Deontay Wilder v Tyson Fury II - February 22nd

Lads it's safe to say ye won't agree.

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Its certainly not logical, how could it be, backing wilder in the first i could understand as fury was still out of shape but to go against him again has no logic, how can you not see that. Fury said it if he couldn't beat me back then how could he beat me now. I will take fuys opinion overs yours, no offence.

Right, so...

At least I stuck to my guns both fights. Fight 1 I thought he would be knocked out. The middle and end fight 1 told me that he would be in danger again in fight 2..Hence my pick for fight 2.

I am sure others here felt the same..

I know one very regular and knowledgeable poster, who is a Fury fan, changed his pick...yourdeadright!

I would call his change absolutely possible/logical/reasoned..

walshb wrote: »

I had a feeling someone would come back on this..And I get your points.

AJ is inconsistent on the inside, but when he gets it right he is deceivingly effective, and gets off hard shots in close..

I think Fury uses his body better inside, but AJ can land the harder and more damaging punches inside..

How, by the way is Fury’s chin proven? He was dropped by a innocuous punch in fight 1, then dropped heavy for 10-11seconds later on. Plus, past fights he was badly hurt and wobbled...how is the chin proven? Proven to be what?

Its proven because he's never been stopped. It's as simple as that. Not sure how you are not getting it.

walshb wrote: »

You could say that about anyone, until they do get stopped.

It’s futile to dismiss events. Like those I listed...

It seems silly to me that, for example, a fighter who has been dropped, wobbled, almost knocked out, on the canvas for 10-11 seconds would then be considered proven chin wise when he steps in the ring to face a heavy hitter...

To be clear: AJ, up to the Ruiz fight was down and hurt. But got up. I never then said/claimed that his chin was proven. I went the other way. His chin became a question mark for me, and I assume, others...

It still is a question mark. Always will be. No different than Fury..

I can’t see this as being anything but prudent..

We're not talking about anyone. We're talking about someone who has won every world championship belt available in heavy weight boxing. He's earned the right to a proven chin until he does get stopped. I've already outlined his physical weakness in that first fight. Anytime he's been down he's overcome it and doesn't get wobbly legs. He ate a few right hands from wilder last night like a tank.

walshb wrote: »

A proven chin is a sturdy solid chin...a boxer who gets tagged hard, and who doesn’t get too affected; not someone who is wobbled and hurt and dropped from innocuous shots..and not just someone who to date has no KO-TKO Lisa..

Wilder. Up to last night had a proven chin? I don’t think he did, and others would say the same. Why would he, for example be different than Fury?

Many had rightful question marks on Wilder’s chin based off Ortiz fight 1 and Fury fight 1..

I would disagree with the claim if it were said about Wilder having a proven chin, same as what’s being claimed about Fury..

They were hardly innocuous shots which dropped Fury. One behind the ear and he was tagged cleanly by Wilder in the 12th and got back up to win the round. That shows a sturdy chin in my view even though he was dropped twice. His ability to recover quickly from getting dropped is a big asset. Same against Cunningham.

Ok, personally I think both AJ and Fury have shaky chins..

But if we agree that Fury’s is proven, then logically we can argue that so is AJs..

Never been knocked out. Never been on his back for ten seconds. Always got up.

There seems to be a real anti AJ and pro Fury agenda here...

My analysis of both has them neck and neck across all areas...

For objectivity, best to list reasons why both win and lose their potential match..

Just watched the fight there now and can't help but think how a prime Mike Tyson would have knocked these two punks on their ass in round 1

Mellor wrote: »

What's this law of averages you refer to?

Turn of phrase i would use. Statistical principle whatever your having yourself.

Mellor wrote: »

Phrasing isn't important, I'd just say statistics for simplicity.
How is he going against a statistical principle by not picking Fury?

Man i finished that argument hours ago its messing up the thread so im not going into it again. I dont care if you agree or not. I never said statistical principles i was talking about btw. 2 horse race at some stage both horses will win when evenly matched.

Mellor wrote: »

You said law of average, then statistically principles. Neither of which make any sense.
Yes, in a 2 horse, evenly matched race, both will win an equal amount over a large sample. 3 matches is not a large sample. Its statistically tiny.

Flip a coin 3 times and there's a 1 in 8 chance of getting heads 3 times. That's not that unlikely to occur. Given the amount of people who picked against Fury, there's likely 20 people who would have picked against him 3 out of 3. Walshb isn't a statistical outlier. No more than I am for picking Fury in each of those matches.[/QUOTE

I never said he was statistical outlier, you are taking my phrase and running with it, i said he was biased against fury. This is ruining the thread, its only an opinion, if you dont agree i dont care neither should you or walshb care about mine.

Joshua was gifted a gold medal Savon clearly beat him and got robbed. Boxing wise Fury is miles ahead of him, footwork, jab, head movement, stamina all in Fury's favor. Joshua is a more technically sound fighter than Wilder but unlike Wilder he doesn't need to only land one bomb, Wilder hits harder no doubt in my mind. I also think another factor is Fury has had to do it the hard way, Went to Germany to beat Wlad, comes back after being a 28 stone mess goes to America and god knows how get's up in the 12th round before being robbed on the cards. He then goes and rematches Wilder in America again and batters him, having the belief to change trainers and fighting style to do it.

In contrast Joshua has had everything his own way since the day he turned pro, Won a bull**** title from the worst HW champion of all time Charles Martin, fights Klitschko at home and goes life and death and got stopped by a solid but nothing special fighter in Andy Ruiz. Everything to date suggests only one winner and that's Fury. Joshua is a solid fighter but a massive element of smoke and mirrors, he's a Frank Bruno level fighter, Fury is a Lennox Lewis. If the shoe was on the other foot nobody would be saying Joshua wasn't the best HW in the world, Fury clearly is no 1, he took the belts from Wlad and smashed Wilder, Joshua done nothing close to that.

I don't think we'll see Wilder again. He'd basically need to move to LA and spend at least two years working every day with Freddie Roach to get near the level he'd need to stand any chance against Fury. And by then, Fury will almost certainly be retired. So if Wilder won't be competing for titles, and doesn't need the money, I reckon he's done.

Neil3030 wrote: »

I don't think we'll see Wilder again. He'd basically need to move to LA and spend at least two years working every day with Freddie Roach to get near the level he'd need to stand any chance against Fury. And by then, Fury will almost certainly be retired. So if Wilder won't be competing for titles, and doesn't need the money, I reckon he's done.

This is based on absolutely nothing? Arm chair posts like this are hard to read whenever there’s a big fight. Only the heavyweight fights seem to attract this crowd to the forum.