Klitschko vs. Adamek: Tomaszs only hope is to just try and survive!

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Kalasinn, Jul 24, 2011.


  1. pat19

    pat19 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,704
    0
    Jun 18, 2010
    I just responded to another comment from you about Wach. I thought he was pretty quick for that size. Well at least he looked like it versus a fat bum in mcbride. But, did you watch fury vs chisora? I think fury is slower and worse than wach.
     
  2. pat19

    pat19 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,704
    0
    Jun 18, 2010

    sooo wrong hahah. Fury was crap. I really wanted to see fury become something but I was shocked when I saw how **** he was. He's 23 and already looked like he was leaning towards retirement. His punches looked like a box of feathers and he just lays on his opponents. Wach stays moving and would handle Fury easy unless fury decided to rub up on him every time Wach landed something. Fury is crap, wait till he fights someone good, and not just another hype job Brit. Wach has a lot to prove too tho so dont say im going crazy about him.
     
  3. popejking

    popejking Adamek Full Member

    4,160
    1
    Mar 27, 2009
    To me they are both average now. Fury isnt slow with his size, has pretty fast hands, but he cant throw a proper punch and is feather fisted.

    Wach on the other hand carries much more power and has OK movement for his size.

    Right now I would favor Wach by KO. Fury is only 23yo. In 2-3 years he may learn and improve a lot.

    I am not impressed by either one yet.