Fury's wins over Wlad and Wilder eclipse any single wins on Lennox's resume

Golota, Tua, grant, holyfield, ruddock and Bruno all more impressive than fury landing 90 punches on 40 year old wlad

 

McCall would KO Wilder as well. He had a titanium chin. Took flush shot from LL like it was nothing.

 

Seriously what at this point even separates Wilder from Morrison at all? It's easy to argue Morrison was better at this point

 

I could see Tommy replicating Wilder’s timeline.

 

Easily. Might have even defeated fury in the first fight

 

Lewis resume is overrated aswell. Post prime Holyfield. Short plodder Tua. No Southpaw like Sanders. Barely won against Vitali. In fact that was his greatest win.

 

Funny how you omitted James Toney's age and the stage of his career. James Toney himself was 34 years of age. Yes, he was 6 years younger than Holyfield but at the time they fought, Toney had 72 fights compared to Holyfield's 46 fights. So Toney arguably had more mileage due to having more fights and more rounds .

So James Toney and Holyfield were much closer to each other in terms of how close or away from their peak they were, than Wladimir Klitschko and Tyson Fury were.

Tyson Fury is 13 years younger than Wladimir Klitschko. Let that sink in for a while! Furthermore, Wlad had a decades more worth of mileage due to fighting that much longer than Tyson Fury. So evidently your comparison is foolish and logically inept.

And if you were smarter, you'd realize it's you who is contradicting themselves. You want claim that somehow a near 40 year old Wladimir Klitschko was so special that he had such amazing footwork at such an old age, when no other past heavyweight great ever had such footwork at such an old age after such mileage. In other words, you are deliberately putting Wlad into a higher standard than any other past heavyweight great. Meaning, you are inadvertently admitting that Wladimir Klitschko is the greatest heavyweight of all time by holding him at such a special and unique standard, without even probably realizing this. And yet, pretty much all you do is bash Wladimir Klitschko.

And furthermore, weren't you the one who said that Wladimir Klitschko has poor footwork, as to the reason why he couldn't beat Alexander Povetkin without clinching? But now all of a sudden, at an even older age, with even more mileage, we are to believe that Wladimir Klitschko's good footwork is the reason why Fury could barely connect more than once every round (if even that), rather than remaining consistent and admitting the opposite, which is that instead of Wlad's footwork being great (the opposite of what you said about Wlad's footwork against Povetkin), Fury's offensive skills were poor as to the reason why he failed to connect much on Wladimir Klitschko.

You're exposing yourself as a hypocrite more and more with every post!

If Wlad's footwork is not that good, based on the fact that he had to constantly clinch Povetkin (your claim), why couldn't Fury just land punches at will on Wlad since Wlad was barely clinching Fury and his footwork isn't that good? Why is his footwork randomly good now when it wasn't before (against Povetkin)? How does footwork get better with age, when legs are pretty much the first things to go? You're incoherent and are all over the place!

Or just admit, that Wlad's footwork isn't that great (especially when he was 39+ years of age) but instead, it was due to Fury lacking offensive skills and talent as to why he failed to land as many punches as he should've on a 39+ year old past heavyweight great champion based on how other great heavyweights performed against past heavyweight great champs pushing 40. Admit that, so save all your integrity and credibility!

And I'm not arguing that Wlad figured out Fury in the 12 round or that he would've won the rematch. But that doesn't excuse Fury from ducking the rematch either. He still deserves criticism for that duck and deserves to be called a duck for that btch ass move.

 

Not adressed at me, but surely the quality of a fighter is the point when assessing the worth of a win over him.

 

There's no point here cos if you ask me about that fight id agree that Toney schooled Holyfield. Even if Holy was well past it , he still got schooled so where's the gotcha moment here? I can't see it.
The contradiction still lies with you as you prise one guy for schooling a past prime guy , but not another , because you're a big fan of the other guy who received the schooling so naturally you want to make excuses to compensate for the loss.

Wlad at 39 was in much better condition and had way more prime left in him than the versions of Tony and Holyfield you're referring to.

His 10 year reign featured no wars and the majority of his fights left little to no damage on him. If you want an analogy , Wlad had freeway miles , Holyfield had off-road miles.
Guys like Wlad who live the life all year around and take minimal damage in fights can maintain their prime for far longer.

Turning up in poor shape is how many guys lose their prime over night. Wlad was still in supreme physical condition when he fought Fury. Furthermore , yes Fury was 13 years younger at 27 which means he had yet to reach his own prime. He was both pre-prime and woefully inexperienced at championship level. And also took the fight in Wlads backyard so that kinda evens the playing field.

Again , there's no contradiction there as you are referencing past HWs , not me.. Do you understand the meaning of a contradiction ?

The footage shows Wlad has decent legs underneath him. To deny that Wlad had no legs against Fury would expose you as being dishonest. Wlad being energetic and having a spring in his step was testament to his commitment and extreme work ethic.

Yes , In terms of being able to stay in top condition for so long. Wlad was certainly one the most dedicated and hard working HWs of all time. There's a reason why everybody expected him to end his reign undefeated.

Stop misquoting me. If it wasn't for all the misquotes , you would never be able to call me out for contradicting myself. And this argument is completely ridiculous. You are well aware that Fury and Povetkin were completely different fights stylistically for Wlad , yet you present them as if they were the same cos you're so fixated in trying to catch me out.
For one , I never once mentioned anything about Wlad having good , great or poor footwork. I already explained this above. Secondly Povetkin's only strategy for Wlad was to apply pressure. Wlad doesn't cope with pressure very well so he would have been all over Povs back regardless of what age he was.
Fury's strategy was to out-box Wlad using range and movement so Wlad was never in any real need to hold on. Fury had to play it safe because he was smart enough to see that Wlad was still dynamic and reactive enough to catch him if he remained stationary for too long.
TWO years later Wlad proved to still be lethal to anybody who holds their feet long enough.

You haven't exposed anything here other than how you will mangle and distort everything i said in other to build a totally different narrative.
My main point - guys who are shot to pieces have no legs and are mostly totally washed up. They lose to guys they would normally beat with ease. Vitali ended his winning streak at 41 because his completion was well bellow Wlads. He wasn't shot to pieces retiring and neither was Wlad. Both past prime yes , but being shot is something else. Fury is just a bad match-up for Walds style and always would be.

 

Give up..

'Dethroning Briggs'.. LOL You can't compare those two wins.. Briggs wasnt considered the best HW back then.. he'd gotten stopped a year earlier by a bum & was coming off a MD win* to a near 50 yr old Foreman (who himself was lucky to win his last fight with Savarese!) that many thought he'd lost anyway.. Briggs got totally outlanded in that fight.. the crowd knew it & so did Foremans management, who filed a request for an investigation into the decision.. this is how good Briggs was back then: over the next couple of years he couldn't even legit beat Botha or bums like Sedrick Fields

Klitschko was a long reigning champion with 3 belts & favourite to win the fight. Beating Shannon Briggs will NEVER be on a par with beating someone like WK on points in Germany. You crazy..

 

What an idiotic post.

 

What part of that isn't true? Fury landed 90 punches against a 40 year old wlad and Wilder proved little at the championship level. Wilder is the Tommy Morrison of this generation if he retires today. Love fury but sorry he still has 0 wins as a champion and his resume mostly sucks

 

Definitely. It's easy to imagine Wlad and Wilder beating Lewis, actually KO'ing him cold. Sure they could lose too, but Lewis could definitely end up slumped against some ropes while all the castrated Englishmen cry their eyes out.

It's also tiresome to hear about Fury 'running' from Wlad. Wlad wouldn't risk leading very much so Fury did most of it even though he wanted openings to counter too. And in the final two rounds he stood toe to toe with Wlad. Did any Fury haters actually watch the fight or do they just repeat mythology ...

 

You guys are hilarious, great impression of guys who DKSAB

 

Fury was counterpunching but its hard to do when your opponent shits their pants and doesn't throw anything