Why did dethroned, 17 month older, inactive, away Wlad at 41 do so much better against AJ than Fury?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by NEETzschean, Aug 15, 2021.


Why?

Poll closed Aug 22, 2021.
  1. Quality (27 year old Fury was a lot better than 27 year old AJ)

    23.3%
  2. Styles (AJ's style was much easier for Wlad to deal with/AJ found it hard to deal with Wlad's style)

    53.5%
  3. Motivation (Wlad was bored after 22 defences and didn't see the mocking contender Fury as a threat)

    32.6%
  4. Some other factor or combination of factors (post below)

    11.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. NEETzschean

    NEETzschean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    1,834
    1,468
    Feb 23, 2021
    > slightly better version of AJ

    Wlad had a far bigger punch, far better offensive/defensive skills, far more experience and far more athleticism. Even when inactive at 41 he still had a clear footspeed advantage over 27.5 year old AJ.
     
  2. f1ght3rz

    f1ght3rz Ronaldoooo is crying in his caaaaaar Full Member

    17,693
    21,286
    Jan 31, 2018
    I agree. Prime Wlad was a much better version of AJ. On paper at least. We never saw him fighting AJ in his prime so i used the term "slightly" because AJ still beat Wlad and has that W. Footwork is a good point though. AJs footwork is abysmal. It's Wilder level. Slightly better maybe.
     
    NEETzschean likes this.
  3. NEETzschean

    NEETzschean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    1,834
    1,468
    Feb 23, 2021
    If Wlad had more killer instinct (which was always a failing of his but his superior skill and athleticism typically made up for it) he would have starched AJ in 6. The caution probably allowed him to go 22 fights unbeaten with 18 consecutive defences, with most of those opponents better than Andy Ruiz, but it cost him dearly in the end.
     
  4. NEETzschean

    NEETzschean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    1,834
    1,468
    Feb 23, 2021
    lmao