Tyson Fury

Snap

blueskunk said:

Anyone doubting his boxing skills should turn up any boxing gym preferably his in Bolton. Give it a shot boys.

Ain't as easy as it looks. Go on, have a go.

Bolton is a bit far, but I turn up to one here regularly. He's been lucky to get a shot at the title when its been held by an ageing champ, and a very weak heavyweight division.

I'm sure he could beat the shite out of me, but then I don't do it for a living or claim to be the best thing to happen to the division since Ali.

He's been a lucky boy, but I think when he comes up against a capable, quick hard young contender, he'll be exposed.

He played a good game before and during the fight, but he won mainly due to Klitschko being shocking. I can't see Fury in the same class as Lennox Lewis for example.

blueskunk

im on the way to get my ass kicked in five mins , good fun.

Time will tell how good he really is as a boxer but he's done good already.

I think he will beat most of the heavyweights out there on sheer size and awkwardness. He moves very well for such a massive guy.

He can switch from right to left and doesn't take many punches. Be fun to see how this works out.

blueskunk

Lennox was good be he had some terrible fights when he wouldn't let the shots off. Against Holyfield springs to mind.

Still love Lennox though. Cool guy.

Wolfetone

I think that Tyson is perfectly entitled to his opinion and if he want's to say anything about anything that's up to him. 

He has the honesty to express his feelings where there are others that think the same but decide not to say anything. He also has to face the consequences when others disagree but those others should have a well formed argument that shows the error of his statements.

His opinions on women, gays and other stuff is an irrelevance and is nothing to do with him being a great sportsman.

For the record, I disagree with what I have heard from him but it's his opinion.

xmrchi

Nikko;888303" said:

Do you think he likes dags?

No but I bet he has a few for sale.

Hootsmon

I say throw the big tit in jail...........oh wait a mo....what if he learns tae box in there and comes oot an' punches ma heid in?

hungrymark

randomhandclaps;889016" said:

The problem the BBC face in all this bollocks is how you define the line between cultural/religious beliefs and personal views.  Paedophilia aside as 99% of society agrees, Tyson Fury has made a statement saying abortion and homosexuality is wrong.  To most he is homophobic.  However he is a gypsy and they are homophobic.  So if you're the BBC do you condemn the man himself (idiot or not) or do condemn his cultural/religious beliefs?Last years winner was Lewis Hamilton.  He describes himself as a devout Catholic so presumably holds some similar views to Tyson Fury.  Should the fact that he was shrewd enough to not blurt it out make him a more acceptable winner?  Possibly, but then effectively the BBC are drawing a very blurring line about what sport 'personalities' are allowed to comment on.Zara Phillips won the award despite not only be an Anglican but her grandmother heads the church which is still deeply divided on their views on homosexuals and is strongly against abortion.There was a huge groundswell for Mo Farah to win a few years back.  Mo Farah describes himself as a 'devout Muslim'.There are plenty of other overtly religious winners and in years to come we are undoubtedly going to see more Britain's from other cultural backgrounds so the BBC is going to face a tricky call here.  Not that any of it actually matters as quite frankly if sporting success and large pay cheques aren't enough to sate these guys then their problems run far deeper than being concerned with men touching up men.

I don't agree with your post. Hamilton may have similar beliefs to Fury, or he may not. We don't know. My wife would describe herself as a devout Catholic but holds views entirely opposed to Fury on these matters. Her idea of devout (or Hamilton's) may differ from yours but I think it's best not to put words in their mouths.

The other thing, of course, is that the issue shouldn't be that Fury has these beliefs but whether it is appropriate to voice them in public. That opens up a whole can of free speech worms (personally I don't have a problem with him saying it it, but am also very happy for him to be ridiculed).

randomhandclaps

hungrymark said:

The other thing, of course, is that the issue shouldn't be that Fury has these beliefs but whether it is appropriate to voice them in public.

I did mention that as being a possible difference in their behaviour and the acceptability of their views.

hungrymark said:

I don't agree with your post. Hamilton may have similar beliefs to Fury, or he may not. We don't know. My wife would describe herself as a devout Catholic but holds views entirely opposed to Fury on these matters. Her idea of devout (or Hamilton's) may differ from yours but I think it's best not to put words in their mouths.

Then whether they like it or not although they may choose to use the word they are not 'devout' Catholics.   Devout means strict in the following of a belief.  It's used a lot by people as some kind of trump card but that's what it means.  Catholicism (like virtually all religions) is a man managed construct based on the interpretation of God's word.  I was raised as a strict Catholic as was my wife.  In the Catholic church the word of the Pope is absolute and your willingness to follow it is a determination of whether or not you are 'devout' or unswerving in your beliefs of Catholicism as a belief system.  You either hold these beliefs or not and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Catholic, Anglican or Muslim who agrees with abortion for instance, however the term devout is not applicable to how you describe yourself as you have chosen free thinking or acting outside of the belief system you generally follow.  It's like you can't be a devout vegetarian but eat veal every third Tuesday.  

Semantics it may be but 'devout' is the word both Lewis Hamilton and Mo Farrah choose to use in describing the following of their belief system and with that the are waving the flag for all that their religion stands for, much like Tyson Fury... Albeit under a more cleverly managed PR machine. 

hungrymark

Yes, you're right that 'devout' is the word that Hamilton uses to describe his beliefs. Aside from the more fluid (but valid - after all, language is itself fluid) OED definition of devout as 'having or showing strong religious feeling or beliefs' rather than 'totally committed', my point was that what Hamilton may mean by the word is quite possibly different to either OED definition. For all we know, he might think 'devout' means 'I pray a couple of times a year' or 'I've seen a church'. I mean, he's a racing driver, not a theologian. So somebody describing themselves as 'devout' shouldn't be used to presume their views on controversial subjects. I think the assumption that he (or anybody else subscribing to a religion) holds 'similar views to Tyson' is unfair.

Snap

blueskunk said:

im on the way to get my ass kicked in five mins , good fun.

Time will tell how good he really is as a boxer but he's done good already.

I think he will beat most of the heavyweights out there on sheer size and awkwardness. He moves very well for such a massive guy.

He can switch from right to left and doesn't take many punches. Be fun to see how this works out.

Time will indeed tell, you're right. The problem with modern day boxing is that fighters get to what is called contender level very quickly and mostly easily, without (often) a serious test from which they can improve their craft. Then they win some spurious nonsense belt and they are on a wing and a prayer, hoping that they get better and better.

Fury did really well, and the switching ot southpaw and back flummoxed Klitschko. Thing is, if big Vlad has anything in the tank (and that's a big question), he's a clever clever fighter, and he may have Fury worked out. I don't think he will make the same mistakes twice. I think the rematch will be good, cos the first fight was awful. So, I don';t think Fury will beat him if he adopts the same tactics - this rematch is the defining moment for him IMO, more so than winning the titles in the first place, cos it will show that he has the talent to change and up his game to another level.

I still think a fast hard hitting heavyweight will do Fury though. That's why I think Wilder will do him!

blueskunk

Vlad is clever but always been a wee bit gun shy, I don't think he can beat Tyson in the rematch. I thinks he's spooked tbh.

Never been impressed with Wilder really, obviously he's an amazing athlete but not sure he's the real deal. I'd say Tyson will be too awkward for him at this stage - if pay to watch that fight though.