about 40yrs old werent he? and slightly shorter than wlad with no stamina. and i like tony, but he was always old.
Why? I'd have favoured the young versions of Wlad who actually lost to the likes of Sanders. Because he was much more aggressive, he was more confident, and he had a bigger repertoire of shots. I think that version was more dangerous. Now of course the prime version of Wlad could also have beaten Fury. But I don't see how it's crazy to say that he wouldn't have. The prime version of Wlad was ultra cautious who relied heavily on 2-3 shots. Tyson would always have been bigger (obviously) and he'd always have been much more confident. He could always have broke him mentally and taken away the great advantages that Wlad enjoyed over most of his other opponents. It would always have been a bad match up stylistically. Wlad has said that he was embarrassed by his performance in the first fight and he's going to let his hands go more in the rematch. But why couldn't he let his hands go in the first fight? Why didn't he change tactics? Why could he not execute Banks' instructions? The answer is because of a mental block. It was all psychological. Nothing else. I don't buy that Tyson beat him just because he was shot. I think that line of thinking is complete nonsense. There is no reason why Tyson couldn't have gotten the same result against the version of Wlad that fought Haye in 2011. I don't think people realise just how much the mental side of things comes into play. Cus D'Amato always used to say that boxing was more mental than it was physical.
Andrew, This is the finest post I've ever seen of yours. An outstanding breakdown. I agree entirely. A prime version of Wlad could have beaten Tyson, but it's absolutely laughable to say that Tyson couldn't have beaten him too.
So you think that's the only reason he lost? If the prime version of Wlad was as great as a lot of people claim, then he'd have destroyed a guy like Haye. Wlad has always been cautious after the knockouts, and there's no reason why Tyson couldn't have gotten into his head before the fight and then feinted with him in the ring making him reluctant to let his hands go, just like how it played out in their fight last year. I think it's very naive to think that Wlad only lost that fight due to his age.
In my opinion, you need to be giving Tyson more credit. I don't think he beat him just because he was shot.
I always said when Klitchko fights a guy around his height who can box, he'll have problems. Fury gives anybody problems, because of his size and reasonably solid boxing ability.
Fury beat a 80% Wlad 11-1 If Wlad was 100% it would probably be 9-3, 8-4 If wlad threw enough to actually win he would get countered and ktfo in the process
Guess Roy Jones wasn't as great in his Prime either since he was destroyed by Tarver and Jones was 4 years younger than Wlad and Fury didn't come close to sparking Wlad out. Fury landed 7 punches a round. Lets not pretend like this was some Calzaghe-Lacy type schooling. It was a joke of a fight and if Fury had any power he should have been able to get Wlad out of there. Wlad stood there in front of Fury and threw nothing back at him yet Fury was reluctant/scared to engage. That says a lot.
:rofl Fury hasn't ever KTFO anyone in his whole career. His best KO is Cunningham who is a Glass Jawed Cruiserweight and Fury had to foul him like crazy to get him out of there. Fury is feather fisted he punches like a middleweight for his size.
Otherwise fairly good post, but you pulled the bolded line from your ass. Old Wlad proved himself impenetrable to smaller fighters, there was never any real indication he would be vulnerable to someone he could exert a big height advantage on.