The v2 Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

+11
catchweight
rapidringsroad
ONETWOFOREVER
huw
Mr Bounce
EX7EY
TopHat24/7
bhb001
TRUSSMAN66
shenglong2015
hazharrison
15 posters

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Thu 21 Jan 2016, 4:10 pm

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10138380/tyson-fury-says-ibf-want-to-keep-their-heavyweight-title-in-america

He's got a point.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by shenglong2015 Thu 21 Jan 2016, 4:40 pm

Yeah I prefer the belt in the USA too, IBF doing the right thing tbh.

shenglong2015

Posts : 513
Join date : 2015-07-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 21 Jan 2016, 5:00 pm

At least the OP is giving the GGG nuthugging a rest...

He's found another victim !!

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 40506
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by shenglong2015 Thu 21 Jan 2016, 5:27 pm

Its quite clear that the Boxing Authorities wanted the belt around a dimwit like Fury, whilst in the firm grasp of an intellect like Klitschko they couldn't strip him, and he knew how to work the system without vacating etc. Potentially had better advisors and a team of solicitors to ensure he was well glued to the belts.

Alas, the belts go to loudmouth, dimwit Tyson Fury, within months he is stripped of IBF, and now the WBA are carving up a tournament for him to be involved in defending his own belt?? A tournament he will not win.

Its obvious the powers that be couldn't wait to get the belts around Fury so they could strip him of them and have a more competitive HW scene.

Probably want the IBF and WBA stripped off him before the May rematch with Wlad, so they can stick the WBO back on the Ukranian.

IBF Martin in the USA
WBC Wilder in the USA
WBA - Luis Ortiz of Cuba
WBO - Wlad in Germany

Bish Bosh job done, now to make those competitive fights.

PS. Thanks Fury, you have played you part as a pawn in splitting up the belts.

shenglong2015

Posts : 513
Join date : 2015-07-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 21 Jan 2016, 5:35 pm

Let's hope Fury doesn't get stripped of anymore...Worried I may read a headline about a fan throwing himself in front of a train..

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 40506
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Thu 21 Jan 2016, 6:06 pm

shenglong2015 wrote:Its quite clear that the Boxing Authorities wanted the belt around a dimwit like Fury, whilst in the firm grasp of an intellect like Klitschko they couldn't strip him, and he knew how to work the system without vacating etc. Potentially had better advisors and a team of solicitors to ensure he was well glued to the belts.

Alas, the belts go to loudmouth, dimwit Tyson Fury, within months he is stripped of IBF, and now the WBA are carving up a tournament for him to be involved in defending his own belt?? A tournament he will not win.

Its obvious the powers that be couldn't wait to get the belts around Fury so they could strip him of them and have a more competitive HW scene.

Probably want the IBF and WBA stripped off him before the May rematch with Wlad, so they can stick the WBO back on the Ukranian.

IBF Martin in the USA
WBC Wilder in the USA
WBA - Luis Ortiz of Cuba
WBO - Wlad in Germany

Bish Bosh job done, now to make those competitive fights.

PS. Thanks Fury, you have played you part as a pawn in splitting up the belts.

They announced they were stripping him within a week because he was locked into a rematch clause and couldn't fight the guy who Martin just beat. Even Klitschko's superior intellect would have been knackered in that scenario.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Thu 21 Jan 2016, 6:15 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:At least the OP is giving the GGG nuthugging a rest...

He's found another victim !!

Hey, you're the thicket that claims Golovkin is the middleweight champion while also repeatedly stating he hasn't fought anyone.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by bhb001 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 8:35 am

"within months he is stripped of IBF"

They didn't wait that long did they? It was only a matter of a couple weeks or has time passed me by again!

Just noticed that Haz beat me to that one

bhb001

Posts : 2675
Join date : 2011-02-16

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Guest Fri 22 Jan 2016, 8:40 am

Not often I agree with Fury but he's within his rights to feel mightily aggrieved about this. However, the fact he isn't bothered says something about him too. Whether it's testament to him being the bigger man or him being too think to realize he has a case for suing them, I don't yet know.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by TopHat24/7 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:03 am

Don't see how he has a case for suing. It's a totally contrived bullsh!t policy, but it's their policy and was in there long before Fury & Klit were even in negs.

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Guest Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:08 am

Stripped as he can't fulfill their obligation to fight their mandatory due to ridiculously short timescales (Peter Buckley would be hard pressed to fit in another fight in such quick succession) but the new Champion is allowed a whole year?

And you see nothing inherently flawed there? Oh well.......

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by shenglong2015 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:25 am

bhb001 wrote:"within months he is stripped of IBF"

They didn't wait that long did they? It was only a matter of a couple weeks or has time passed me by again!

Just noticed that Haz beat me to that one

A couple of weeks is still WITHIN months.

shenglong2015

Posts : 513
Join date : 2015-07-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by shenglong2015 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:27 am

Would this have happened had Klitschko retained?

Nope.

They are able to strip Fury because he is thick.

As I said this is all a ploy to split up the belts with Fury as the pawn.

shenglong2015

Posts : 513
Join date : 2015-07-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Guest Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:27 am

shenglong2015 wrote:
bhb001 wrote:"within months he is stripped of IBF"

They didn't wait that long did they? It was only a matter of a couple weeks or has time passed me by again!

Just noticed that Haz beat me to that one

A couple of weeks is still WITHIN months.
Seventy six years is still within a century

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by EX7EY Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:44 am

What a load of garbage. Strip him because he's thick? This post is thick. He's not bothered because he's now the man at heavyweight. End of story. He could be stripped of all the belts and he'd still be the man. I don't think most people understand modern boxing. Titles mean nothing anymore. When you can take a belt off a guy who won it ten days ago and give it away to somebody else its a joke. It's time all these belts were removed from boxing. If boxing was re modelled in a similar way to UFC it would so much better.

EX7EY

Posts : 531
Join date : 2013-07-22
Age : 37
Location : Salford

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Guest Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:46 am

EX7EY wrote:What a load of garbage. Strip him because he's thick?  This post is thick.  He's not bothered because he's now the man at heavyweight. End of story. He could be stripped of all the belts and he'd still be the man. I don't think most people understand modern boxing. Titles mean nothing anymore. When you can take a belt off a guy who won it ten days ago and give it away to somebody else its a joke. It's time all these belts were removed from boxing. If boxing was re modelled in a similar way to UFC it would so much better.
You mean with a guy being given a shiny belt to parade around?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by EX7EY Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:48 am

DAVE667 wrote:
EX7EY wrote:What a load of garbage. Strip him because he's thick?  This post is thick.  He's not bothered because he's now the man at heavyweight. End of story. He could be stripped of all the belts and he'd still be the man. I don't think most people understand modern boxing. Titles mean nothing anymore. When you can take a belt off a guy who won it ten days ago and give it away to somebody else its a joke. It's time all these belts were removed from boxing. If boxing was re modelled in a similar way to UFC it would so much better.
You mean with a guy being given a shiny belt to parade around?

You know what I mean.

EX7EY

Posts : 531
Join date : 2013-07-22
Age : 37
Location : Salford

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 9:58 am

EX7EY wrote:What a load of garbage. Strip him because he's thick?  This post is thick.  He's not bothered because he's now the man at heavyweight. End of story. He could be stripped of all the belts and he'd still be the man. I don't think most people understand modern boxing. Titles mean nothing anymore. When you can take a belt off a guy who won it ten days ago and give it away to somebody else its a joke. It's time all these belts were removed from boxing. If boxing was re modelled in a similar way to UFC it would so much better.

Spot on.

Fury couldn't care less about the belt fiasco. As he's stated, they can take all of his belts but they can't take away his achievement. He's still the heavyweight champion of the world. The others are mere paper champs. As I tried to explain to Dave yesterday, he's the man who beat the man.

One thing about Fury: he's honest and he says it how it is (he probably shouldn't when it comes to religion or feminism but that's the trade-off with him). The belts are meaningless. There's a hilarious interview out there where he seems genuinely bemused about all of the British "world champs" floating about at the minute, especially when Kugan explains that none of them beat the best man in the division (at which point Fury labels them 'British world champions' rather than genuine world champs).

Here's a story about how the alphabets operate:

"As the new millennium approached, American super middleweight Darrin Morris was in the midst of a 17-fight winning streak. He had only fought twice, for a grand total of two completed rounds, in 31 months but, regardless, victory in July 1999 was good enough to make the top 10 of the WBO rankings.

Fast-forward through a year of complete inactivity and Morris had understandably slipped to 11th. Then, despite still not throwing a punch, Morris began his ascent. He jumped two places to ninth in August before rising to seventh in October, sixth in December and an all-time high of fifth in January 2001. “The Mongoose” from West Palm Beach was suddenly being touted as a potential opponent for WBO kingpin Joe Calzaghe and he appeared on the cusp of fame and fortune.

There was just one minor issue: Morris had sadly died of HIV-related meningitis on the 17 October 2000. Not once, but twice the WBO had moved a lifeless corpse up their super middleweight rankings.

Worse still, a week after Francisco Valcarcel, one of the three men charged with rating WBO fighters at the time, was informed of the macabre administrative error, his cohort, Gordon Volkman, still wasn’t aware that his organisation’s fifth-ranked super middleweight had been dead for almost four months. It’s a Greek-tragedy plotline that even the Weekend at Bernie’s writers would dismiss as being too far-fetched."




hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by TopHat24/7 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 10:01 am

DAVE667 wrote:Stripped as he can't fulfill their obligation to fight their mandatory due to ridiculously short timescales (Peter Buckley would be hard pressed to fit in another fight in such quick succession) but the new Champion is allowed a whole year?

And you see nothing inherently flawed there? Oh well.......

I don't like the IBF (treatment of Khan ref LP) but I believe them when they say they were no consulted in the Klit contract negs and, if they had, it could have been adequately provisioned for.

They only enforced their actual rules. If they've given more slack to the Yank chump that's BS but it still doesn't give Fury a case.

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Mr Bounce Fri 22 Jan 2016, 10:08 am

Lewis was stripped of the WBA belt for not facing their no 1 contender. Didn't worry him at all. To quote him: "Everyone knows who the champ is". Sadly it also meant that we got a) the start of all the WBA "Super champ" garbage and b) we also had the delightful Ruiz-Holyfield trilogy.

You could theorectically say it's all Lennox's fault that Chagaev, Valuev and Haye all became "World" champions... Yahoo

Mr Bounce

Posts : 3412
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : East of Florida, West of Felixstowe

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 10:14 am

Mr Bounce wrote:Lewis was stripped of the WBA belt for not facing their no 1 contender. Didn't worry him at all. To quote him: "Everyone knows who the champ is". Sadly it also meant that we got a) the start of all the WBA "Super champ" garbage and b) we also had the delightful Ruiz-Holyfield trilogy.

You could theorectically say it's all Lennox's fault that Chagaev, Valuev and Haye all became "World" champions... Yahoo

You're dead right. They're a byproduct of a nonesensical decision to rate Ruiz over Michael Grant (who at that point was viewed as the best challenger in the world). Dig a little deeper and you'll see that King had lobbied the WBA (as he was handling Ruiz) to help their decision making.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by EX7EY Fri 22 Jan 2016, 10:22 am

Enforced there own rules they may well have. But the rules are silly. There was always going to be a rematch clause. Wlads known for his slave contracts and he's been the man for a decade. Like the IBF didnt know there would be a rematch should he lose, give me a break. If they were that bothered they should have stressed to both parties that a mandatory would be required before any rematch. Surely as an organisation you would want the true champion to hold your belt as opposed to somebody being gifted championship status, which just devalues your organisations belt in reality. But no, it doesn't work like that because none of these governing bodies could care less about who represents them as champion.

Seriously, the state that boxing finds itself in now is stomach wrenching. Too many promoters, too many belts, p1ss poor mandatories, ridiculous catch weights, inactivity of so many fighters. Its a joke.

EX7EY

Posts : 531
Join date : 2013-07-22
Age : 37
Location : Salford

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by shenglong2015 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 11:14 am

This isn't just about the IBF, this is about all the bodies the WBA for example and this "tournament" its all a way of taking the belts from Fury.

The IBF could have overwritten their rules and kept the belt with Lineal champion, but instead wanted to strip Fury as soon as they could, the WBA will follow suit by taking it from him in some way, and soon enough the WBO.

Fury ha not helped his cause either with his opinions and rhetoric regarding women, homosexuals, Jessica Ennis etc.

shenglong2015

Posts : 513
Join date : 2015-07-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 11:41 am

shenglong2015 wrote:This isn't just about the IBF, this is about all the bodies the WBA for example and this "tournament" its all a way of taking the belts from Fury.

The IBF could have overwritten their rules and kept the belt with Lineal champion, but instead wanted to strip Fury as soon as they could, the WBA will follow suit by taking it from him in some way, and soon enough the WBO.

Fury ha not helped his cause either with his opinions and rhetoric regarding women, homosexuals, Jessica Ennis etc.

And THAT'S why the IBF stripped him!

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 12:41 pm

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10139210/tyson-fury-reiterates-promise-to-deny-david-haye-title-shot

More here:

"I've made it quite clear, after what he did to me twice I'll never give him the fight. I'll never give him a pay day so people can try and build it and do what they want to do.

"He's trying to get money from me. I'm not prepared to give it to him. Just like he wasn't prepared to give me any money, I'm not prepared to give him any money.

"He is a bum and he's going nowhere. He has had his shot and he's only a cruiserweight anyway. It's great to be in this position. It's like a freezing cold beer straight out of the fridge - that's what it feels like.

"If he was mandatory for the WBA belt, I'd chuck it in the bin, because what does it really mean anyway? Let him fight someone else for it. I'm not interested in his name, his reputation or anything. As far as I'm concerned, he's not even in my division.

"No matter who he beats or who he knocks out, I'll never fight him. I don't care if they offer me £100m. It's about principles. I trained hard for two fights with him and he retired rather than fight. Now let him make some money off his own back."


hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by huw Fri 22 Jan 2016, 1:02 pm

hazharrison wrote:http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10139210/tyson-fury-reiterates-promise-to-deny-david-haye-title-shot

More here:

"I've made it quite clear, after what he did to me twice I'll never give him the fight. I'll never give him a pay day so people can try and build it and do what they want to do.

"He's trying to get money from me. I'm not prepared to give it to him. Just like he wasn't prepared to give me any money, I'm not prepared to give him any money.

"He is a bum and he's going nowhere. He has had his shot and he's only a cruiserweight anyway. It's great to be in this position. It's like a freezing cold beer straight out of the fridge - that's what it feels like.

"If he was mandatory for the WBA belt, I'd chuck it in the bin, because what does it really mean anyway? Let him fight someone else for it. I'm not interested in his name, his reputation or anything. As far as I'm concerned, he's not even in my division.

"No matter who he beats or who he knocks out, I'll never fight him. I don't care if they offer me £100m. It's about principles. I trained hard for two fights with him and he retired rather than fight. Now let him make some money off his own back."


I hope he remains true to his word.

huw

Posts : 1211
Join date : 2011-04-07

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by bhb001 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 1:16 pm

shenglong2015 wrote:
bhb001 wrote:"within months he is stripped of IBF"

They didn't wait that long did they? It was only a matter of a couple weeks or has time passed me by again!

Just noticed that Haz beat me to that one

A couple of weeks is still WITHIN months.

Sheng, I'm not having a go. I'm actually emphasising the ridiculousness of the situation, so backing you up. Honestly!

bhb001

Posts : 2675
Join date : 2011-02-16

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by shenglong2015 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:12 pm

If you can't see that the wheels are in motion to make the Heavyweight division the marquee division again, and that they are going to split the belts to do this then that's fine.

Although Fury and a section of boxing fans openly state the belts mean nothing, they still think they represent a selling point as "defending World champion Wilder" or "Defending World Champion Martin" sells well globally as opposed to "the guy that used to have them but doesn't recognise their value"

After all they do love a "unification" more than anything else, and what better way than have a number of them throughout 2016 and beyond.....

Martin v Fury, Fury v Wilder, Wilder v Martin etc. etc. its all big bucks folks.....


shenglong2015

Posts : 513
Join date : 2015-07-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Guest Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:20 pm

hazharrison wrote:
EX7EY wrote:What a load of garbage. Strip him because he's thick?  This post is thick.  He's not bothered because he's now the man at heavyweight. End of story. He could be stripped of all the belts and he'd still be the man. I don't think most people understand modern boxing. Titles mean nothing anymore. When you can take a belt off a guy who won it ten days ago and give it away to somebody else its a joke. It's time all these belts were removed from boxing. If boxing was re modelled in a similar way to UFC it would so much better.

Spot on.

Fury couldn't care less about the belt fiasco. As he's stated, they can take all of his belts but they can't take away his achievement. He's still the heavyweight champion of the world. The others are mere paper champs. As I tried to explain to Dave yesterday, he's the man who beat the man.

One thing about Fury: he's honest and he says it how it is (he probably shouldn't when it comes to religion or feminism but that's the trade-off with him). The belts are meaningless. There's a hilarious interview out there where he seems genuinely bemused about all of the British "world champs" floating about at the minute, especially when Kugan explains that none of them beat the best man in the division (at which point Fury labels them 'British world champions' rather than genuine world champs).

Here's a story about how the alphabets operate:

"As the new millennium approached, American super middleweight Darrin Morris was in the midst of a 17-fight winning streak. He had only fought twice, for a grand total of two completed rounds, in 31 months but, regardless, victory in July 1999 was good enough to make the top 10 of the WBO rankings.

Fast-forward through a year of complete inactivity and Morris had understandably slipped to 11th. Then, despite still not throwing a punch, Morris began his ascent. He jumped two places to ninth in August before rising to seventh in October, sixth in December and an all-time high of fifth in January 2001. “The Mongoose” from West Palm Beach was suddenly being touted as a potential opponent for WBO kingpin Joe Calzaghe and he appeared on the cusp of fame and fortune.

There was just one minor issue: Morris had sadly died of HIV-related meningitis on the 17 October 2000. Not once, but twice the WBO had moved a lifeless corpse up their super middleweight rankings.

Worse still, a week after Francisco Valcarcel, one of the three men charged with rating WBO fighters at the time, was informed of the macabre administrative error, his cohort, Gordon Volkman, still wasn’t aware that his organisation’s fifth-ranked super middleweight had been dead for almost four months. It’s a Greek-tragedy plotline that even the Weekend at Bernie’s writers would dismiss as being too far-fetched."



Wlad was considered "the man" due to his dominance over the past ten years therefore Fury can put up a reasonable argument to say he's beaten the best (jury's still out for me but the rematch should see whether it was a bad night at the office for Wlad or if Fury genuinely is better). You, however, claim Canelo is rightfully considered the man based on him being the latest in a long line of people who've held the title. Cotto had it five minutes but because Hopkins had it a while you seem to think this gives validity to claims that Canelo is now the man at the weight.

As I said yesterday...bollox!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by EX7EY Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:30 pm

shenglong2015 wrote:If you can't see that the wheels are in motion to make the Heavyweight division the marquee division again, and that they are going to split the belts to do this then that's fine.

Although Fury and a section of boxing fans openly state the belts mean nothing, they still think they represent a selling point as "defending World champion Wilder" or "Defending World Champion Martin" sells well globally as opposed to "the guy that used to have them but doesn't recognise their value"

After all they do love a "unification" more than anything else, and what better way than have a number of them throughout 2016 and beyond.....

Martin v Fury, Fury v Wilder, Wilder v Martin etc. etc. its all big bucks folks.....


And whats the point in unification fights when governing bodies just strip champions whenever it suits anyway?

EX7EY

Posts : 531
Join date : 2013-07-22
Age : 37
Location : Salford

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by ONETWOFOREVER Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:34 pm

Hay guys I'm back  OK  clap  angel

short vacation will comment later

ONETWOFOREVER

Posts : 5510
Join date : 2011-01-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by shenglong2015 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:36 pm

EX7EY wrote:
shenglong2015 wrote:If you can't see that the wheels are in motion to make the Heavyweight division the marquee division again, and that they are going to split the belts to do this then that's fine.

Although Fury and a section of boxing fans openly state the belts mean nothing, they still think they represent a selling point as "defending World champion Wilder" or "Defending World Champion Martin" sells well globally as opposed to "the guy that used to have them but doesn't recognise their value"

After all they do love a "unification" more than anything else, and what better way than have a number of them throughout 2016 and beyond.....

Martin v Fury, Fury v Wilder, Wilder v Martin etc. etc. its all big bucks folks.....


And whats the point in unification fights when governing bodies just strip champions whenever it suits anyway?

Money

shenglong2015

Posts : 513
Join date : 2015-07-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by EX7EY Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:38 pm

shenglong2015 wrote:
EX7EY wrote:
shenglong2015 wrote:If you can't see that the wheels are in motion to make the Heavyweight division the marquee division again, and that they are going to split the belts to do this then that's fine.

Although Fury and a section of boxing fans openly state the belts mean nothing, they still think they represent a selling point as "defending World champion Wilder" or "Defending World Champion Martin" sells well globally as opposed to "the guy that used to have them but doesn't recognise their value"

After all they do love a "unification" more than anything else, and what better way than have a number of them throughout 2016 and beyond.....

Martin v Fury, Fury v Wilder, Wilder v Martin etc. etc. its all big bucks folks.....


And whats the point in unification fights when governing bodies just strip champions whenever it suits anyway?

Money

Yeah I understand that but this is whats wrong with boxing

EX7EY

Posts : 531
Join date : 2013-07-22
Age : 37
Location : Salford

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:38 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
EX7EY wrote:What a load of garbage. Strip him because he's thick?  This post is thick.  He's not bothered because he's now the man at heavyweight. End of story. He could be stripped of all the belts and he'd still be the man. I don't think most people understand modern boxing. Titles mean nothing anymore. When you can take a belt off a guy who won it ten days ago and give it away to somebody else its a joke. It's time all these belts were removed from boxing. If boxing was re modelled in a similar way to UFC it would so much better.

Spot on.

Fury couldn't care less about the belt fiasco. As he's stated, they can take all of his belts but they can't take away his achievement. He's still the heavyweight champion of the world. The others are mere paper champs. As I tried to explain to Dave yesterday, he's the man who beat the man.

One thing about Fury: he's honest and he says it how it is (he probably shouldn't when it comes to religion or feminism but that's the trade-off with him). The belts are meaningless. There's a hilarious interview out there where he seems genuinely bemused about all of the British "world champs" floating about at the minute, especially when Kugan explains that none of them beat the best man in the division (at which point Fury labels them 'British world champions' rather than genuine world champs).

Here's a story about how the alphabets operate:

"As the new millennium approached, American super middleweight Darrin Morris was in the midst of a 17-fight winning streak. He had only fought twice, for a grand total of two completed rounds, in 31 months but, regardless, victory in July 1999 was good enough to make the top 10 of the WBO rankings.

Fast-forward through a year of complete inactivity and Morris had understandably slipped to 11th. Then, despite still not throwing a punch, Morris began his ascent. He jumped two places to ninth in August before rising to seventh in October, sixth in December and an all-time high of fifth in January 2001. “The Mongoose” from West Palm Beach was suddenly being touted as a potential opponent for WBO kingpin Joe Calzaghe and he appeared on the cusp of fame and fortune.

There was just one minor issue: Morris had sadly died of HIV-related meningitis on the 17 October 2000. Not once, but twice the WBO had moved a lifeless corpse up their super middleweight rankings.

Worse still, a week after Francisco Valcarcel, one of the three men charged with rating WBO fighters at the time, was informed of the macabre administrative error, his cohort, Gordon Volkman, still wasn’t aware that his organisation’s fifth-ranked super middleweight had been dead for almost four months. It’s a Greek-tragedy plotline that even the Weekend at Bernie’s writers would dismiss as being too far-fetched."



Wlad was considered "the man" due to his dominance over the past ten years therefore Fury can put up a reasonable argument to say he's beaten the best (jury's still out for me but the rematch should see whether it was a bad night at the office for Wlad or if Fury genuinely is better). You, however, claim Canelo is rightfully considered the man based on him being the latest in a long line of people who've held the title. Cotto had it five minutes but because Hopkins had it a while you seem to think this gives validity to claims that Canelo is now the man at the weight.

As I said yesterday...bollox!

I said Canelo was the lineal (true) champion. That's accurate.

Fury is the lineal boss at heavyweight. He's the real champion.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 2:40 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
EX7EY wrote:What a load of garbage. Strip him because he's thick?  This post is thick.  He's not bothered because he's now the man at heavyweight. End of story. He could be stripped of all the belts and he'd still be the man. I don't think most people understand modern boxing. Titles mean nothing anymore. When you can take a belt off a guy who won it ten days ago and give it away to somebody else its a joke. It's time all these belts were removed from boxing. If boxing was re modelled in a similar way to UFC it would so much better.

Spot on.

Fury couldn't care less about the belt fiasco. As he's stated, they can take all of his belts but they can't take away his achievement. He's still the heavyweight champion of the world. The others are mere paper champs. As I tried to explain to Dave yesterday, he's the man who beat the man.

One thing about Fury: he's honest and he says it how it is (he probably shouldn't when it comes to religion or feminism but that's the trade-off with him). The belts are meaningless. There's a hilarious interview out there where he seems genuinely bemused about all of the British "world champs" floating about at the minute, especially when Kugan explains that none of them beat the best man in the division (at which point Fury labels them 'British world champions' rather than genuine world champs).

Here's a story about how the alphabets operate:

"As the new millennium approached, American super middleweight Darrin Morris was in the midst of a 17-fight winning streak. He had only fought twice, for a grand total of two completed rounds, in 31 months but, regardless, victory in July 1999 was good enough to make the top 10 of the WBO rankings.

Fast-forward through a year of complete inactivity and Morris had understandably slipped to 11th. Then, despite still not throwing a punch, Morris began his ascent. He jumped two places to ninth in August before rising to seventh in October, sixth in December and an all-time high of fifth in January 2001. “The Mongoose” from West Palm Beach was suddenly being touted as a potential opponent for WBO kingpin Joe Calzaghe and he appeared on the cusp of fame and fortune.

There was just one minor issue: Morris had sadly died of HIV-related meningitis on the 17 October 2000. Not once, but twice the WBO had moved a lifeless corpse up their super middleweight rankings.

Worse still, a week after Francisco Valcarcel, one of the three men charged with rating WBO fighters at the time, was informed of the macabre administrative error, his cohort, Gordon Volkman, still wasn’t aware that his organisation’s fifth-ranked super middleweight had been dead for almost four months. It’s a Greek-tragedy plotline that even the Weekend at Bernie’s writers would dismiss as being too far-fetched."



Wlad was considered "the man" due to his dominance over the past ten years therefore Fury can put up a reasonable argument to say he's beaten the best (jury's still out for me but the rematch should see whether it was a bad night at the office for Wlad or if Fury genuinely is better). You, however, claim Canelo is rightfully considered the man based on him being the latest in a long line of people who've held the title. Cotto had it five minutes but because Hopkins had it a while you seem to think this gives validity to claims that Canelo is now the man at the weight.

As I said yesterday...bollox!

Wlad was considered "the man" because he beat the next best in line (in Povetkin).

When Douglas beat Tyson (and then lost in his next fight to Holyfield) had he not been the heavyweight champion in between?

How about Leon Spinks when he beat Ali? He only held the lineal title five minutes - was he not the heavyweight champion?

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Guest Fri 22 Jan 2016, 3:09 pm

These guys were not considered "the man" by virtue of winning the title. Wlad has been "the man" because he's remained at the top for so long. Again I hark back to the phrase "no-one in their right mind" Your goal posts are shifting now with "the man" now replaced by "champion"

No-one disputes that Canelo is the Champion however, calling him "the man" is stretching it

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 3:23 pm

DAVE667 wrote:These guys were not considered "the man" by virtue of winning the title. Wlad has been "the man" because he's remained at the top for so long. Again I hark back to the phrase "no-one in their right mind"  Your goal posts are shifting now with "the man" now replaced by "champion"

No-one disputes that Canelo is the Champion however, calling him "the man" is stretching it

In boxing, the champion has and (hopefully) always will be "the man".

I've never suggested Canelo is the best middleweight. I think Golovkin will tear him a new one. He's the man to beat, though. Beating him won't just earn Golovkin a career-high payday - it will also legitimise him as the true champion at 160.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by TopHat24/7 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 3:37 pm

'legitimise' from a guy that calls Canelo 'the man' at the weight.... picard

Haven't seen anyone this obsessed with lineal since Union Cane left.....

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Guest Fri 22 Jan 2016, 3:38 pm

Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 22 Jan 2016, 5:08 pm

Charles Martin is slowly becoming my favorite boxer.. Cool

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 40506
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Fri 22 Jan 2016, 6:05 pm

DAVE667 wrote:Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

So you see Fury the same way?

It is virtually impossible to unify four belts in the current climate. Canelo is boss - the rest contenders/paper champs.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Sat 23 Jan 2016, 1:03 am

DAVE667 wrote:Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

So Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis were never "the man" because they never beat the WBO "champion"?

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Fury IBF prefare belt to be in USA

Post by rapidringsroad Sat 23 Jan 2016, 2:32 am

hazharrison wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

So you see Fury the same way?

It is virtually impossible to unify four belts in the current climate. Canelo is boss - the rest contenders/paper champs.
Of course it's possible for the the four belts to be unified. The current holders of each belt have to fight each other and the winner is supreme champion. One of the reasons it hasn't happened recently is the fact that two brothers shared the titles and refused to fight each other.

rapidringsroad

Posts : 492
Join date : 2011-02-25
Age : 87
Location : Coromandel New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Sat 23 Jan 2016, 8:51 am

rapidringsroad wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

So you see Fury the same way?

It is virtually impossible to unify four belts in the current climate. Canelo is boss - the rest contenders/paper champs.
Of course it's possible for the the four belts to be unified. The current holders of each belt have to fight each other and the winner is supreme champion. One of the reasons it hasn't happened recently is the fact that two brothers shared the titles and refused to fight each other.

Theoretically it's possible, yes. Virtually impossible in reality, however.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by catchweight Sat 23 Jan 2016, 11:11 am

Seldom going to see 4 belts unified. There is an outside shot of it happening at light heavyweight and middleweight if Stevenson and Canelo can step up. The chances of staying unified are zero the way the governing bodies operate.

catchweight

Posts : 4326
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Hammersmith harrier Sat 23 Jan 2016, 11:41 am

hazharrison wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

So Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis were never "the man" because they never beat the WBO "champion"?

Lewis did beat the WBO champion and Tyson was fully unified before the WBO even existed.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 12060
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Sat 23 Jan 2016, 6:16 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
hazharrison wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

So Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis were never "the man" because they never beat the WBO "champion"?

Lewis did beat the WBO champion and Tyson was fully unified before the WBO even existed.

Lewis never held the WBO title.

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Mr Bounce Sat 23 Jan 2016, 9:17 pm

Maybe so, but he beat Akinwande who was the then WBO title holder - the only reason it wasn't a unification was that the WBC did not recognise the WBO at the time. As a result big huggy Henry relinquished his title and chased the WBC title and the money.

Mr Bounce

Posts : 3412
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : East of Florida, West of Felixstowe

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 23 Jan 2016, 9:23 pm

Yep Lewis beat Akinwande who bottled.. who'd formerly beat Scott Welchy boy who bottled..

But if Haz wants to try to change the argument because Hammer has put him right for about the 1000th time on something..

Good luck to him..

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 40506
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by hazharrison Sat 23 Jan 2016, 9:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yep Lewis beat Akinwande who bottled.. who'd formerly beat Scott Welchy boy who bottled..

But if Haz wants to try to change the argument because Hammer has put him right for about the 1000th time on something..

Good luck to him..

He was attempting to and once again failed. The argument was that a fighter had to win all of the belts to be THE champion (which is, of course, ridiculous). The example of Lewis-Akinwande perfectly sums up why that is a nonsense. The alphabets consistently work against one another. Lewis never won all the belts and so - based on Dave's idea of what a true champion is - Lewis was never THE champ.

Ridiculous of course. Lewis and Holyfield could have fought for a scouts badge and the winner would still have been THE champion as they were the two best heavyweights in the world.

Look at Naz Hamed. He beat every paper champ going but was never the undisputed champion (in terms of holding all the belts simultaneously). He was, of course, viewed as THE champion (as Barrera was when he toppled him).

hazharrison

Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA  Empty Re: Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum