron Mike. Everything that happened after you can just throw away imo. 

 

So there ya go, IMO Mike was 11-4 in tough/big fights in his career. How does that stack up against others? IDK, maybe @Len Cnut would like to look at others careers and do something similar. But back to my original point, Tyson wasnt 0-6 when things got tough, that's revisionist history nonsense. Is it fair to say Mike's "mentality" was his only weakness? Yes. Bit he DID rise to occasion 11 times, you cant take that away from him.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[Len Cnut]

19 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I was listening to a Teddy Atlas podcast (Joe Rogan show) today, and of course Iron Mike gets brought up. While I agree with everything Teddy says 90% of the time, he isnt always truly honest when it comes to Mike imo. 

Teddy said "When I look at his record, I dont see 50-6, I see 0-6. Because in the fights that Mike got truly challenged, he lost." While I DO like the idea of reevaluating boxing records, and view them from a more "tough fight" or "tough opponent" perspective, I still think Teddy sells Tyson WAY short. For one, I dont like counting fights when the fighter is CLEARLY past their prime. So for Mike, I don't count the last two losses. Just like I dont hold Spinx and Berbick against Ali. I think it's fair to ALL fighters to NOT hold those late career losses against them. Do they count as a plus for the victors? Yes. Marciano does get credit for beating Louis, but I cant hold that loss against Louis. So that's the criteria I'm looking at here. Understand?

So if we are really honest about Mike's record, here is how I would rate his "tough/big" fights (I have all of Mike's fights on DVD, as well as a rather large fight collection period).

1. Quick Tillis 1-0. Tillis put together a very good fight against Mike. It was probably his best fight ever, even in a loss.

2. Mitch Blood Green 2-0. Again another great performance from Mike's opponet, fought the fight of his career.

3. James Bonecrusher Smith 3-0. While it might be considered a "boring" fight overall. It showed that prime Mike COULD overcome the jab and hold techniques that bigger fighters implement. Old Tyson couldn't overcome it, but prime Tyson could.

4. Tony Tucker 4-0. All the same things I just said about Bonecrusher.

5. Tyrell Biggs 5-0. Biggs tried the same tactics that Tucker and Smith used, but Tyson got the KO here. Plus Biggs was a HIGHLY talked about fighter, that was never the same after fighting Mike (which fights DO take something out of fighters, more on this later.)

6. Larry Holmes 6-0. While I dont count this loss against Holmes (like I said earlier). It's not right to give Mike credit for going in and dismantling a true champion like this.

7. Michael Spinks 7-0. This is the ONLY pummeling of an opponent that I count here. Why? Spinks was the lineal champion, beat Holmes, and was one of the best light heavyweights ever. Mike DESERVES credit for this one.

8. Frank Bruno I 8-0. Frank fought a good fight here, he even gave Tyson some trouble at times. I don't think Bruno was scared of Mike in this fight. Yes he was in the 2nd fight, but not this one.

9. Buster Douglas 8-1. We all know what happened here. Although if you watch the tape, it WAS a long count. Mike probably should have won with that KO, setting up a proper rematch. But that's all "ifs" and "buts".

10. Donovan Ruddock I 9-1. 

11. Donovan Ruddock II 10-1. I'll talk about both of these fights at once. When we talk about "best heavyweight fights" of the last 30 years, these never get brought up, and it's a shame. They are my personal favorite Tyson fights to watch. During these two fights, I REALLY feel they were the best 2 heavyweights on the planet. They were Tysons "Thrillain Manilla" and "Rumble in the Jungle". I'm not saying Ruddock was Foreman or Frazier, no. But if you want to watch 2 heavyweights really POUND on each other, these are the fights to watch. Not only that, but when people say "Mike never won any wars" they have never watched these fights. Furthermore, I would say that these fights took a lot out of both guys, and they were never the same after. Even though Lewis and Morrison later beat Ruddock, (Ruddock himself has said he was not the same after fighting Mike). I'm of the opinion that In 1991, Tyson and Ruddock would have beaten Holyfield, Forman, Bowe, Lewis, and anyone else you can name. Both fighters were never the same after. (I'm sure Len will respond to this, lol)

12. Holyfield I 10-2. Holy gets all the credit here. But like I just said, Tyson wasnt the same anymore. People blame prison, and other things, but I dont. The Ruddock fights took something out of him.

13. Holyfield II 10-3. The ear bite fight...

14. Francois Botha 11-3. While Botha is by no means a great fighter, he was a ranked guy. But this isnt about him so much, it was Tyson. The old saying goes "every great fighter has one great fight left in them" and this was Mike's. Tyson was a shell of his former self by this point, and Botha was actually taking it to Mike. Mike found a vicious right hand, and delivered one of the nastiest punches you will ever see. It was Mike's last great fight imo.

15. Lennox Lewis 11-4. While Mike was clearly washed up by this time, and I cant hold this loss against him too much, I think we have to include it. This marks the end of Iron Mike. Everything that happened after you can just throw away imo. 

 

So there ya go, IMO Mike was 11-4 in tough/big fights in his career. How does that stack up against others? IDK, maybe @Len Cnut would like to look at others careers and do something similar. But back to my original point, Tyson wasnt 0-6 when things got tough, that's revisionist history nonsense. Is it fair to say Mike's "mentality" was his only weakness? Yes. Bit he DID rise to occasion 11 times, you cant take that away from him.

I think what Teddy was getting at is that Mike lacks character and a lack of character eventually shows up in fighters.  I’ve said as much to you before now, in this very thread i think, what Teddy is saying is when he came up against someone who wasn’t intimidated, was a serious top drawer elite level fighter, he dropped the ball.  He wasn’t that person who would/could find a way when he was up against it like all the great champions do at some point, like Ali did against Foreman (and many others), like Joe Louis did against Billy Conn, that find a way thing.  I kind of agree with Teddy, kind of.

I think a mans actions in life show his character and fundamentally Tyson is a man that used to rob grannies in project elevators for their pocket books.  That tells you something about the man, you’re a God fearing man so I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.  As far as that 6 and 0 shit, look, Mike is a hero of mine so I ain’t gonna sit here and bad mouth him to that extent but I’ll be honest with you man, the guy broke my heart   He was all positioned to be like...the superhero of my generation, our Ali...but in the end when you venerate hoodlums and people of questionable morality you get results befitting that.  The 60s and 70s generation, the peace and love generation, the stand up for your fellow man generation got Ali, a stand up guy, a brave guy with bags of heart...and us, the gangsta rap generation, we got Mike the street robber.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@Len Cnut,

I agree with what a lot of what you said, he let me down a lot as well (starting with Holyfield until he retired).

Having said that though, I hear a lot of so called "boxing historians" or experts say things like "he never fought anybody" or "when he did he lost" and "Tyson always lost when things got tough" etc. My point is that's not accurate. Never dodge anyone, he didn't wait until guys were old until he fought them, and he did have some wars (Ruddock in particulair). Honestly, who didnt he fight that he "should" have? Bowe would be the biggest one, and what happened with him? He had those 3 battles with Holyfield (so both were busy at that time, plus Tyson was "busy" himself, lol). Then when Tyson got out of jail, Bowe "lost"to Golota, and wasnt the same fighter anymore (those Holyfield fights took something out of him). 

There is old Foreman, I suppose Tyson could have fought him, and IMO he probably would have if he hadn't spent 3 years in jail. After Foreman beat Moorer, he didnt want any part of Tyson at that point. He was more interested in protecting his title imo. So who really dodged who there? 

Tommy Morrison and Tyson were supposed to fight. There was a plan in place for Tommy to have 2 warm up fights, and if he won them he was going to fight Tyson. But when Tommy was getting ready for the first fight, he refused the blood test (because he knew he had HIV). So that put an end to Tommy's comeback, the rest is history there unfortunately. So again, that's not Tysons fault. 

The only other ones you can really name would have been the Klitchkos. But they were young and Tyson was old at that point. He could make money fighting guys like Olin Norris and others at that point. He wasnt worried about titles at that point, just a pay day. More to lose, nothing to gain by fighting either Klitchko at that point. In his prime, he would have fought them though.

When people talk about who Tyson fought and who he didnt fight, it's fair when we talk about guys like Ali or Joe Louis. But when you compare him to those of his generation or even the generation after, I would ONLY say Holyfield fought better competition. Tysons opponents are just as strong as Lewis or Klitchko though. 

I think you made a solid point about him though, "gangsta generation". I think that's why many historians discount his resume. They just plain didnt like him. Maybe they have a point (like they actually knew him as a person), etc. But when we talk objectively, you can only fight the fighters of your generation. He fought who he fought, and didnt dodge anyone. Cant say the same about modern fighters imo.

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@Len Cnut,

I agree with what a lot of what you said, he let me down a lot as well (starting with Holyfield until he retired).

Having said that though, I hear a lot of so called "boxing historians" or experts say things like "he never fought anybody" or "when he did he lost" and "Tyson always lost when things got tough" etc. My point is that's not accurate. Never dodge anyone, he didn't wait until guys were old until he fought them, and he did have some wars (Ruddock in particulair). Honestly, who didnt he fight that he "should" have? Bowe would be the biggest one, and what happened with him? He had those 3 battles with Holyfield (so both were busy at that time, plus Tyson was "busy" himself, lol). Then when Tyson got out of jail, Bowe "lost"to Golota, and wasnt the same fighter anymore (those Holyfield fights took something out of him). 

There is old Foreman, I suppose Tyson could have fought him, and IMO he probably would have if he hadn't spent 3 years in jail. After Foreman beat Moorer, he didnt want any part of Tyson at that point. He was more interested in protecting his title imo. So who really dodged who there? 

Tommy Morrison and Tyson were supposed to fight. There was a plan in place for Tommy to have 2 warm up fights, and if he won them he was going to fight Tyson. But when Tommy was getting ready for the first fight, he refused the blood test (because he knew he had HIV). So that put an end to Tommy's comeback, the rest is history there unfortunately. So again, that's not Tysons fault. 

The only other ones you can really name would have been the Klitchkos. But they were young and Tyson was old at that point. He could make money fighting guys like Olin Norris and others at that point. He wasnt worried about titles at that point, just a pay day. More to lose, nothing to gain by fighting either Klitchko at that point. In his prime, he would have fought them though.

When people talk about who Tyson fought and who he didnt fight, it's fair when we talk about guys like Ali or Joe Louis. But when you compare him to those of his generation or even the generation after, I would ONLY say Holyfield fought better competition. Tysons opponents are just as strong as Lewis or Klitchko though. 

I think you made a solid point about him though, "gangsta generation". I think that's why many historians discount his resume. They just plain didnt like him. Maybe they have a point (like they actually knew him as a person), etc. But when we talk objectively, you can only fight the fighters of your generation. He fought who he fought, and didnt dodge anyone. Cant say the same about modern fighters imo.

Y'know what the fuckin' shame of it is?  I believe, in fact i fuckin' know, that Mike Tyson, on his game, DESTROYS Douglas.  DESTROYS LEWIS...has a rough go of it but beats Holyfield on points.  And thats the fuckin' sickening bit about it, honestly, Lewis, I think would've been childs play for Tyson if he had been on his game, all his other losses he fuckin' waxes easy.  But the guy just didn't give a fuck.  Tysons such a cunt when he was a lad there's this interview clip of his knocking about, I think from around the time of the Larry Holmes fight, where he's talking about his life and wealth and being a champion and the pressures of fame and he's like 'well all I have to do if I'm ever sick of all this is just lay down', now why would a champion of his calibre even think that shit to say it?  

I don't think Mike dodged a man in his life, I don't think he had soft opponents necessarily, I mean lets be honest here who the fuck had tough opponents anyway, Ali aside?  What, Larry Holmes maybe?  Did Joe Louis fight 20 of the toughest fuckin' skilled boxers?  No, he didn't...Did Rocky Marciano come about in a particularly buoyant heavyweight era?  Not really...did even Dempsey?  These boxing historians, or some of em, the ones that say that shit could say the same about most great heavyweights should be pointed to the fuckin' way he dispatched them...and then go through history and see how many heavyweights have done the same...VERY few.  And then youngest heavyweight champion in the world.  And then undisputed.  After his first 20 fights coming up he started facing stiff competition and they were all dispatched the same.  You can't discount what that guy did and what he was and how he ruled the heavyweight division.  People in the know say that he hardly trained for Spinks fight onward...Bruno fight he was hardly trained for...from then on in his career basically he wasn't really putting in work in the gym...its just on the Douglas night the work level was literally non existant...and look what he managed even on that level, he was still knocking most people the fuck out.  

[DieselDaisy]

I cannot see Fury winning but I'd love to be wrong. 

[Len Cnut]

I PROMISE YOU BOY!  I PROMISE YOU I'MA KNOCK YOU THE FUCK OUT

[spunko12345]

What time is this on tomorrow 5 ish?

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, spunko12345 said:

What time is this on tomorrow 5 ish?

Thereabouts, 4am onwards I’d say.

[spunko12345]

26 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Thereabouts, 4am onwards I’d say.

I've got a busy day with my boy tomorrow so an all nighter is not gonna work. An early start it is.

[Len Cnut]

Fuckin' bunch of alarm setting lightweights, honestly, how old are you lot?  The whole fun of these nights is staying up and drinking right the way through. 

[Gavin82]

I got so drunk in 2008 i said i was never drinking again & i haven't i was in bed for 2 days fuck that put me off for life.......

4am onwards it is no doubt so hard too call this but neither of these 2 have had a proper good punch up for a very long time i just really dont know

[Len Cnut]

Wilder wins.  Sad to say it but I think he's gonna win but I hope and pray with all my heart and to any God you wish to name that Ty' absolutely mops the fuckin' floor with him.

[Gavin82]

There will be a re match what ever happens 

[Len Cnut]

Whoever wins this, to my mind, will be the best heavyweight in the world, if Ty' can handle Wilder then he'll beat Big Josh...and Wilder I've always thought could beat Big Josh.  In fact either of these guys, on paper, could beat the other, to my mind anyway, thats kind of what makes it exciting, neither of them are great shakes when you look at the broader history of boxing but amongst themselves they are quite evenly matched really, on paper...tonight we'll see whether its just on paper or whether there is a gulf between them.

Fury winning would spoil the party for everyone.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Len Cnut

[DieselDaisy]

Why is he dressed as the gimp from Pulp Fiction?

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Wilder wins.  Sad to say it but I think he's gonna win but I hope and pray with all my heart and to any God you wish to name that Ty' absolutely mops the fuckin' floor with him.

Why do you feel that way? While I cant say either one of them are "good" for the sport, Fury has proven he is NOT the person to carry the sport forward. I'm not saying Wilder is either, but him and Joshua have more potential for interesting fights than Fury does imo.

24 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Why is he dressed as the gimp from Pulp Fiction?

IDK WHY he wears those masks. I dont get it, and find it rather dumb myself. Looking for a gimmick I suppose, look elsewhere imo...

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Why do you feel that way? While I cant say either one of them are "good" for the sport, Fury has proven he is NOT the person to carry the sport forward. I'm not saying Wilder is either, but him and Joshua have more potential for interesting fights than Fury does imo.

He's from England, home town boy and I just like him.  I dunno why exactly, he's just familiar I guess, y'know, its hard to explain, y'know, you tend to root for your own.  I think he's funny and...its difficult to explain to an American because you'd have to know what a pikey is but the short answer is a pikey is a type of person that has been forever offensive to establishment sensibilities in this country, he has absolutely no filter and its just the most oddest incongruous thing to see a bit fat pikey with the richest prize in sports, this thing that a boxing fan like myself holds in such high esteem...and a big fat pikeys got it, its just a wonderful thing   Thats why I support Tyson Fury and want him to win, it has nothing to do with boxing really, he is not a man who makes for exciting fights.

[spunko12345]

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Why do you feel that way? While I cant say either one of them are "good" for the sport, Fury has proven he is NOT the person to carry the sport forward. I'm not saying Wilder is either, but him and Joshua have more potential for interesting fights than Fury does imo.

IDK WHY he wears those masks. I dont get it, and find it rather dumb myself. Looking for a gimmick I suppose, look elsewhere imo...

None of them are interested in carrying the sport forward whatever that means and why should they be? They just want to make as much money as they can in the time they're in the sport and good luck to them. 

[Len Cnut]

 

'Anytime, any place, anywhere, I'll make you fuck your mother' 

 

[spunko12345]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

He's from England, home town boy and I just like him.  I dunno why exactly, he's just familiar I guess, y'know, its hard to explain, y'know, you tend to root for your own.  I think he's funny and...its difficult to explain to an American because you'd have to know what a pikey is but the short answer is a pikey is a type of person that has been forever offensive to establishment sensibilities in this country, he has absolutely no filter and its just the most oddest incongruous thing to see a bit fat pikey with the richest prize in sports, this thing that a boxing fan like myself holds in such high esteem...and a big fat pikeys got it, its just a wonderful thing   Thats why I support Tyson Fury and want him to win, it has nothing to do with boxing really, he is not a man who makes for exciting fights.

I like the fact that if he won the WBC belt it wouldn't surprise me to read about him swapping it for a new trailer with uncle Tom Tom at Appleby horse fair. Such is the pikey way and the way they live and breath that life.