If Deontay beats Joshua, should Fury just retire as the best of his era?

[Laligalaliga]

He is only 30 years old and he makes big money every fight. Money is a lot more important to most boxers than legacy. Do you think they would do all the hard training and risk their lives in the ring if they didn't get so much money for doing so? Fury doesn't have this great legacy you speak of. His legacy is based mainly on two fights. His win over Wlad and his draw with Wilder. In neither fight did he ever hurt his opponent much. He just used clever boxing and mostly light hitting. Not exactly the legacy of a killer like Dempsey, Louis, Foreman or Tyson. I doubt he reminds many of Ali because Ali's style was beautiful to watch and Fury's style is not. You say he shouldn't keep fighting because things are so close at the top and he might get beat. Sort of like quit while your on top. But boxing fans see through that and don't accept it. Other than the win over old shot Wlad and his draw with hard punching but poor boxing Wilder Fury doesn't have any great wins. He has not done nearly enough to have this legacy as a great heavyweight that you say he should retire to protect if Wilder beats AJ. Wilder beating AJ is not the same thing as Fury beating AJ. Great heavyweights of the past didn't retire the minute they got to the top. They continued to dominate for years afterwards and didn't worry that they might lose which is always possible.

You have said it all.
Champions don't quit. If he quits now, all fingers points him as been scared as he still has to fight AJ and do wilder rematch for official purpose.
He has done well for himself but personally he has not gotten to that all time great status cos he hasn't dominate the division.

[*Makaveli*]

If he wants to retire as the best of his era he has to beat Joshua and Wilder .
And before you all start saying he beat Wilder , it was a draw .

[sicko]

WTF kinda of COWARDLY IDEA is this?

They all have to fight and will fight...Multiple Times to be considered "GREAT" on top of all the Heavyweights Rising FAST like Filip Hrgovic, Joe Joyce, Ivan Dychko, Daniel Debois and others so whoever comes out the King will have to prove it over and over and over until they retire it doesn't get easier

[billeau2]

Hes also a ***** man that would steal a legacy if he could, hes also smart, it would be the greatest fcuk you to bad judging /corruption in boxing history, I think he should do it.

If Deontay wins he should go on a massive coke binge and retire into the sunset of eternal legacy/history

Argh Little Alex!

[billeau2]

I think it's cute you'd claim folks who saw that fight in favor of Wilder or as a fair draw are ignorant.

Must be the only explanation right? Because all real boxing fans know the **** other fans says all the time right?


How much about punching technique do you actually know? Can you tell me anything that isn't directly from the mouth of a major broadcastor?


It's just interesting to me how the fanbase that exalts hit and don't be hit back boxing over all other forms always claims that is because they're knowledgeable but when pressed for knowledge of the sport that has nothing or little to do with hit and don't be hit back boxing their knowledge tends to fall apart. Funny isn't it? Claiming another is ignorant while knowing your understanding of the other major form in boxing is weak at best.


I write the narrative for boxing history right now. Not a lot of competition out there for me and who used to do it is old, tired, out-of-date, and inactive. Point is I know boxing history from 686 BC to today better than anyone else on this forum. I guarantee this. As far as BS is concerned I am the historian.

On top of that I am a professional kinesiologist. That means when boxing wants to figure out the real science behind the sweet science they hire me. I am an inventor in my field, highly respected, highly accredited, even been on TV a few times.


So which way you want to prove to me my ignorance? History, science? Nope, you dwell in the world of " Everyone knows" right? As in everyone knows most times a good boxer beats a good puncher or everyone knows power is something you are born with.

Everyone except scientists whose job is understanding the physics of the human body and historians who recognize boxing took over for slugging because of financials not because most boxers defeat most sluggers.


I think I could fill books with what you don't know while you would be hard pressed to find anything I can't teach you more about.

You bring up a point here that I tried for years to get martial arts students to understand. If you are blind and can move, if you establish one point of contact with an opponent, and you are very well trained, you can feel a lot of what they will do...so for example, I am sitting on the floor in a seza, position and you grab my throat, I grab your hand.... when you get ready to punch, I can feel your body respond because of the grab...I have the floor to work from.

Now, if we add another point of contact, like what a sports minded grappler is looking for, you have total kinesthetic awareness. The grappler can anticipate anything that the opponent does. That is the magical 3 points of contact. In a ring it is easy to get three points of contact. if the opponent does not have the skills to work and counter, the grappler has it very easy. The point here is: The grappler has to do very little to be effective with his technique, he simply has to control all kinesthetic awareness by gaining three points of contact: two with his opponent and one with the floor.

Now, what about a punch? Specifically the punch in a sports situation, where one would not grab and punch as a strategy. First, there are no tactile, kinesthetic feedback loops, the puncher has to judge the opponent's distance from a visual cue. There is no ability to stop the opponent's head from moving out of position, the puncher has to catch the opponent in the air with the punch. Furthermore, any movement that the opponent makes, to move inwards, outwards, side to side, will start to exponentially affect the punch's force considerably. So, for example, if I move back and the punch catches me just outside the sweet spot, or, I move my head as the punch comes to bare on my cheek area.

The puncher has a fantastic series of events that have to line up for him to get a good punch off to the opponent. His timing must be perfect, the opponent must be set up in some fashion. A grappler by comparison need only establish the three points to be succesful.

So it takes tremendous skills to be a puncher that is succesful. And... Deontay Wilder faces a boxing landscape where the best rounds for the puncher have been taken out of the sport. The puncher needed those championship rounds much more than the boxer! The puncher depends on a certain amount of opportunities to be succesful. Once we pare away the rounds, the action in the ring, the account of the fight....we can look at a smart puncher as one who is trying to land his shot as many times during the match as he can. The smart puncher knows that if he gets 20 opportunities instead of 15 that is a BIG indicator for whether he will be succesful of not.

This is because for all the factors to fall into place takes opportunities. Maybe you catch the guy early....then late, then he makes you misss, you need these opportunities to line all the actions up that will land that punch.

I mention this because, as much as I Disagree about who won that fight? I think the point M is making is valid. Also it was a great fight either way. One should get a sense of how much skill it took to land that punch... And look at how Wilder created that opportunity and others throughout the match.

[_Rexy_]

because everyone wants to go out on a tie...