Wilder hits about as hard as Fury, nothing more

It is relevant. It wasn't a very good win at all and I give Fury very little credit for it. Fury is all smoke and mirrors. He damn near got knocked out by Wilder, faked mental issues to get out of the Wlad rematch. His return has been laughable. His best win has been against the man you dispise and give no credit to in Wilder, yet, that victory has made him the man at heavyweight. How does beating a so called bum make one the man of a division? And yet you question my logic? GTFOH

 

It seems some people are experiencing severe cognitive dissonance. You can't call wilder a bum and say he's Fury's best win in the same post. Otherwise you're admitting Fury's resume is bad, there's no way around it.

It also doesn't matter if someone thinks Wladmir would have beaten Wilder or not, because again A) people regard Wilder as a bum and B) it doesn't change the fact he wasn't the same Wladmir when Fury fought him. Still a good win but he was still 40 and very gunshy.

Wladmir literally looks like a completely different fighter in earlier bouts. Timing, speed, combinations, footwork, aaccuracyoeven the power isn't the same. It's like comparing Holmes of the Spinks and Tyson fights to the one who had his epic duels with Norton and Shavers. Holmes was still a good fighter obviously, but he slipped a few notches and the division was fairly weak as evidenced by Spinks feeling bold enough to move up in weight. Likewise, 40 year old Wladmir had overstayed his welcome and did all he could clearing out most of the division but it had grown weak and a new crop of young heavies were too much for him.

 

In my opinion, Wlad, at that time, gives hell to the rest of the heavies. At 40, the reflexes just aren't there. Fury's herky jerky style gave Wlad fits. My original post was just me stating the obvious. If Wilder had beat Wlad that night, the haters would use Wlads age to discredit Wilders win. That's it.

 

Wilder hits way harder than Fury. I can't see Fury KOing people in the fashion that Wilder does. Breazeale is a big tough guy, he took loads of damage from Joshua but kept getting up, Got dropped by Ugonoh and still got up and won the fight. All it took was 2 right hands from Wilder and he was done. He still even got up from that but was clearly finished.


Fury has standard heavyweight power, can hurt you and drop you, but won't switch the lights off. More of a TKO finisher.

 

Struggling to reconcile that salt and pepper-bearded image with the name "Michael Moorer".

 

...interesting take.

 

Four strange things about your response.

1) You ignored all I wrote, pretending-or honestly confused-that I said plenty, & much of it was agreeing with you-about the general quality of Wilder as a fighter, & distinguishing effectiveness even at landing punches from power.
Wilder has plenty-even considering his level of opposition, & you cannot dispute that Fury would not accomplish the same even if he always sat down on his punches...You *are* correct that you selected the fights most favorable to your argument.
But you cherry-picked, others cite the competitive results of him & others vs. Breazele among others.

2) YOU wrote a long post. Length can provide much corroberating evidence. Your OWN long post was an effective argument:
But just for the lack of skills of Wilder, not lack of power.
And it was not my intent, nor relevant to an argument here, to show "wit".
I think you went to an irrelevant cliche because you were out of ammuninton.

3) The thing that gives you the most credit is also the most unjustified projection-of your own behavior.
To wit: ;-) You know well that my own response was patient, mature & appropriate.
You have no defense that you did the exact opposite-to others, not myself, by being disparaging & abusive.
You have to be aware that this is the only conduct that merits "grow up" as a fair critique.

4) Yet you stopped the crazy, scorched earth, malicious personal attacks!
Kudos to you for that-many are incapable of reforming this & it becomes all about wounded Ego.
Noticed & appreciated.

 

It's astonishing how deprived of logic some here are, or most I should say. It's like logic and rational thinking have gone out of the window.

It's also astounding how low the standards are to judge today's top heavyweights like Fury. As if somehow beating a 39 year old veteran in Wladimir Klitschko and an unproven hype-job in Deontay Wilder is so impressive that it warrants Fury immediately to be classified as an all time great, despite not doing much else? I mean, the only justification for Fury being an all-time great is the eye-test, so far as his attributes and tool-set are concerned. But in terms of accomplishments, he's barely even scratched the surface to be qualified as an all-time great. And until he has sufficient accomplishments, his attributes alone are useless, as much as a mechanic with tools but one who hasn't fixed anything. And I can't recall many, if any other past great heavyweight champion was being called an all time-great off such little accomplishments as Fury currently has.

Those who claim Wladimir Klitschko was not past his prime after age 39 when he fought Fury and Joshua, but claim the opposite for all other past heavyweight great champions like Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis and etc. They are inadvertently, knowingly or unknowingly, are admitting Wladimir Klitschko is the greatest heavyweight of all time, since they are setting a standard for Wladimir Klitschko that they are not for any of the other past great heavyweight champs. If they didn't think Wladimir Klitschko was more special and unique than all the others, so much as to think he is greater than them all, they wouldn't be holding him at a higher and at a more special standard than everyone else. Logically, you can't claim Wladimir Klitschko is not the greatest but by the same token, also hold him to a standard that is different from everyone else. It simply doesn't make sense! I'm not even sure these same individuals even realize this!

So unless today's heavyweights like Fury and Joshua surpass Wladimir Klitschko's level when they also reach age 39+, they can also never be better than Wladimir Klitschko. That's what this implication seems like.

Of course, the rational thing is to conclude that Wladimir Klitschko, just like any other athlete who's been involved in a physically demanding sport like boxing for over 2 decades, would naturally decline after 2+decades of competing and training. Despite the fact that there exists sufficient scientific evidence for an athlete's athletic decline in performance after they reach an old age, even if one was to disregard Wladimir Klitschko declining from aging, no person with any sense of logic can disregard the decline as far as wear and tear is concerned in the body from decades of competing and training. This part is not even disputable!

Some people mention: "OH but he has taken care of his body though". So what? Someone can take care of their car as much as they want, but no car is immune to wear and tear through accumulative damage. Taking care of your body doesn't make you immune to wear and tear either. It only helps prolong one's career (as was the case with Wladimir Klitschko) but even with meticulous care, substantial exertion over a long period of time will inevitably lead to the body breaking down and becoming weaker, more vulnerable, more fragile and less resistant to continuous training and competition.

So to totally shrug off the physical and mental decline in a guy who has been boxing for over 2+decades, caused by accumulative damage through wear and tear, is the definition of someone who is lacking in basic common sense, not even logic.

And using Wladimir Klitschko's fight against Pulev, rather than his fight against Bryant Jennings, as to somehow come to the conclusion that Wlad was not past his prime, is cherry-picking at its finest. You're only as good as YOUR LAST FIGHT! Wladimir Klitschko missed more punches and got hit more against Bryant Jennings than he ever did against that type of an opponent. Jennings was / is nothing special and Wladimir Klitschko thoroughly dominated opponents like Bryant Jennings whilst barely ever getting hit by them. Wladimir Klitschko has already fought and beat stylistically similar opponents like Bryant Jennings in his prime and beat them far more convincingly before.

If people can't see that Wlad's performance against Jennings was a CLEAR indication of his decline, then you lot need to open your eyes a lot more.

 

Luis you seem right on in these matters.
Though I would add that while Fury was skilled against Wlad, & he unused to handling a bigger man...
Wlad had psychologcal issues & a block against throwing much.
He was much better against Joshua later.

This is likely a larger reason to mitigate some of the credit we give Fury.
But I would add

 

I could understand this view if Wlad didn't go out and have a FOTY contender with another top 3 HW directly after this. Wlad had slipped a bit but still had plenty in the tank.

 

It was FOTY due to AJ's lack of skill, not because of Wlad's. A big, slow, flat footed opponent, with zero head movement is pretty much Taylor made for Wlad. No way AJ goes 6 rounds with a 30 YO Wlad.

 

Again, cognitive dissonance. The ASSUMPTION is that this current crop of heavyweights are so much better than previous years. So instead of coming to the conclusion that Joshua's lack of overall finesse and ability made a 40 year old Wladmir look good, they instead say that old Wladmir was still an amazing h2h monster.

Imagine if Leon Spinks retired after the 2nd Ali fight. Technically you could argue Leon Spinks was an amazing h2h monster since he outworked the #1 heavtweight in the world with less than 10 fights. But all of that would be ignoring how Ali, despite being the champion, was way past his best and wouldn't have struggled with Spinks in his prime or even a few years before that. That's the sort of logic people are using with 40 year old Wladmir.