Tyson Fury could barely land a glove on Wladimir Klitschko? Where exactly was the masterclass?

Yh, and? Guess what dummy? Fury could have also done those very same things. Fury could also have had a German promotor, a German manager, a German sponsorship, learned the German language, been speaking the German language, eating German and etc as much as Wladimir Klitschko. Scrap that, replace the 'GERMAN' language and the country of GERMANY with any other foreign, NON-ENGLISH language and country and my point still stands. I.E. Fury could potentially have done in Italy what Wladimir Klitschko did in Germany But Fury did not. So who's fault is it that Fury either never had the IQ, or the willingness, or both to achieve such a thing like Wladimir Klitschko did? So excuse me for some people out there not giving any extra credit to Fury and justifiably so for a win over Wladimir Klitschko in Germany.

Now had Fury gone to Ukraine and beaten Wladimir Klitschko in Ukraine, none of us here could turn around say 'OH but Fury could have also been born in Ukraine and have also been born to Ukrainian parents the way Wladimir Klitschko was" as we know that's literally impossible by the very definition of the word. You can't control or choose which country you are born in and to which ethnic group you are born to. However, it is ABSOLUTELY under your control and under your choice to be able to go to a foreign land like Germany, to learn the language of that land, to gain a foreign fanbase in that foreign land and be OVERALL successful in that foreign land the way Wladimir Klitschko DID and the way Tyson Fury DID NOT!

Just because Wlad managed that, and Fury never did, doesn't somehow make Fury worthy of any extra credit.

If your IQ level isn't high enough to comprehend the VAST differences between the two different scenarios I've presented (Fury beating Wladimir Klitschko in Germany vs Fury beating Wladimir Klitschko in Ukraine), then the problem lies with you, namely your intelligence (or lack thereof) and your low level logical / analytical thinking capacity. Perhaps a course in logic will help you for future reference!

 

This is a projection if I've ever seen one LMFAO! First you claim you ended the debate then you respond 3 more times to me. And now you claim you won't be reading through my post, and claim thereafter your response to my second last post has been already posted before this current post of yours I'm responding to, and yet, here you still are, still responding as the comedian that continues to give.

When you can't actually address the point being made, the cop-out tactic is to simply claim "no point made doe" and "I won't respond anymore doe and I've already responded to this doe".

Guess what? If you were so sure you've already addressed all my points, and if it's really true you would not be reading my last post, then for you to hold any credibility, you cannot be responding at all anymore to me. But fact is, you have responded again, thus totally ruining any credibility you may have had left.

But everyone with respectable intelligence here can see you have not addressed many, if not all my points. That is why psychologically, you feel inclined to continue responding, even though you aren't actually capable of addressing my arguments as they are clearly above your pay-grade. So the last resort is to use cop-out tactics which involves stating things like "you've made no point" or "I've already addressed everything you mentioned" (even though you have not). All you're doing here, is trying to convince yourself in your own little head that you have the upper-hand in this discourse and trying to pretend to others that you have the upper-hand just so that you can feel better about yourself, when in actual factual reality, the reverse is the case. You aren't capable of actually addressing many of my points and have to settle for "but already addressed doe" and "no point made from you doe" and "I'm not reading again doe" because that's all you have left at your disposal.

So the only one living in their own little world, is clearly you. You claiming it's me is you projecting what you are doing psychologically and you evidently can't help / stop yourself from doing so. You're revealing a lot about yourself, seemingly inadvertently.

Oh and btw, for some logical tutorial, you claiming I made no point is also the same as you also not making any point either. Claiming someone else did not make a point is also as much of a non-point as someone else's supposed 'non-point'. So I'd advice you try a little harder next time, if you opt to take the moral high-ground, pretending to others you have the upper-hand, because your acting (much like your beloved Fury) is way too obvious and blatant.

 

No, Marco Huck is not an ethnic German. But you never mentioned him initially. You mentioned Sven Ottke initially, who is a native born German. And my rebuttal was strictly directed at your use of Sven Ottke as some kind of an example.

However, Marco Huck does somewhat reinforce your point further, I'll give you that. Regardless, why couldn't it have just been a bad decision in general rather than it specifically being a hometown decision in favor of Huck? after all, correlation does not equal causation (which in itself is a logical fallacy by the name of Post hoc ergo propter hoc)? I mean, Huck also lost a close fight to Povetkin (a Russian) in Germany when he could easily have won that too? So why didn't he get that close decision? Or maybe it has more to do with the specific judges in the Lebedev bout than Huck being the hometown fighter?

Your point would have stood if Huck was given a decision victory in pretty much every close bout but such has not been the case. In fact, Huck arguably had a bigger case of winning against Povetkin than against Lebedev but was not given the decision against Povetkin, further reinforcing my position that the win against Lebedev was more down to the specific judges being incompetent than Huck being gifted a 'hometown' victory.

Also, we've had many other controversial bouts in Germany involving non-German foreign fighters such as Nikolai Valuev winning against Jean Francois Bergeron. None of us can claim Valuev is a 'hometown' fighter in Germany as he is a Russian.

So again, evidence points to the judges being incompetent as the more likely conclusion than anything to do with hometown favoritism for those bouts in Germany.

Furthermore, if you were objective and intellectually honest with yourself, then you'd be crediting Germany each time there is a correct winner via decision (Fury against Wladimir Klitschko) as much as you are currently discrediting Germany for all the incorrect decisions (Sven Ottke win vs Robin Reid and Huck win vs Lebedev).

Surely, Fury being granted a decision victory over Wlad in Germany should warrant Germany as much credit as the criticism Germany received for its incorrect decisions in the aforementioned bouts? Or are you just gonna bash Germany for SOME incorrect decisions but not provide the same level of praise when the correct decisions are given in big title bouts? Fury winning in Germany against Wladimir Klitschko btw, is no more a 'masterclass' (which you seem to think because of your preconceived notion of German boxing's judging and officiating) than Povetkin's win over Huck in Germany. Claiming Tyson Fury's performance was a 'masterclass' because he got a decision victory over Wlad in Germany is a non-sequitur. The location in this case, has nothing to do with how masterful (or not) Fury's performance was. The only thing relevant is his actual performance. I could just flip the script and say "this proves how fair the judging was in Germany (purely in this particular bout) because Fury managed to get a decision victory in Germany over a long-reigning champion despite barely being able to land any punches on him and not being anywhere close to showcasing a 'MASTERCLASS'. So this particular bout actually proves Germany has very fair officiating, as much as the Sven Ottke bout proves Germany has unfair officiating.

Anyhow, the number of punches being landed is not 'SUBJECTIVE', it's objective. Thus, my position that Fury's performance was nowhere close to being a 'MASTERCLASS' is more objective than those opposing this position. This is further solidified by the simple fact that nobody THUS FAR, has been able to provide a single video evidence of Fury being able to land even 10, much less 15 head / body snapping / rocking punches in 12 rounds combined, much less in any particular single round. Again, this is how far away from a 'MASTERCLASS' Fury was.

'Masterclass' more closely resembles what Pacquaio did to Margarito, or what Mayweather did to Canelo Alvarez, or what even Usyk did to Joshua. Fury's performance does not even come CLOSE!

 

Wlad's home is Ukraine, not Germany, so try again! And before you say 'Oh but Germany is Wlad's adopted home'. Guess what? Fury could have also made Germany his adopted home, or any other non-English country his adopted home, but he never did. So Fury doesn't deserve EXTRA credit for beating Wlad in his HOME when Wlad's TRUE home was never Germany to begin with. If anything, Fury being a Brit has more Germanic blood in him. Thus, Fury is closer to being a German than Wladimir Klitschko who is a Slavic Ukrainian. So Fury is closer to HOME in Germany than Wladimir Klitschko is as a Ukrainian.