That doesn't answer the question. Just because Klit was heavily favored to win is no indication that he was prime and nor does it answer exactly WHO felt he was at his pinnacle. As per your claim that he looked less impressive than Fury against Derick here is a possible explanation for your personal interest copied from the boxrec archive.. Enjoy !! Klitschko suffered a torn ligament in his left shoulder in the third round. The injury also left him unable to use his best weapon -- the jab -- with any serious impact. Instead, Klitschko took Chisora apart with right hand after right hand in a fight televised in the United States on Epix.
Okay. So despite being presented with documented FACT that Vitali was 40 years of age, on the comeback trail, in the last couple fights of his career AND fighting injured, you STILL believe that Fury looking SLIGHTLY more impressive against Chisora holds any relevance??? Furthermore, you think that despite such facts that Vitali was prime??
Vitali was38 when he beat Johnson and 41 when he beat Chisora, lets not pretend he was still prime here.
You said he was unranked. And I clearly proved you wrong by pointing out that he was definitely ranked and by the very same organization who Vitali's title belonged to.
I said he was not a top tenner. Which he wasn't.. Who gives a rats ass about alphabet rankings.. That means NOTHING. Martin was not a top tenner and he was the IBF WORLD CHAMPION
I don't think Fury improved much as time went on and he only had 25 pro fights total anyway. As for your claim about Chisora injuring Vitali do you have anything to prove it?