Does Fury Always Defeat Klitschko??

The thing about Fury that threw Wlad off in my opinion was his size, Wlad was used to controlling distance with his long arms and height, a result of working with Steward who did the same thing with Hearns, make'em fight the length of arms. I think you're right , he'd get beat by a lot of skilled big guys. I'd pick Lennox Lewis to kill him, probably Bowe too

 

Obviously he could win his prime. He could beat almost any heavyweight in his prime, and how special Fury is is still up in the air IMO, since I rate wilder very low. But do you really think that if Wlad changed how he fought, Fury wouldn't follow suit?

Also, I highly doubt most would still score the rounds for Wlad if he landed two punches more. Two punches (by compubox especially, as a cuffing graze can he counted as a power punch by those) isn't enough to outweigh Fury being the ring general. If it were, then Wlad would have won in Germany.

 

Your lies is easily debunked by reading through the prediction thread.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/w-klitschko-vs-tyson-fury-prediction-thread.546123/


Along with most forum members not giving Fury any hope , 99% of predictions by promoters , managers , fighters , trainers , pundits etc gave him no chance of winning either.
Even Sky Sports didn't back him to win.

Klitschko was seen as a guy still in his prime and who would continue his reign until he decided to quit.

Vitali was 41 when all you bum boys said he would defeat David Haye. Vitali was seen as unbeatable in the division still at 41.

All you have is post-fight excuses.

The main reason Wlad looked poor against Jennings and good against Pulev only 6 months earlier is because of the style of the opponent.

Pulev stood there which suited Wlad.. Jennings moved and used the ring , which didn't suit Wlad.. STYLES.. Its very easy to understand.

Fortunately for Wlad his era contained next to no alethic challengers who could box and move.

The few he did face made him look bad -- Williamson , Iggy , David Haye.

The fact Wlad tried to fight Fury on a movement restricting mattress proves the insecurity he has against guys who can use the ring.

That Williamson fight and the Fury fight itself prove Wlad was at a major stylistic disadvantage against that particular style.. He would never have beaten Fury.

Its like asking if Victor Postal could ever beat Terry Crawford.

 

Wlad was conceding every physical advantage to Fury while being a much older man. Fury in the best shape of his career still fought a super cautious low volume fight to barely out point him.

A younger quicker Wlad would have been able to close the distance, and put Fury out.

It wasn't just Fury's size that threw Wlad off, it was the combination of size, speed, and youth. Against a prime Wlad, Fury loses two of those advantages. Can Fury beat a guy with quicker hands and feet? I'm not sure of that.

Kind of ridiculous question really. How many other fights where there was 12 years between the fighters that we question if it was a case of style? Wlad haters all these years later are still a strange bunch.


For reference...Joe Louis was only 9 years older than Marciano and it was a knock out victory over a 35 pound heavier man.

How many older fighters (38 plus) gave up reach, height, and weight advantages to younger men and actually won in the heavyweight division?

 

No I dont feel he does

 

Seriously? I'm a fan of Wlad and was actually rooting for him against Fury but to say that Fury "barely beat" Wlad is laughable and biased beyond belief. I've never actually heard anyone saying that other than yourself which speaks volumes.

 

I used to think a prime Klitschko would've won but now I'm not so sure. Fury is one of the greatest H2H fighters in history imo. I can't say the same for Wlad.

 

Prime Wlad knocks the crap out of Fury and stops him in 12. Same with Joshua, though AJ would fall at least 4 rounds earlier imo,

 

Maybe you should watch the fight.

 

It is of course laughable and biased.It is just the kind of poster he is.

 

Amazing how different people see things from a completely different perspective despite living through the exact same time period and seeing the same fights.

Fact check #1.
Your disputed claim: Wladimir always struggled with movers.
Fact check: Wladimir brutally stopped one of the best movers at HW during the era in Chris Byrd. He literally ended his career such was the veracity of that beating. Other movers that he beat included Chagaev, Calvin Brock and Eddie Chambers.
Wladimir didnt struggle with movers.

Fact check #2.
Your disputed claim: Haye made Wlad look bad as a mover.
Fact check: David Haye didnt make him look bad. David Haye looked bad because he ran like a ***** all night as he was scared of Wlad's power. All Wlad had to do was land a few shots a round to win every round which is what he did.

Fact check #3.
Your disputed claim: Klitschko was seen as a guy still in his prime and who would continue his reign until he decided to quit.
Fact check: A number of posters thought Wlad could reign for another 2 years. But others realised that he was very old and were concerned by the Jennings fight. No HW fighter who is 39 years old is "still in his prime", so for you to claim that is ridiculous and makes your other points look like a farce.


The only thing I will agree with you in your post. Is that Pulev made a shot Wlad look far better than he was at that point. Simply because he rushed in like a bulldog looking for the Corrie Saunders style early knock out, but was caught coming in and stopped. If Pulev had fought behind a jab and moved more, then against the shot 39 year old Wlad he would have had a better chance.

 

I watched the fight when it happened ... maybe you should try watching it, you'll learn a thing or two.

 

I'm confident a prime Wlad would've beaten AJ. Hell an old Wlad almost did, and would've had he not chosen to box Joshua after hurting him, and letting him recover.

 

Try watching it sober.