British fighter of the year & decade?

You’ve not answered my point. It’s clearly not impossible for the second win to be more impressive than the first. Fighters will not always prepare the same, they won’t always perform to the same levels, and they will have good nights and bad nights. Just because Wlad was older doesn’t categorically make him worse. To assume that is to make an incredibly simplistic mistake. You’re saying ‘if we cut away the excuses’ simply to say ‘if we ignore the evidence in front of us.’ Nope.

 

Evidence for Wlad being better in the second fight was him looking far better, putting in a far better performance, him admitting training had gone much better and the lack of issues outside the ring affecting him.

 

If I could just interject...You can’t compare a sport where you hit a soft ball with a racket with a sport where you can get punched in the head by 17 stone+ men.

As you were...

 

Why not?

The comparison is clearly based on the notion that athletes in any sport can and do have days and performances which are worse than subsequent performances.

Except apparently in boxing where once you’re past your best your standard of performance drops every time you compete without question. Lennox Lewis was better for Rahman I than he was for Tyson. Joe Calzaghe was better for Bika than he was for Kessler.

 

I get why you would make the comparison, and perhaps in some circumstances you would be right...such as the Canelo v Mayweather fight you referenced. If the fighter is young enough and has a style that means he’s not in wars then it’s perfectly feasible for him to go on and perform/prepare better in future fights. In regards to Klitschko though, age and mileage comes into it. He’d had 68 fights before he met Joshua, and a very physical style that meant a lot of grappling and clinching. Whilst he was unbeaten for a decade, the evidence was there for some time that it wasn’t prime Klitschko.

The comparison doesn’t work though when a fighter has been through several wars. Sam Eggington for example will never have another night like he did with Gavin and Malignaggi. He has taken far too much punishment. Dave Allen won’t have another Browne moment. He’s been punched in the chops far too much. It’s not tennis...

 

He was 41 with and almost 2 years out of the ring. There are not many examples of post 40 boxers being better than they were in their 30's. You could argue Bernard Hopkins was good in his 40's however he was not the same fighter he was at his peak in his mid 30's. You are walking down a dead end road here Tony.

 

All I am suggesting is that a fighter can have a bad fight, and be better prepared physically and mentally for their next fight. It really is absolutely that simple.

 

Not really. Wlad himself said he was much better, he looked a lot better. I get why Fury fans have to dress up his win as something better - that’s the nature of these things. But I think there was plenty of evidence that it’s not an outlandish claim.

 

Don't let simple facts get in the way of unconditional hate. Hayers never fails to amaze.

 

Dubois is British fighter of the year. Absolutely blitzed everyone put in front of him including a domestic marquee performance against Gorman, a fight many of us thought would go in Gorman's favour. Get him in with the big boys, fighters are at there most dangerous when they are young and hungry. Tyson conquered the world, Joshua did it in quick time, hold him back Frank at your peril.

 

Callum Smith or Josh Taylor for the Year. Fury for the decade.

 

Why Smith out of curiosity?
Beat a lot smaller shot opponent and then got a touch on the cards against Ryder
Cant see it myself

 

Smith shouldn't even be on the shortlist.