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

You are too imbecilic to properly judge Fury's performances while fairly acknowledging the situations surrounding both fights prior to them happening. You come across as one of those typical "Unimpressive, I knew it all along!" morons. I won't indulge furtther with mental fruits like you. Have a great day.

 

There is no contradiction, because I've laid out my standard for what constitutes a 'schooling' or a 'masterclass'. James Toney:

1) Landed punches at will on Holyfield.

2) Physically damaged Holyfield badly

3) Stopped Holyfield.

Fury did none of those things. Ergo, Fury didn't 'school' Wlad or put in a 'masterclass' against Wlad. It's really that simple! So evidently, it's you that appears to not know what 'contradiction' means.

James Toney and Holyfield were both past their primes and were closer to each other in terms of mileage. Holyfield was only 6 years older but Toney had nearly 20 more fights. Meanwhile, Fury was 13 years younger than Wlad + had way less fights. No matter which way you try to twist this, are those situations comparable in terms of 'impressiveness'.

And your analogy is faulty. Decline and mileage isn't just based on 'wars' or 'tough fights'. Science has demonstrated that athletes decline as they age, in their late 30's. This includes reflexes, coordination, balance and etc. So to somehow pretend that an old Wlad didn't decline, despite being in his late 30's, because of his appearance, shows ignorance on your behalf.

Also, mileage can come in form of training camps as well. Wlad had been boxing for 2 decades. There's something called 'wear and tear' that accumulates as an athlete trains throughout his career. overtime, the body becomes more and more fragile, especially the joints through continuous trainng. So again, you're exposing your ignorance here. The fact that Wladimir was injured, and had to postpone his fight against Fury, further confirms this point. Athletes get injured more frequently when they grow older.

And Fury has shown nothing suggesting he's improved since he fought Wladimir Klitschko. So a 'mythical' prime for Fury hasn't come-up yet. So no, that doesn't 'even the playing field'. Considering historically, great 27 year old boxers or younger, pretty much nearly always destroy their 39+ year old past-prime former great heavyweight champion. Fury at 27 beating 39 year old Wlad is nothing special and was something he was expected to do, if he were to even qualify as a future 'great'. But the low-margin of win is what made Fury less spectacular than how he is currently being rated. If he was as great as being claimed, he should've landed way more punches and damaged Wladimir way more.

Claiming I'm contradicting myself, when you stated the following:

The same fanboys also say Wlad figured out Fury in the 12th , but that contradicts the shot the bits excuse , cos when your shot your shot , you don't suddenly become unshot in the 12th round.

And

The same goes for the rematch. Wlad was shot to bits , but he would have turned it up in the rematch.

Now can you pinpoint where I said any of those things in this thread? Otherwise, evidently it is you who doesn't know what 'contradiction' means as I stated no such thing.

cos you can't cope with the fact the Fury schooled the guy you think is the #1 HW of all time.

Oh, really? Is it me that thinks that? Or are you just projecting, because deep-down, that's what you think, since you can't help but put Wlad at a higher standard and pedestal than everyone else? You're inadvertently (or intentionally) letting slip a lot of your beliefs.

And if Fury is as good as being claimed, then why wasn't his footwork that much better than a 39 year old Wlad's so that he could land more damaging punches? The only one making excuses here is you. Poor Fury, at his prime years, he could barely land a glove on one of the oldest and most declined version of Wladimir Klitschko because of Wlad's MAGNIFICENT footwork. But yet, Wlad is supposedly a clincher and was exposed against Bryant Jennings because he couldn't clinch. Well, he barely clinched against Fury. So what excuse do you have for Fury looking pathetically inaccurate against 39 year old Wlad, despite Wlad not clinching? And if it's Wlad's AMAZING footwork all of a sudden, then he must have the greatest footwork of all time, right?

If Fury is as good as being claimed and rated, then his footwork would've been that much better than a 39 year old Wlad's that he would've been able to land punches at will, and totally obliterate Wladimir Klitschko as he should've, in the same way other young great heavyweights were destroying such old past-prime former heavyweight great champs like Mike Tyson did against Larry Holmes as just one example.

So no, it's not 'dishonesty' for me to claim that Fury looked the least overwhelming at beating a past-prime 39+ year old former heavyweight great, compared to other boxers his age-range against a similar type of opponent. And claiming Wlad somehow had great footwork as to justify this, is nothing but an excuse. The real reason should be because a young Fury had poorer footwork than is being rated.

And don't talk to me about prime, when age 27 is the prime for a boxer's footwork and foot-speed. Footwork doesn't get better after age 30. And in his prime-years, Fury's footwork was massively exposed. Deal with it!

And also, if Wlad wasn't shot, he wouldn't have retired. The fact that he did, means he was. Plain and simple!

 

That's because if Wilder is mediocre and Wlad is old at 40 and not prime than Fury's resume is garbage lol
But Wlad is prime at 40 and Wilder is better then George Foreman

 

Total ignorance! Beating Wlad was a learning experience. You develop , grow from and gain experience from fights like that , plus confidence and composure is gained from fighting on a stage of that magnitude.

You think he plateaued in the Christian Hammer/Klitschko fights and has or will never get better ?? You ignorant fool!

He looked like a completely different fighter in the Wilder rematch. . Not only has he gotten better with age and maturity , but he has also made changes to his training , weight and diet.
His power has improved , his jab is straighter and stiffer. He looks physically stronger. The Kronk style of fighting seems to suit him better than the style that was thought to him by Peter Fury. He is very clearly much better and more well rounded now than he was 5 years ago.

All of what you post is nonsense . . Dishonest and silly hypothetical situations is the extent of your posting ability.

Was Klitschko prime when he lost to Ross Purrity , cos he was 27 in that fight?

 

So the fact he didn't retire after the Fury loss means he wasn't shot , yeah?? You MORON!!

 

To be fair Wlad wasn't that shot after 2 years out after Fury beat him. I still believe if Wlad stepped on AJ when he folded him like a deckchair he would have stopped him, people wouldn't be saying he was shot if he beat Joshua. Wlad still had something in the tank when he retired.
He is talking of a comeback and to be honest if he came back now he would beat pretty much anyone outside the top 5 a shot fighter couldn't do that.
The performance against Joshua showed me my opinion that he was Shot in the Fury fight was incorrect.

 

Wlad is a smart guy and not the type to enter a ring if he had nothing left. Past prime but not shot. There's nothing at all left in a fighter when they are shot.

 

If he came back now he would lose to anyone in top 20. He looked shot vs Fury and totally shot vs Joshua.

 

Shot fighter goes 11 rounds in a FOTY candidate with the current prime unified heavyweight champ also dropping him heavily in the process after also being out of the ring 2 years....... OK my friend totally shot OK
Furys win over Wlad is a very very underrated win Wlad was not shot way past prime but definitely not shot (after the fight i did think he was shot myself).

 

Other than beating Fury, why couldn’t Morrison have followed Wilder’s timeline?

 

I always feel that when someone resorts to name-calling it's because they're losing the argument?

 

He didn’t.

Fury’s style made him hesitant.

He wasn’t shot against AJ either. He just chose the wrong tactics.

Past prime and shot are two completely different things.

 

Name calling barely accounted for a fraction of my posts to that guy.

 

He was in his 40s lol
Against Fury 3 month to 40.
When in history of boxing fighters were not old and shot at this age? Most are already long time retired. However, according to you guys laws of nature do not apply to Wladimir Klitschko. Just because if laws of nature did apply to him Fury would have a **** resume.