Better win: Fury-Klitschko or Joshua-Klitschko

How much of the forum and the boxing world in general had the common sense to pick Wlad to KO Fury? Which way did you side?

 

Activity and momentum is a huge huge part of this. When Fury fought Klitschko, he was not only younger but he was active and hadn’t been defeated in 10 years. He was the champion going for a record (number of defences).

As we saw with Fury in his last fight with Ngannou (and countless times before) inactivity can be a killer. You can say Klitschko was more motivated for the AJ fight, doesn’t change the fact he had simply not been in the ring for 2 years at a very advanced age (for boxing). He also nearly stopped AJ in round 6 while Fury was simply never in any trouble.

 

I think it’s a large component of this debate. I’m hardly a Fury fan any more after his recent antics. Still, I can give him credit he’s produced some excellent displays and beaten some top guys.

 

That's a bit like saying a bloke driving a lawnmower is in no danger of picking up a speeding ticket, though...

If Wlad had actually tried to let his hands go then it's a fair point, but he didn't really - the two fights are very different and the way Wlad fought was very different.

If Wlad had fought the same sort of fight in both it wouldn't be arguable - but because he didn't, there will always be question marks as to which style he was more dangerous with.

 

That has everything to do with who he was fighting. AJ was a respectful champion who was a brawler boxer, which played far more into Wlad’s hands.

Fury was a trash talking, diva pulling, slick mover. This was all wrong for Wlad and imo Fury got in his head and had much of the fight won before the first bell. A rematch would have been different imo, but to say the defeat was simply just a case of Wlad not throwing is being unfair on the great game plan Fury used during and before the fight.

 

I thought it was a draw, or 115 - 113.

 

I don't disagree that who he was fighting made a difference - AJ was a legit belt holder and an Olympic gold medallist, whilst Fury was a paper title holder with no significant amateur pedigree (albeit with a couple of solid wins over Chisora as a pro)...

Factor in Wlads age, activity level and winning streak and it's only natural that he'd be much more confident of beating Fury - might that have affected his level of preparedness for each fight?

Heck, I watched the fight live at my local pub - with a bunch of traveller lads in at the time... These guys were obviously 100% behind Fury, but none of them seriously thought he would (or even could) win.

I've gotta be honest, I just don't buy that Fury's trash talking affected Wlad.

What I'm effectively being asked to believe (not just by you, I'll acknowledge, but on this thread in general) is that, at the same time:
1) Wlad was so mentally weak that Fury's childish trash talking put him at a major disadvantage before the first bell.
2) Wlad had such a strong mental fortitude that significant family issues didn't bother him at all - so Fury got him at (or near) the very best he could be.

I don't see how both of these things could be true at the same time, in all honesty.


In any case, Fury was certainly fairly slick and awkward - he also tied up a lot (which he was big and strong enough to do without getting worn down)...
As you say, and I agree, I have little doubt that Wlad would've won the rematch - but that's easy for me to say when I'm the one who thought Wlad wasn't on his game mentally and didn't fight how he could have done (and to be clear, I still give Fury credit for beating him at all - it's a very good win).

And that's why I'm unclear which of the two wins is the better... For me, Fury got Wlad younger and physically better - AJ got Wlad more mentally and emotionally prepared... But because these are clearly distinct versions, and how the two fights were fought were so different, I do genuinely find it difficult to separate the two wins - and I can see how a fan of either fighter could find confirming evidence that their guy did it better.

 

This isn't a prediction thread. It's a who has common sense thread

 

I completely forgot about that. Fury beat Wlad on his own turf. Another reason his win is better

 

Precisely
The guy hadn't lost a fight in 10-11 years and no matter what we think of the era, Wlad was the definition of a super champion. He had loads of defences and was the man for a decade

The Joshua fight was more exciting, but that doesn't mean it was the more prestigious win

If this was any other fighter but Fury? The poll would be closer to 100%

Beaten a super champion away from home,who hadn't tasted defeat in so long is 100% a better legacy win than beating a beltless wounded lion on home soil nearly 2 years later

 

So you picked Wlad then.

 

I sure did and Fury proved me wrong. It's quite irrelevant to OP's topic

 

Hmm... I wonder whether there's a bit of talking at cross purposes going on here.

Which is the "better" win can be seen from different angles...

One, as your word choice here highlights perfectly, is which is the most prestigious - the one that has the most impact and appears more impressive at the time.

The other is a purely sporting question - which Wlad was better, and beating the better Wlad is all it's about...

I'm really only interested in the latter (which I think is close) - whereas if you're looking at which was the more surprising (both in terms of an unexpected winner and a more solid seeming champ) then it's clearly Fury's win.

 

Inactivity can have different effects depending on the fighter. For some it cause them to lose sharpness, timing etc. For some it has no effect at all. For others it can actually be a benefit, and help to reignite the fire they may have lost fighting in by the numbers fights on a routine basis. There's also the lack of pressure fighting to defend a belt can have.

We don't know which sort of fighter Wlad was, but it's telling how fired up he was for the Joshua fight the likes of which we hadn't seen in years, much more willing to take risks and let it all hang out. If you want to put that down to having a more hittable target in front of him fine, but how then do you explain his ultra boring play it safe performances against Leapai and Mormeck (two guys he had zero to fear from) or his robotic lacklustre performance against Jennings? He was younger in all those fights than he was for Fury, but already looking mentally stuck in a rut. Yeah, he almost had Joshua out of there in the sixth, but Joshua almost had him out of there in the fifth, and closed the show in the eleventh, something Fury didn't come close to doing because he was too scared to engage. Wilder nearly had Fury out of there in two of their fights, but never came close against Parker. Do you rate the Parker win higher on that basis?

As for the age difference he was one and a half years older for Joshua, hardly some gigantic gulf. Stupid to bring it up in one fight and gloss over it in the other. He looked plenty fast and light on his feet for the Joshua fight for anyone to claim it was a deciding factor in the loss.

 

Wlad doing better against aj isn't enough proof given all the known variables for both fights, even if the fight was better. That's what we're trying to say