Wlads age to downplay Fury's victory is a bad argument

No one seemed to think so when virtually everyone picked Wlad to win as the overwhelming pre-fight betting favourite, and Fury was installed as the heavy 8/1 underdog.

Funny how people only started to talk about Wlad’s age after he took his first loss in 11 years…

 

Lol

 

Yeah, funny how they talked about it when it was a near 40yo been boxing for over half his life.
You think it matters what a lot of idiots and trolls pick? (yes, there are a lot of both here).
Wlad being a fave said more about Fury at the time. He was still not very highly regarded as an elite HW.

 

Yep, Wlad looked terrible vs Jennings and most people still picked him to beat Fury.

 

Its not about his age, its about how bad he looked against BY Jennings and how Fury fought, running, hitting with the back of the glove, rabbit punching, really just spoiling

 

If Wlad's age cannot be used to downplay Fury's victory, then it shouldn't be used to downplay AJ's victory either.

 

It was a very good win. Age was clearly a factor.

 

He lost because Fury was the better man on the night, simple as that.

He looked as good as ever against Pulev only a year prior and he gave us a fantastic fight against AJ only 12-18 months later.

 

Age was definitely a factor, the clues were there from Bryant Jennings' effort. However more than the age was Wlad ran into someone who was simply defensively better, and a better mover than him, that he couldn't impose a size advantage on.

So did his age have a bit to do with the loss? Yes. Was it the only reason he lost? no

 

The same Brits who claim Wlad was prime at 40 say lewis was an old man at 36.