Better win: Fury-Klitschko or Joshua-Klitschko

Fury's was more impressive - he won the title without throwing a punch and without being hit by one.

 

If he never threw a punch, how the hell did he win the fight?

 

Wlad’s reflexes were clearly diminish when he thought Joshua……, but part of it is a matter in which they won.


Fury won that fight, but nothing really happened. It was not what you call a decisive win

Joshua beat Wlad when Wlad was out to redeem himself and went pedal to the metal try to knock him out,


so even though Wlad’s reflexes were diminished with him then over 40 years old, the the manner in which Joshua beat Wlad was much more impressive and decisive. And Wlad retired annd didn’t choose to take a rematch


Fury’s win was with neither fighter doing hardly anything notable, and fury avoided the rematch, even though Wlad wanted it.

joshua’s win was much, much more impressive than Furys win. And as I said, Joshua was going to fight him again.Fury went nuts and refused a rematch.

 

Joshua.

More emphatic win and in a more compelling manner. F**k a PTS win, boxeo's about the KOs, son.

Plus, Klit looked in the best shape of his life for the AJ showdown. And, mentally well too.

Fury's win was just meh. Barely anything in it, no real domination if your actually counting punches. Boxing's about punching, if you ain't landing, you ain't winning/earning.

 

You never bothered to specify what "better win" meant in the OP so it's open season how that question can be answered. Joshua's win caught the public eye, showed his ability to fight back from adversity, and propelled him onto the world stage. Fury's win sent everyone to sleep and made Fury retire for three years. Or is that a skewed and unfair assessment?

No, I think Joshua vs Klitschko is a better win than Fury vs Klitschko. Note the common link?

Which is Fury's most defining moment: boring everyone to death over twelve rounds in Germany or getting up from the Wilder right hand in the last round of their first fight in the States? I just want to see how you're defining greatness here, since like so much else in your argument it's vague and ill-defined.

 

Good thing 2/3 of the forum still has common sense

 

The Fury win was the changing of the guard. Good win in terms of significance, terrible fight in terms of excitement. Love him or hate him, a star was born that night.

 

Stupid question.
Will not justify with answer.
Answer is too obvious.
But need to register disdain for thread.

 

Answer is pretty obvious - Fury’s win is clearly the superior one, Wlad was younger and active. Joshua’s win was solid but I can’t understand why people can’t accept it’s objectively inferior.

 

I do have a strong dislike for Fury. But people let their emotions overrule their common sense or are just being obtuse.

 

You can't? I find that strange.

Sure, the safe bet is that the younger version is better, but there are plenty of examples of fighters putting on better performances due to motivation/prepardness despite having aged. Take Holmes '85 compared to '92 for example. That's 7 seven long years over gradual physical decline due to ageing and he was also inactive for most of that period, but still you could argue that the '92 version was better.

Of course he was physically better in '85 but his mind was seemingly more on getting easy paydays than really putting in the effort and it showed.

Ali is another example. The Ali against, for example, Mathis in '71 of course had more left physically than the Ali of Manilla in '75, but I'd still go with the latter version seven days a week. Despite the four years and hard fights between.

Pac as well. Would anyone even contest that he was better for Thurman than Horn?

So focus and preparation can absolutely make up for ageing at times. Hard to know if this was the case here, but it is certainly a possibility.

 

Because certain people have an agenda and want to show ajs wins to be better than they really are. Joshua's win was decent, but he went life and death and Klitschko had a bad game plan. Was also in his 40s and retired after. Wlad was younger, had the belts, and Fury barely struggled.

It's just common sense. People shouldn't have to be labeled as aj haters to see this

 

I've always reckoned the Wlad of 15 would have got to Fury with his let them go Joshua game plan although that Fury was excellent on the night and a league above the faded slob that faced Ngannou. Joshua was super lucky not to get knocked out mid rounds. A prime WK of five years earlier closes the show.

 

In a sense yes... In another sense, no.

It would've been a changing of the guard if Fury had actually stood guard over the division, taken over as the dominant champion and retired Wlad (with or without the rematch).

But Fury didn't - he didn't defend his belts at all and disappeared in a cloud of illegal substances.

Yes it was the old champion being beaten and the end of a long run of wins, and you're right it's significant for that reason alone... But I wouldn't call it a changing of the guard.



If anything...
Joshua beating the returned Wlad was more of a changing of the guard, where the previous dominant champion was beaten by the division's next (albeit shorter lived!) dominant champion.
It doesn't have the significance in terms of ending Wlads long run of success, but in a sense it's more of a changing of the guard and passing of the torch then the Fury win.


All this is, IMHO, academic anyway - the question is which version of Wlad was better overall... Which means how do assess and weigh up his physical and mental condition in both fights... And there, it's very much to each their own, IMHO.

 

It was the changing of the guard. Just that the new guard is a terrible example of a champion. The win had much more significance than the AJ win. Looking at it from Wlad's perspective, he lost more to Fury than he did AJ. That alone should tell people what the better win was.