Thank you for your smart opinions here. I personally had lost a bit more than 100 GBP cos I had paced bet for A.J as a winner via decision, thank you. I will not care anymore and I rarerly had lost on bettings. Very rarelry. You really might continue to **** post about awakening, including for ppl who had a lot from their money on A.J before 1 st fight vs Andy Ruiz Jr too, of course. I'm not scared, I had competed boxing, KB, KB even in pro ranks. I place bet only on small sums for me and I don't feel scared, while yeah, thank you, I had bet on A.J.
Not sure why you think I’m **** posting, I’m dead serious, I don’t see this as a highly competitive fight to be honest.
There aren't many elite SHW's in boxing history. Lewis was 37.75 when he beat 32 year old Vitali. Vitali was still a top HW and the 2nd ranked in the world when he retired at 41, despite having far more trouble with injuries than Wlad.
Wlad was and Bernard Hopkins was, while no current top 5 HW is close to 27. In mma the current LHW champion has hit his prime in his late 30's. Wlad was not a 5'10 midget heavyweight with little discipline or a punch-drunk athlete from a scientifically primitive era.
If you think Fury-Wallin could conceivably be scored as a draw then I'm not going to bother reading your propagandistic drivel.
I'll go a step further, and point out Wallin could have even deservedly won this by TKO stoppage, if we agree Vitali Klitschko's stoppage was legitimate to be fair and objective. Regardless, who won between Wallin and Fury is besides the point anyway, as far as this thread goes. So not quite sure why you're still bringing this up.
Lennox Lewis was not 39 and Vitali never beat a top opponent like Fury either at age 39 or above. So you have no historical basis to come to the conclusion Wlad would be in his prime at age 39? Gotcha! Oh and if anything, Lennox Lewis retiring at age 37 further supports my point, that age 39 is not a prime age, even for super heavyweights. Otherwise, Lennox Lewis would have continued boxing for another decade or so instead of retiring. Same with Wladimir Klitschko, who also would have continued boxing instead of retiring at age 39. You literally have 0 grounds to stand on here, with this absurd assertion that Wlad was in his prime at age 39, or even close to it. Come back to me when a super heavyweight actually does better than Wlad at age 39, and proves that at such an age, an athlete could still be in their primes. Until then, your point has as much as value as a mere grain of sand.
I didn't say Wlad was in his prime, I said there is good reason to believe he was closer to his prime than a 27 year old Fury. Wlad was coming off his career best performance against Pulev 12 months prior and had signed a 5 fight extension to his TV contract just before he fought Fury, so he was confident that he was not in significant decline. He was active, fully physically mature, the most motivated and disciplined HW champ of all time, at his most skilled and experienced, on his career longest win streak and fighting at home. Fury was a contender with a career best victory over Chisora or Cunningham, 5 years younger than the youngest of the current top 5 HW's. And by consensus Fury won 10-2 while being hit with an average of 1 punch every 42 seconds and showboating more than any other HW in a world championship fight in history, such was his overwhelming dominance. The Wlad who fought Fury wasn't much different to the Wlad who fought Ibragimov, Haye or Povetkin: he was just fighting an opponent who was bigger and faster than him rather than a 6'2 blown-up cruiserweight, as was Wlad's specialty. Lewis beating 32 year old Vitali while in his late-30's proves that you can be in your late-30's and still be an elite fighter, former flyweight Manny Pacquiao proved this to an even greater degree at 40.66 against prime Thurman, a top welterweight. Lewis was not quite as old as Wlad and retired after because he had little to gain aside from money and a lot to lose: had he lost the Vitali rematch as is very possible, he would have undermined his previous win and his entire record: the dominant narrative would have been that Lewis was lucky the first time and there needed to be a trilogy to settle things, by which time Lewis would be even older and more worn with the momentum against him, against a now much more experienced champion Vitali. Maybe he would have beaten Vitali in the rematch at 38.5 but the risk-reward wasn't there. Vitali didn't fight an elite opponent aside from Lewis in his career but he was still regarded as No.2 when he retired at 41, above Haye and Povetkin. I expect he would have still beaten them at that age. Haye pursued Wlad rather than Vitali because he'd seen the Puritty, Sanders and Brewster fights (along all of the other KD's Wlad suffered) and thought he had a better chance of cracking 35 year old Wlad's chin rather than outpointing 40 year old Vitali. Wlad was from an even more modern era than Lewis so that itself tends toward greater longevity and he did not retire at 39, he retired at 41 after going life and death with 27.5 year old AJ in Britain, while coming off 17 months of inactivity and being dethroned by Fury. If Fury or Usyk was to beat a top contender at age 39, you would say this just proves that the contender was no good and had been exposed, just as you did after AJ went life and death with 41 year old Wlad. For some reason though you rated Ruiz as a great HW after he destroyed AJ, who you claimed had already been exposed, which doesn't make any sense to me.
Wlad was 39 against Fury and retired at age 41, two years after fighting Fury. Meanwhile, Fury was 27 when he fought Wlad but is still fighting at age 33, 6 years after fighting Wlad. And you want anybody with a respectable IQ to believe Wlad was closer to his prime than Fury? The guy who retired earlier was closer to his prime than the guy who is still yet to retire? Surely, you can't be that low IQ and dumb? Wlad's last performance before the Fury bout was Bryant Jennings, not Pulev, so at least have some honesty to maintain any credibility and integrity you want to have left. You're only as good as your last bout, not your second last bout. And Wlad did not look anywhere near as good as he should have against Bryant Jennings, a type of opponent that he either knocked out or shut-out in his prime but failed to. So that alone was a clear indicator he was finished at the highest level. And before you bring me the nonsense about Jennings being some special talent, the likes that Wlad has never faced before, Jennings went on to be a nobody after his bout against Wladimir Klitschko, further reinforcing how far down the hill Wlad had gone. So yes, Wlad in the Bryant Jennings fight alone, was significantly below the Wlad that fought Sultan Ibragimov, and even less when he fought Fury. And no, Wlad was not fighting at 'HOME'. IN case you didn't know, Wlad's home country is Ukraine, not Germany. At least get your facts right. Dominance is not showboating, but actually landing punches LMFAO. Show us which scoring criteria involves showboating. Fury himself barely landed more than one punch more than Wladimir Klitschko did in every round, so much for dominance (lack of actually). Lewis retiring at age 37 proves you are not very likely to be a top fighter in your late 30's. Otherwise, Lewis would not have retired. Otherwise, why did he retire and not give Vitali a rematch? Didn't think so! Lewis had nothing to gain? He had much more to gain from a rematch against Vitali than a fight against a shot to pieces Mike Tyson but he had no issues facing Mike Tyson. LMFAO! In the case of Pacquiao, Pacquiao is an extremely special and an exceptional case, as he is one of the most unique fighters of all time. Are you seriously using his feats and extrapolating it to be the norm? Last time I checked, no other boxer was an 8 division champion either. So excuse me for Pacquiao also doing better in his late 30's or early 40's than any other boxer in history below heavyweight. Pacquiao is an exception, not the norm. Also, return to me when a super heavyweight actually does better than Wlad at age 39 and actually beats an opponent at the level of Fury and only then, your assertion (because that's all it is) that super heavyweights are closer to their prime at age 39 than at age 27 will hold any merit. Until then, my point holds more merit, as the pattern that has been established thus far, proves the heavyweight in his late 20's or early 30's at the top is supposed to beat and supplant a 39+ year old past prime heavyweight champion. Claiming this rule does not apply to Wlad because he is a super heavyweight is something you need to prove, not me. You need to prove how being a super heavyweight makes you immune to aging or less so compared to smaller heavyweights. And your argument that Wlad has access to modern medicine, techniques and technology is countered by the fact that younger modern heavyweights also have access to those same things. Thus, even if those 'modern' luxuries were to somehow delay aging, given that his younger opponents have access to those same luxuries, it wouldn't matter after all. It would only matter if he was facing opponents who did not have access to the modern luxuries that ONLY he had. If anything, the bigger you are, the quicker you should decline, given the facts about how on average, bigger sized people have a lower average lifespan and have more health problems than smaller sized people, with most other things being equal (or close to). So again, my position has much more credence as of now.
@Luis Fernando @NEETzschean There exists a boxer's physical prime. This is the age his body is best suited to compete physically. While different for all men it usually falls between ages twenty one to thirty. Then there exists a boxers technical prime. This is different than their physical prime. Lennox Lewis, for example, was not in his technical prime until he was age thirty one after he got with Steward. Mike Tyson was in his technical prime at age twenty-two and Bernard Hopkins was winning championships and beating champions throughout his forties. Oldest champion at forty nine. Technical prime is relative to the fighter and has no set age. You each have valid points but seem to be discussing different "primes"
Say Fury was 21 and fought 39 year old Wlad: Wlad would have been just a few years removed from his prime at most, Fury many more years. Fury would have still fought 10 years later, Wlad may well have retired in 2 years. Yet Wlad would have been closer to his absolute prime (albeit the tail end of it) than Fury would have been from the start of his prime. Hence 39 year old Wlad would have had a massive advantage against 21 year old Fury as everyone understands, or hypothetically the version of himself who was getting stopped by Sanders and Brewster in his mid-late 20's. Your first argument is thus a complete non sequitur, I'm struggling to understand how you can lack logic to this extent and yet insult me for a supposed lack of intelligence. You are either stupid or dishonest. The rest of your response is largely nonsense and spin in the same vein that I cannot be bothered to engage with.
You are right that there are multiple primes. Athletic prime is one, yet a HW will be more physically mature, stronger and heavier in his early 30's than his mid 20's, when he will be faster. Fighters tend to be more disciplined in their 30's than their 20's, so there is a discipline prime to consider. Experience is especially important at HW due to the cost of mistakes, the fewer and shorter fights and the wider variety of body types/styles, the experience prime doesn't really have a limit. Likewise, a fighter's technical prime doesn't necessarily have a limit and the more dedicated and intelligent are likely to continually pick up skills as they go on. There is a confidence prime when a fighter can best deal with pressure and adversity, this is also likely to be later in a fighter's career than earlier, possibly when he's a dominant champion. Fighters need regular though not excessive activity (a fighter 12+ months inactive will likely not be at his best) and they have structural advantages when at home and/or as the A-side, which is important to consider. Style is another vital factor: shorter HW's and pressure fighters tend to become worn out more quickly and they generally peak as younger men. Modern sports science and safety measures allow athleticism to be preserved for longer, disproportionately increasing the importance of non-physical factors and increasing the importance of one's technical and psychological prime, hence champions in all weight classes have tended to be older in the last 20 years. The heavyweight and cruiserweight divisions have the oldest champions and contenders (in the HW top 5 the average age is 34.5) with the lighter weight divisions being largely composed of men in their 20's. The bigger the man, the longer he takes to reach his prime and the slower his decline, as a general rule. A fighter's absolute prime is when he has the best balance of his physical/athletic, psychological and technical attributes. It's thus entirely feasible that a fighter could be significantly past his athletic prime but still in or near his absolute prime due to maximising the other factors. And the converse is also true: a fighter (Wlad for example) may have been most athletic when getting blasted out by Sanders, stopped by Brewster and being splattered all over the canvas by Peter but he was still technically and psychologically lacking, thus not as good as the mid-late 30's Wlad who was technically and psychologically far superior.