I'd love nothing more than Canelo to ice Bully Joe Saunders. But then again, Saunders will receive millions so you can't win. Canelo wins. I'd have been more intrigued with this fight several years back.
You have used the term fan boy a helluva lot over the last few days But with all due respect you were the biggest AJ fan boy going until recently Since he lost you have just gone in to your usual Gypsy boxer hate mode and its amped to the fullest the last few weeks Probably around the time Fury went and signed up with WWE BJS has given you more ammo this week with another average performance The way you go back and forth does not lead to discussion, only comes off at trolling certain posters and triggering them I like both of the above to watch, its subjective If some body dont fair play im not gonna go back and forth about it You should watch boxing and post more positive stuff every now and then Your clearly capable yet seem to harbour some odd enjoyment from winding some posters up
I’m not sure that’s true. I use the term fanboy to mean someone who seems almost infatuated by a boxer. They can almost never see anything wrong in what they do. Look at Hattonmad’s latest embarrassing fawning over Fury. The Klitschko fight was a schooling he loved and found massively entertaining. Chisora was the next big thing in British heavyweight boxing when Fury beat him. Seemingly forgetting Haye existed. Recently he described Wilder as better than a prime Lennox Lewis - seemingly only to make Fury’s performance against him seem better. Dire attendances are deemed fine. Homophobia is deemed funny. Fury’s statements about charity donation are treated as gospel. I don’t think I’m anywhere near that about Joshua. I think he’s more entertaining. That’s about it. His loss to Ruiz didn’t bother me at all and I don’t think he’s close to being better than say, Lewis.
You're an awful thick! - Fury schooled Wlad. Barely took a shot off him all night, busted his face up and won a wide decision in Germany - 100% schooling - Chisora was tipped for big things before Fury beat him. He was unbeaten British champ and heavy favourite. Haye was a cruiserweight. - Never said Wilder was better than prime Lennox Lewis. You've made that up you sad fool.
You don't care much about AJ since he lost. Convenient. Before that you were rimming him daily with forbes magazine in your hands.
A "schooling" is what Calzaghe did to Lacy or Hopkins to Pavlik It is an embarrassingly one sided technical masterclass in which you almost feel bad for the guy on the recieving end. Fury played patty cakes with Klitschko for 12 rounds, landing 82 punches....82!!! Klitschko landed 56. So 2 less a round than fury. That is not a schooling whatsoever. Calzaghe landed 351 punches on Lacy to Lacy 119 Lacy actually landed more punches in getting schooled than fury did in "schooling" klitschko.. oh my God it just keeps getting worse for Fury fanbois That is a schooling That is "boxing someone's head off" Fury stinks out the joint and edges a dull fight by literally 2 flicky jabs a round and you call that a schooling? You call that "boxing his head off" Either fury fans are visiting the same Crack dealer as the big man himself, or else you really do know nothing about boxing. This is why I love getting into it with Fury fans because they exaggerate so much and talk in such hyperbole that simple facts DESTROY their arguments time after time.
For me, Fury didn't school Wlad from an offensive and defensive point of view like Calzaghe schooled Lacy. However, defensively he did. He and his team realised that Wlad doesn't let his hands go against a moving target (to be honest, I think we all realised this). So they devised a plan of constant movement, be it with feet, or standing still but giving upper body movement. This took away Wlad's offense as he couldn't set his jab up. In this regards, it was a schooling as Fury noticed Wlad's strengths and weaknesses, so he used a plan to highlight Wlad's main weakness (doesn't like a moving target), thus taking his main strength away (the jab). This is a defensive schooling. True, offensively he's was lacklustre. The same happened in the Wilder fight as Wilder has a similar style to Wlad (jab-straight right merchant who is very cautious against a target who doesn't just stand in front of him). Defensively, he made Wilder look a fool. Unfortunately, once again, from an offensive point of view, he was dismal. To be fair to Fury, I can understand why he was cautious offensively against Wlad and Wilder. Both are ATG punchers. Fury obviously didn't want to open up to much and risk walking onto something. He did what was necessary to win. Against lesser opposition, and importantly, lesser punchers, he takes more risks and has a much higher output offensively. I sort of view him like Mayweather; early in his career when he was fighting guys his own size he was more exciting as he mixed a good offensive output with his dazzling defensive skills. As he moved up in weight and was fighting bigger guys with bigger punchers, he had to take less risks and became much more conservative from an offensive point of view.
Facts? So your version of what a schooling is? Fact or opinion? If its fact where did you get that infomation from? Wiki? Its all subjective, Hattonmad views it as such and you dont Its not facts tbh And before you call me a Fury fan boy, although i was impressed by the victory over Vlad, im fully aware of how much of a poor fight statistically it was
Of course it’s subjective, but if you view Fury beating Wlad as a schooling then you would surely have to view any relatively low-action, no knockdowns, few punches landed, relatively close win as a schooling. Personally I tend to think of a schooling as being a fight whereby the loser has lost every round and been made to look several levels below the winner. At the final bell there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever who has won. I’m not sure anyone can say that with Fury Klitschko. For example, I think Mayweather beat Pacquiao more convincingly than Fury beat Klitschko, but I don’t think of it as a schooling. It just was just a typical points win by four rounds or so.
Upon the fact that that's all he can do. He will 100% not stand in front of canelo. He runs and potshots before he's folded in half, probably with a bodyshot. He's not faster, he's not stronger, he's not more durable, his boxing iq is not greater, he hasn't fought the same level of competition, he won't hurt canelo. That's what my opinion is based on. How does he beat him for you? Proper breakdown if you can mate, not "Billy raises his game in big fight" blah blah.
Which is fair enough But my point stands that its not facts as the poster stated...its subjective as you say
In fairness I can see it being a bit of both. A close win isn’t really a definition of a schooling. I think you could be told that you were literally incorrect to call Taylor beating Prograis a schooling for example. It would suggest you did not really know what the term meant.
Fury/Wlad wasn't close. Fury dominated almost every round. Haters love to focus on punch stats but ring generalship and defence is also scoring work and that's where Fury took Wlad to school. He showed Wlad movement he'd never seen before and won the fight widely, busting up Wlad's face in the process. If you can't comprehend scoring points for ring generalship and defence, how can you say somebody else doesn't know anything about boxing. He made ATG Wlad look terrible - it was a schooling. The only man to outpoint Wladimir in 69 fights.