Buster Douglas, Hasim Rahman... Tyson Fury?

- Wlad wasn't fighting in 2016.

- PEDs don't reverse the effects of aging. Until PEDs come out which decreases the aging process of a person or stops the aging process of a person. Age effects every athlete.

- Tyson Fury was also likely on as much PEDs as Wlad. Ergo, a younger athlete using PEDs > an older athlete using PEDs.

- Fury was barely able to land a glove on a 40 year old Wlad. If anything, this shows how slow and poor a young Fury is, rather than Wladimir Klitschko is, who is meant to be slower at an older age. Everyone is faster when they're younger. Wlad isn't an exception!

- Fury doesn't deserve credit for beating a 39 year old Wlad, until Fury himself does better than what Wlad did when he is also 39 years old.

- If Wlad sucks and is slow and blah blah blah. Fury's win over Wlad sucks and doesn't warrant credit.

- Why does Fury deserve more credit for beating Wlad, than Douglas for beating Mike Tyson? Better in general? He fought a 39 year old Wlad and avoided a rematch and was struggling to reach a shorter Wladimir Klitschko to land any meaningful punches because of how slow he is. How is that a sign of better in general?

 

Reminds me of something I've been saying for years about Lewis in relation to TKO6 and Vitali's fanboys - how does rubbishing the ability of the best opponent Fury's ever fought make him look good?

Wlad "was robotic and slow his whole career" with "average skills" lacking "basic fundamentals" and was only successful because he was "really tall and was allowed to jab, grab and lean".

If that's true and Wlad was nothing special then what credit do you give to Fury for beating him? Surely just shitting on Wlad and talking him down lessens the worth of Fury's victory.

 

Been saying for a while that Fury at this point is no more than a Leon Spinks/Buster Douglas in terms of historical ranking. The win against Wlad means nothing unless he can now beat AJ & string together a series of defences.

Unless people want to argue that had Buster Douglas/Leon Spinks retired after their wins against Tyson/Ali they would be ATG’s etc then they cannot argue that Fury is anything more than a flash in the pan at this current moment.

 

Although I meant 2015, it is still completely true that the PED cocktail Wlad was taking was better in 2016 than earlier in his career.

HGH and Testosterone do slow the effects of ageing in men. Wlad and his bro were on them in the ams.

Wlad was awful and lacked fundamentals his whole career. For that reason alone Fury doesn't deserve massive credit for beating him. The fact I don't rate AJ at all for beating Wlad should serve as proof of that. The reason Fury is great is because he completely dominated Wlad. Made an absolute fool of him from the opening bell and exposed him to all his little fanboys.

Again, if Fury merely beat Wlad in a close fight I'd agree. Fact is he clowned him round after round and showed how scared and unable to box a real opponent Wlad was.

Please don't forget Wlad was made to look like a complete zero in that fight. He was scared to even throw jabs and couldn't do anything as The Mac held his hands behind his back and laughed in his face. It was no TKO6 and if Wlad was anything more than a very tall man on drugs, it would never have happened.

 

So WHY should Fury deserve credit for being a great for supposedly 'dominating' someone who is as 'awful' and lacking in fundamentals as Wlad?

More importantly, how does one become a 'great' for a single meaningful win and then not doing anything else afterwards?

And how exactly did Fury dominate Wlad (when it comes to actually landing punches since that's the main objective of boxing)? Find me at least 10 effective and damaging punches Fury landed on Wladimir Klitschko and then I may concede Fury actually did dominate Wlad. You don't dominate someone in boxing by doing irrelevant stuff that has no relevance to actually landing punches. Since boxing = landing punches and dominating an opponent = landing more and most effective / damaging punches.

Mike Tyson dominated Larry Holmes. That's the definition of domination. By actually landing damaging punches and brutally KO'ing Holmes. Where is the domination by Fury that I'm missing?

Tyson Fury was also on PEDs. So what you are going to say about that? Even if I concede that a 39 year old Wlad was on PEDs. A 27 year old Fury was also on PEDs. So again, how would age not play a factor?

And what does it even mean to not lack 'fundamentals'?

And where is the evidence that Wlad took any PED that slowed down the aging process?

Answer these questions please!

 

What they all have in common as well, is they were all 1 hit wonders!

 

Okay boxing genius, I'll answer your questions again, but only because you demanded it lmao.

Your first question has been answered more than once and remains utterly stupid. Have the respect to read the posts you quote before you allow yourself to get so deeply harmed by them.

You clearly don't know anything about boxing at all. If you need someone to explain to you how Fury dominated Wlad, you're probably mentally disabled. The bigger issue for you now is getting the serious medical help you require asap.

You seem to want to claim Wlad lost because of age and that he somehow lost all his boxing skills by the time Fury got to him. However, you held up Tyson-Holmes as the epitome of true domination in boxing. When Holmes lost to Tyson he was how old again? 39 you say? Hmmmm. So WTF were you babbling on about again?

"And what does it even mean to not lack 'fundamentals'?"... this sentence hurts my teeth. If you're trying to ask what Fundamentals Wlad lacks, let's start with lateral movement, cutting off the ring, body punches, any level of inside fighting, uppercuts, the ability to go more than 10 seconds without fouling/holding, etc.

If you require evidence of Wlad's PED use, you're delusional and I can't help you. If you require evidence that the drugs he takes like HGH and testosterone counteract the effects of ageing, stop wasting my time and try google.

Now that I've wasted 2 minutes of my life on your asinine ramblings, please answer me just one question... Considering the fact you know absolutely nothing at all about boxing and have a very limited ability to form coherent thoughts, why would you ever want to post on a boxing forum?

 

Ad-Hominem attacks and arguments from irrelevance are irrelevant. You may need some logic courses!

Fury dominating Wlad is your opinion. Not a fact! Ergo, the onus is absolutely upon you to explain your opinion. Go ahead and explain / answer how Fury's win over Wlad, was more dominant than Joshua's win over Wlad.

When did I claim Wladimir Klitschko lost 'all his boxing skills' by age 39? And where did I claim Larry Holmes wasn't declined by age 39? Did you just make these things up or are you going to provide posts of where I stated such things? I claimed Wlad declined severely (just like any athlete does when they are around the age of 40). Larry Holmes, when he fought Mike Tyson, was also a declined version, just like how Wlad was declined against Fury. However, my point is, Mike Tyson DOMINATED a 39 year old, declined version of Larry Holmes by destruction. Meanwhile, I don't see any domination by Fury over the 39 year old, declined version of Wlad. Mike Tyson's performance against Larry Holmes was far more 'DOMINANT' than Fury's performance was against Wlad, by a significant / astronomical margin. And it's not even close!

Again, domination in boxing = landing damaging / effective punches on opponent. Not by slapping, tapping, spending most of the time out of range, showboating and etc. Corrie Sanders DOMINATED Wlad. Fury did nothing of that sort!

Again, are you going to present at least 10 damaging / effective / hurtful punches Fury landed in 12 rounds on Wlad?

'Fundamentals' are subjective and there isn't any one type of fundamental. There are many ways to box. Wlad doesn't need to throw body punches, uppercuts, combinations and etc. He proved these things are unnecessary for his style. He proved that fewer moves > the better. And that results > subjective interpretation of what good fundamental is. This is by dominating the heavyweight division for over 10 years as the number 1 heavyweight.

When did I claim I need evidence for Wlad using PEDs? I already believe pretty much everyone in the 21st century, especially elite level athletes are on some kind of PEDs anyway. The same applies to Tyson Fury also. However, where is the evidence that the supposed PED consumption made Wlad totally immune to the negative effects of aging? Reflexes, legs and timing of an athlete declines by age 40. PEDs or no PEDs. PEDs may reduce the effects of aging, but I'm referring to total total immunity to aging and such a thing has never been proven to me.

If a 27 year old Tyson Fury used PEDs, and faced a 39 year old Wlad also using PEDs, it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that the older fighter will still be at a huge disadvantage from aging. Since a younger athlete using PEDs (Tyson Fury in this case) > an older athlete using PEDs (Wladimir Klitshcko in this case) when it comes to conditioning.

No heavyweight in history has beaten any elite opponents at age 39 or after age 39 like Tyson Fury or Anthony Joshua. They were either retired, or losing to far inferior opponents like bums / journeyman. So why should I hold Wladimir Klitschko to a totally different standard to every other past heavyweight and expect him to do something nobody else has?

How do you think Tyson Fury would do when he is also 39 years old? PEDs or no PEDS, return to me when Fury surpasses Wlad's performances / accomplishments by age 39. Until then, Fury remains a relative 'nobody' for beating a 'nobody' version of Wladimir Klitschko who was a 39 year old, totally declined fighter that Fury could barely even land a glove on, because of how slow, clumsy and deficient Fury is.

If Fury was as 'great' as you claim he is and Wlad was as 'awful' as you claim he was. Logic dictates that Fury would've totally demolished Wlad, by landing far more punches and by landing far more damaging / hurtful punches whilst missing far less. However, that wasn't the case! Maybe because Fury isn't as great after all!

If you're going to make a claim, be ready to back it up and expect others to ask you to back it up. If you can't, then it's appropriate not to make such claims in the future.

 

i see him more like michael spinks

 

pure brit delusion. can't wait until your group stage exit in the world cup.

 

I don't know what to say here. I obviously didn't read that insane rambling manifesto. I think you're an extremely troubled person and it seems perverse for me to keep pointing that out. Maybe stop focusing so much on boxing and get to know yourself a bit. You shouldn't feel so triggered by someone pointing out simple facts about a sport.

Sorry mate, don't follow football. Between The Mac's Instagram, Twitter, IFL interviews and old fights on YouTube I have very little time left.

 

no idea what the mac's instagram and twitter are.

 

[url]https://www.instagram.com/gypsyking101/[/url]

[url]https://twitter.com/Tyson_Fury[/url]

You're welcome. You should probably pay a bit more attention considering its #MacYear

 

probably not.

 

no hw active at the moment has a stake at anything aside from mediocrity.