If Wlad wins the rematch, he shouldn't get much credit for it..

atsch

No, according to you , he's nothing but a burger boy about to cleaned out.

So if Wlad wins like you fully expect him to , he just beat a woefully out of shape fatman , which is not great accomplishment in the slightest.
If Wlad somehow manages to lose, he loses to the bum you just described and his entire legacy goes down the flusher.

Fury on the other hand will receive all the praise and plaudits for coming through two fights he was fully expected to get destroyed in.

 

No I don't think Fury is a great fighter, or even a very good one.

However for Wlad this deep in his career to beat an opponent who has a significant advantage in size and youth is impressive. And avenging the loss shows a level of mental toughness that he was perceived to lack back in the Sanders/ Brewster 1 days.

At 40 years old, with nearly 70 pro fights and 28 world title fights his legacy isn't at risk of being harmed. Was 36 yr old Holmes legacy "down the flusher" after he became the first HW champ in history to lose 2x to the LHW champ? Last time I check Holmes is universally regarded as top 5 material. I don't see Spinks rated anywhere close to even the top 15. And Spinks was miles better than Fury.

If Fury wins again, especially in another godawful negative performance, he'll get about as much credit as Holmes beating Ali or Briggs beating Foreman.

 

And why is Fury deciding to call it a career all of a sudden? Could it be that fat boy is terrified of Luis Ortiz who is an upcoming mandatory challenger, a guy that he's on record stating that he will never fight? Or could it be due to a Joshua showdown looming in the near future? Fury is a mickey mouse joke of a champion, who lucked out at the right time. Everything's getting straightened out on July 9th so it's all good.

 

Wlad has lost it. Fury by boring UD...again.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

 

Then you don't understand the sport of boxing.

How can it be impressive when you just said Fury is no good? patsch

Wach had size and was younger. Did he win a round?

Jennings had youth. Joshua has size and youth. Would he have beaten Wlad? Pulev had size and youth . He was almost murdered.

Wlad was at a skills disadvantage . Since you don't understand box , you were unable to see it so chalk it up to menial factors.

You don't have to go all the way back to the Sanders/Brewster days. You only have to go back to last November to witness his mental weakness in full effect.

His tepid , cowardly performance in fight one has already battered his legacy. Nobody gets a pass for surrendering their titles like that.

It was actually yes. Those two losses were very damaging. But Holmes had already built a legacy of great fights , performances and skills and had not 3 embarrassing brutal losses going tint the Spinks fight.

He also won about 20 more fights after those loses. Achieving a win at 42 thats arguably as good as any win on Wlads record.

Spinks is a P4P ATG. Fury is not. That point back fired.

If Wlad loses again , he'll be fully exposed as a B- Rater who only dominated a terrible division using his size .

 

The only reason Fury beat Cunningham was because of his size. But let me guess Fury doesn't win because of his size according to you? So, when is Fury going to fight someone bigger than him to prove us wrong?

 

He beat Wlad. The best SMH of the last 15 years wasn't he?. You going to saw Wlad is small now?:rofl:tired

 

Aside from Charles Martin

 

Martin wasn't THE Heavyweight champion. He was a paper belt holder. Of THE champions Fury will be mentioned with Leon Spinks, Rahman, Carnera, and Douglas as flash in the pan short timers.

 

No, you told us Wlad only wins because he was bigger than all his opponents. When is Fury going to prove it to us also. Tell me.

 

If you understood the sport of boxing, or at least it’s history you’d see that even badly faded greats can lose to inferior opposition.

He looked absolutely terrible against Jennings, marking a step decline in his abilities.

If it was a prime Wlad it wouldn’t be that impressive, as it would’ve ended in a brutal KO. But given Wlad’s level of degradation and coming back at 40 to regain the lineal title for a 2nd time is impressive.

And Fury demonstrated those far superior skills by landing 7 punches to Wlad’s 4 in the worst HW fight known to man. :nut :dead

 

He'll continue to be universally regarded as a top 10-15 HW atg.

 

Klitschko was in peak form at 39. Just like his brother when he was the same age.

Ali and Lewis were further gone when they fought and beat Foreman and Vitali. Wlad was the massive favorite to win because he still looked the goods. Thats why you picked him to destroy Fury. Or is it you just dksab?

Thats because the bout was contested under the new york state athletic commission's jurisdiction - which did not allow Wlad use of his illegal foul tactics. Thats why you got a stale performance out of him. That performance was his true level.

The last time he fought in America under a ref who refused to allow him cheat his way of of a fight was against Brewster and that result was a stoppage loss in only 5 rounds. Whats the excuse for that loss. He was too young?

Prime Wlad was ended by brutal KO by Sanders and Brewster and went life and death with Sam Peter and Tony Thompson.
That suggests to any rational observer that the Fury result would be the same against any version of Wlad.

Which Wlad was responsible for since it was similar in nature to his entire career .

 

Continue?? Show me a journalistic source that regards him as a top 10 ATG?

 

Show us a journalistic source that he isn't.