Tyson Fury could barely land a glove on Wladimir Klitschko? Where exactly was the masterclass?

Klitshko had never been out boxed before. He had adopted the jab and grab style to perfection which eliminated the chances to one punch ko him, he had 18 successful title defences before Fury dethroned him. This performance cannot be under estimated

 

Fury had Wlad's knees sagging and Wlad was flopping all over the place at one point, had to resort to illegal tactics.
So it's wrong to say Fury landed no hurtful punches.

 

Not only did he easily beat Wlad in Wlad land, he out Wladed Wlad.

Pretty impressive stuff.

 

Got to love all the hate going around here on ESB Thank you! Bitter people always put a smile on my face.
All hail King Fury!

 

What were the pre-fight odds? Anyone know?

 

Fury was no better than 3/1 underdog.
Maybe 7/2 or 4/1 underdog.

 

Ok, thanks. To put it into perspective, Buster Douglas was a 42-1 underdog vs Mike Tyson.
In no way, shape or form could Furys win over Wlad be called a "historic " win. He deserves some credit for a boring, defensive, win over a faded, over the hill 40yr old champ (who is vilified constantly in this forum) in his home town.

But historic? Only to Fury nut kickers, like his two wins, and 4 (Four) knockdowns against a "bum", "loser", "he can't box", dossier, tosser, shithead, craphouse Wilder.

Fury has only 1 win on his record that will look good on paper in the years to come. No, I'm not referring to Sefer Seferi, or to Pianta, Wallin or Schwartz, but to the Wlad victory. Defeat Usyk and we'll revisit his resume.

 

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.. No point wasting comments on you

 

If you can't deal with the facts, maybe this forum is not for you my friend.

 

To put it into perspective, Mike was out partying all night with his pockets full of 8-balls...

 

You keep thinking that in that fictional world of yours.

My point is :
Scoring the fight I had 7-5 or 8-4 Fury. And many of the rounds Fury won were won by 1 or 2 scruffy not quite fully connecting jabs and 1 or 2 inside glove/forearm slaps. Hence not a dominant victory or impressive...this all against a 40yo who looked unimpressive himself the fight prior.

And all the above remains true whether you like it or not. If you actually were to go back and see what lands and does not you'd realise you don't know what you're talking about and are just flat out wrong.

 

Yes it's well known that hundreds of Japanese women reported injuries to their private parts during Mike's visit to Japan.

 

I don't think a win over a 40 year old is historic. He would lose sooner or later. Fury was at the right place at the right time.
I don't know who thinks that Wlad at this age would continue winning.

 

It was a good win but not historic or mindblowing.

Fact is Wlad had been noticably slowing down for a while and I hold the Jennings fight up as an example. He won that handily enough but Jennings made him work hard for it and it should not have been even competitive. Then there are the well known issues with Wlad's wife who was depressed and suicidal at home with their newborn. He had a terrible camp and it showed. We've all seen Fury go life and death with guys when he has bad camps so why should it be a surprise when Wlad has a poor performance after a bad camp?

Finally it was by no means 'dominant'. Dominant is when you look at the fight and think 'yeah, there's no way I can see the other guy winning." When the difference between sweeping the fight and losing is something like 2 punches per round, I can very much see a way for the other fighter to win.

Fury could also see Wlad winning the rematch, which is why he ducked it.

 

It's a good win on paper, but his performance didn't deliver. He played it safe, outhought Klitschko & got the W. It wasn't pretty or entertaining, but it was effective - and that's all that matters.