tyson fury verses frank bruno?

First topic message reminder :

i think tyson fury would of knocked severn bells out of frank,an easy knockout for fury the fight would have lasted 3 rounds.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You "never claimed Conn was anything."........But Jones gets hammered...

Even worse.........

Let's not insult eachother but do admit........

1. You make up silly excuses for all the guys you like........

2. You don't give modern fighters their due..

3. That I've seen more of Mercer than you...

1. No
2. No
3. What an odd claim to make.

You are in denial then..........Get some help.........

Jones gets hammered off Louis......170 pound Conn is highly talented..........

Only one on here who has Hagler above Mayweather......

Oscar never beat anybody.......Mayweather ducks........Jack Johnson is top p4p......

Manny is a naughty boy............

Old timers are more technically skilled than modern fighters........

Chavez was tired of Boxing when he lost to Oscar.......

So basically the four best fighters of the modern era completely trashed...............

I rest my case..

This is the point where JBW comes in and tells us that he's seen more of Mercer than all of us put together as he was formerly married to him, or something.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's no excuse though Haz, it is something within their control.

What is? I've lost my thread dealing with FLUFFMAN.

Are we talking Duran? Quite agree. He chose the lifestyle he chose - I haven't made excuses for him. I've merely stated the obvious: He wasn't the same fighter from the first fight.

Motivation is key but it doesn't take away from Leonard's victory in the slightest, the whole world and his dog knew what was going to happen. It's something to mark Duran down for not his opponent in my opinion.

88Chris05 wrote:This is the point where JBW comes in and tells us that he's seen more of Mercer than all of us put together as he was formerly married to him, or something.

Hopefully he'll add more than you while he's at it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's no excuse though Haz, it is something within their control.

What is? I've lost my thread dealing with FLUFFMAN.

Are we talking Duran? Quite agree. He chose the lifestyle he chose - I haven't made excuses for him. I've merely stated the obvious: He wasn't the same fighter from the first fight.

Motivation is key but it doesn't take away from Leonard's victory in the slightest, the whole world and his dog knew what was going to happen. It's something to mark Duran down for not his opponent in my opinion.

not like Duran had a great record against quality slick boxers or anything is it ??

Especially when he tries to fight 6 footers with great jabs on the outside.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You are in denial then..........Get some help.........

Jones gets hammered off Louis......170 pound Conn is highly talented..........

Only one on here who has Hagler above Mayweather......

Oscar never beat anybody.......Mayweather ducks........Jack Johnson is top p4p......

Manny is a naughty boy............

Old timers are more technically skilled than modern fighters........

Chavez was tired of Boxing when he lost to Oscar.......

So basically the four best fighters of the modern era completely trashed...............

I rest my case..

I play it straight. My favourite fighters all time are Hearns, Benn and Lewis. If you can find a thread where I made up "silly excuses" for them then good luck to you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's no excuse though Haz, it is something within their control.

What is? I've lost my thread dealing with FLUFFMAN.

Are we talking Duran? Quite agree. He chose the lifestyle he chose - I haven't made excuses for him. I've merely stated the obvious: He wasn't the same fighter from the first fight.

Motivation is key but it doesn't take away from Leonard's victory in the slightest, the whole world and his dog knew what was going to happen. It's something to mark Duran down for not his opponent in my opinion.

not like Duran had a great record against quality slick boxers or anything is it ??

Especially when he tries to fight 6 footers with great jabs on the outside.

Leonard was great against Duran and more power to him. But Duran's victory was the greater win.

I'm wasting my time with you.........You're in denial..........

You don't rate anybody since the 80s.......

......Now just keep writing FLUFFMAN like a ten year old kid

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You are in denial then..........Get some help.........

Jones gets hammered off Louis......170 pound Conn is highly talented..........

Only one on here who has Hagler above Mayweather......

Oscar never beat anybody.......Mayweather ducks........Jack Johnson is top p4p......

Manny is a naughty boy............

Old timers are more technically skilled than modern fighters........

Chavez was tired of Boxing when he lost to Oscar.......

So basically the four best fighters of the modern era completely trashed...............

I rest my case..

You can't even get that right. Whitaker, Hopkins, Chavez, Marquez, Holyfield anyone ?

You can cut the sexual tension on here with a knife.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's no excuse though Haz, it is something within their control.

What is? I've lost my thread dealing with FLUFFMAN.

Are we talking Duran? Quite agree. He chose the lifestyle he chose - I haven't made excuses for him. I've merely stated the obvious: He wasn't the same fighter from the first fight.

Motivation is key but it doesn't take away from Leonard's victory in the slightest, the whole world and his dog knew what was going to happen. It's something to mark Duran down for not his opponent in my opinion.

not like Duran had a great record against quality slick boxers or anything is it ??

Especially when he tries to fight 6 footers with great jabs on the outside.

Leonard was great against Duran and more power to him. But Duran's victory was the greater win.

I agree with that, the former lightweight champion beating a great Welterweight is a better win than in reverse but it would be seen as even greater if the rematch didn't end in such a distasteful way.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Benson, you think Byrd is as dangerous and highly regarded as Tua is? Wlad would soil himself being in against a puncher like him.

Perhaps he would, but it wouldn't matter as he would still win every round easily if he boxes behind his jab like he normally does.

catchweight wrote:An in shape Tua would probably splatter Klitschko at some point.

You mean the in shape version of Tua that took boxing lessons against Byrd, Maskaev and Rahman.

  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm wasting my time with you.........You're in denial..........

You don't rate anybody since the 80s.......

......Now just keep writing FLUFFMAN like a ten year old kid

I rate any number of fighters since the 80's FLUFFMAN. Just not as highly as you do. I don't understand why that tears you up so much?

I apologise.......You're right I'm wrong..........Haz....about everything.....  

J.Benson II wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Benson, you think Byrd is as dangerous and highly regarded as Tua is? Wlad would soil himself being in against a puncher like him.

Perhaps he would, but it wouldn't matter as he would still win every round easily if he boxes behind his jab like he normally does.

catchweight wrote:An in shape Tua would probably splatter Klitschko at some point.

You mean the in shape version of Tua that took boxing lessons against Byrd, Maskaev and Rahman.

  

Knocking two of them out lets not forget that part, boxing is fought over 12 rounds not 9.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I apologise.......You're right I'm wrong..........Haz....about everything.....  

Even seeing more of Ray Mercer?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's no excuse though Haz, it is something within their control.

What is? I've lost my thread dealing with FLUFFMAN.

Are we talking Duran? Quite agree. He chose the lifestyle he chose - I haven't made excuses for him. I've merely stated the obvious: He wasn't the same fighter from the first fight.

Motivation is key but it doesn't take away from Leonard's victory in the slightest, the whole world and his dog knew what was going to happen. It's something to mark Duran down for not his opponent in my opinion.

not like Duran had a great record against quality slick boxers or anything is it ??

Especially when he tries to fight 6 footers with great jabs on the outside.

Leonard was great against Duran and more power to him. But Duran's victory was the greater win.

I agree with that, the former lightweight champion beating a great Welterweight is a better win than in reverse but it would be seen as even greater if the rematch didn't end in such a distasteful way.

It would have been had the Duran from fight 1 turned up.

I'll be honest I have said it before to Chris........That when I came over here all you had was sportsnight and Grandstand........

Very little boxing........on..

Don't think it's the same watching Boxing on youtube.............

I have seen more of Mercer as I watched him in the amateurs........But on reflection I never rated or liked him so my opinion may be biased to a certain extent...

My behaviour has been out of order tonight...........So look I do retract any insulting s**t I offered up..

Still think you do cut some boxers more slack than others....though

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Benson, you think Byrd is as dangerous and highly regarded as Tua is? Wlad would soil himself being in against a puncher like him.

Perhaps he would, but it wouldn't matter as he would still win every round easily if he boxes behind his jab like he normally does.

catchweight wrote:An in shape Tua would probably splatter Klitschko at some point.

You mean the in shape version of Tua that took boxing lessons against Byrd, Maskaev and Rahman.

  

Knocking two of them out lets not forget that part, boxing is fought over 12 rounds not 9.

I know but losing numerous rounds against supposed mediocrity still exposes a boxer for what they are.
The Rahman win was controversial too. Caught him flush well after the bell rang. A dazed and hurt Rahman staggered his way back to his corner but got stopped in the very next round.

No way of really knowing that Haz, he didn't and it unfortunately harms his great victory in the first, you can't turn up in shape as and when you want without it harming your legacy.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No way of really knowing that Haz, he didn't and it unfortunately harms his great victory in the first, you can't turn up in shape as and when you want without it harming your legacy.

It doesn't appear to have. Duran is generally the highest rated fighter from the modern era after Ali.

He could be even higher, if you don't think his non shows against Leonard, Benitez and Laing don't harm his legacy then you're just plain wrong I must say Haz.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He could be even higher, if you don't think his non shows against Leonard, Benitez and Laing don't harm his legacy then you're just plain wrong I must say Haz.

Maybe. I think Duran's legacy was secure after the Leonard win, though, and for every no show there was a flashback to the great Duran.

Leonard did show the error of his ways.........and Hearns did humiliate him.....

You can't give credit for Barkley and not detract the Hearns hammering from his ledger..

Great lightweight reign but a la Louis against nobodies apart from 2-1 vs Dejesus...

Should get more credit for Hagler though.

J.Benson II wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Benson, you think Byrd is as dangerous and highly regarded as Tua is? Wlad would soil himself being in against a puncher like him.

Perhaps he would, but it wouldn't matter as he would still win every round easily if he boxes behind his jab like he normally does.

catchweight wrote:An in shape Tua would probably splatter Klitschko at some point.

You mean the in shape version of Tua that took boxing lessons against Byrd, Maskaev and Rahman.

  

You would swear Klitschko hadnt been knocked about God knows how many times by boxers worse than Tua the way people go on. He has a dodgy chin, a dodgy engine and looks like a drowning man when he is attacked.

Bruno would beat fury, but would fury beat primo carnera??

3fingers wrote:Bruno would beat fury, but would fury beat primo carnera??

That'd actually be a fun fight!

Hard to say how good/bad Carnera really was, too much Mafia influence on his career to make a firm judgement, along with O'Brien one of those I don't like commenting on.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hard to say how good/bad Carnera really was, too much Mafia influence on his career to make a firm judgement, along with O'Brien one of those I don't like commenting on.

Clumsy but tough - just like Fury. I could imagine both being up and down like yo-yos.

That's the main problem I have with Carnera though Haz, how tough was he really or was it all just a fix?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's the main problem I have with Carnera though Haz, how tough was he really or was it all just a fix?

Have you seen the Baer fight? He takes one hell of a hiding from a huge puncher and keeps fighting. I'm sure a lot of his fights were set ups in one form or another but he was a tough guy.

I'll admit that the heavyweight division between Tunney and Liston doesn't interest me one bit so i've seen very little of Carnera but a lot of that is down to apprehension of what was really on the level. Schmeling two fights against Sharkey stunk to high heaven by all accounts, reading into the era a bit puts me off it ever so slightly.

This is well worth a watch:

https://youtu.be/I8wIyrRPn-M

I'll give it a watch tomorrow Haz, enjoyed the opening titles skipping straight from Ali to Tyson with no mention of Holmes though.