Why didn’t AJ land a massive left hook on Usyk

Simple question for you: why did Fury say these things on record? Since basically you state “it was obvious to see that’s not what was happening in the ring”, you accuse him of lying.

Lol, okay. Now, could you just enlighten us why would he do such a thing? What could he possibly gain by saying something that you are adamant it was a lie? Why lie about the mighty Cunningham (lol)? What’s the angle? I’m all ears, mate.

 

Hip hip hooray

 

Fury lies all the time, even in the same interview he'll contradict himself. It may be tactical, pathological, come from a desire to entertain his audience, to endear himself to the audience through false modesty or some other reason but it's a persistent theme for anyone with basic knowledge of him.

Why else would Fury lie here? Possibly to take credit away from Wlad, who Fury dislikes. Possibly to draw attention away from McDermott 1; a 10 round distance war against a British level veteran, toward a fight with a 2x cruiser champ who was only stopped once in 40 fights, by Fury, in 7 rounds, on away soil.

Whatever Fury's motivation for lying may be, we can see from the fight itself that what he's saying isn't accurate. The only round that Fury boxed at distance with Cunningham was round 1, which Fury won clearly. He got caught squaring up at the start of the 2nd and hunted Cunningham down every round after that. The American judges had it 3-3, 3-3 and 4-2 Fury, though there was obviously the KD and point deduction for sticking his head in but the narrative that Cunningham was outboxing Fury, let alone schooling him, is just that: a narrative.

 

You do realise that this whole mental gymnastics doesn’t look too solid when applying Occam’s razor, right?

 

It's known that fighters hype their opponents up after beating them, like how Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali hypes hyped up Earnie Shavers after beating him and called him the hardest puncher and all that. Which sounds better, A. I beat a complete nobody, it was easy. Or B. I beat an elusive hard hitting fellow, he was sooo good.

It's sort of disappointing to have to be writing this stuff, you must be a pretty young person.

 

The problems with AJ unable to beat Usyk:
1. Poor cardio
2. He's slow, but that also relates to the first one

Watching their second fight especially, AJ tried many good punches and counters, but they were delayed just because he's slow.

 

What a load of cobblers. It's not about hyping up opponents in general, it's about constantly and repeatedly referring to one specific journeyman as his hardest fight ever. He specifically referred to how dealing with Cunningham was harder for him than anything else in his career. He never bigged Pajkic up like that who was the first to put him on the canvas. He never bigged Wilder up like that, he never called him the hardest fight of his life (on the contrary) - even though based on your poorly constructed argument, he should have. He never bigged Klitschko up like that - even though based on your poorly constructed argument, he should have. He has been talking specifically and solely about Cunningham for years how that was the toughest fight of his life, amateur or professional.

You must have problems with basic logic and critical thinking for trying to throw in arguments as easily refutable as that.

 

Ofcourse my little friend

 

So you don't have anything meaningful to reply. It's okay, mate. You threw in a poor argument, and it was picked apart. Don't dwell on it, it happens.

 

5 times 1 for each belt "how many belts you got now?"

 

"Fury said it, therefore he believes it/it's true"

"Fury often lies, therefore he may well be lying"

Which is the simplest explanation? And regardless of which one is simpler (if one is), why is the simpler explanation inherently superior?

 

"Journeyman"

Cunningham was a 2x cruiser champ with 9 world title fights and was still holding his own while challenging for a world title 3 years post-Fury.

"He never bigged Pajkic up like that"

Pajkic won a single round and got stopped in 3, Cunningham won 3 rounds and got stopped in 7. Only a moron can't see the difference there.

"He never bigged Wilder up like that"

You're entirely unconcerned with facts. Fury's said that Wilder gave him "one of the toughest fights he could ever have", that Wilder was his best opponent beaten (above Klitschko, with Cunningham below Chisora and Wallin but above Whyte) and that Wilder beats the rest of the division comfortably.

I've never heard Fury bigging McDermott up much. I guess that wasn't such a hard fight, Occam's razor.

 

Ye gods. It's not the first time you display sever comprehension problems.

"Cunningham was a 2x cruiser champ with 9 world title fights and was still holding his own while challenging for a world title 3 years post-Fury."

Who the hell cares about his CW career? We are talking about the heavyweight division here and Cunningham was a textbook journeyman as a heavyweight.

"Pajkic won a single round and got stopped in 3,"

Once again: context. Pajkic put Fury on his arse, and your fellow Fury stan argued that fighters always big their opponents up after they defeated them, and that's the only reason why he "bigged up" Cunningham (only he didn't simply big Cunningham up - he keeps referring to him as his single hardest fight ever - only a moron can't see the difference there). Going by his logic, Fury should big Pajkic up as a great victory after having to overcome being put on the canvas for the first time in his professional career.

"Fury's said that Wilder gave him "one of the toughest fights he could ever have", that Wilder was his best opponent beaten"

For starters, Fury also said: “To be honest I was quite disappointed in the challenge that Wilder brought. Because I did train for 12 rounds at any pace and put myself through hell and back for ten weeks in the training camp. And I prepared for the best fighter on the planet, I prepared for the most vicious puncher on the Earth that there’s ever been. And I was quite disappointed because it wasn’t the challenge that I expected.”

But then again, it's like you are unable to read. We are talking about who Fury claimed to be his toughest opponent. Fury never claimed Wilder gave him his toughest fight. Best opponent =/= toughest fight. Really, mate. Basic comprehension.

"I've never heard Fury bigging McDermott up much. I guess that wasn't such a hard fight, Occam's razor."

Oh, dear. This is worrying now. Read this slowly so maybe it'll be easier to digest: you are having it backwards. It's your fellow Fury stan's argument that you are trying to make it look like it was my argument. It was your fellow Fury stan who argued that fighters just habitually bigged their opponents up after beating them, not me. I stated the opposite: that Fury keeps talking about Cunningham being his toughest fight ever not because that's just what boxers habitually do when talking about any old opponent, but because Cunningham was indeed his toughest fight. You know, Occam's razor.

I must say the attention you pay to me is flattering, but please understand, while I'm all for helping out others who are intellectually challenged, I can't always be here for you to help you out, mate.

 

Because he can't really fight