Whyte gonna give Fury that rurk..

Ya Tarkin Rubbish Man

 

Wlad was gunshy because Fury made him gunshy. Fury was always moving, feinting and throwing, Wlad was waiting for Fury to slow down so that he could land. But Fury didn't slow down, so A-side Wlad lost 8-4/9-3 on his own judges scorecards in Germany, with them failing to give him even ONE round unanimously. Realistically Wlad won fewer rounds than he was given and was reduced to a historically low number of punches landed in a 12 round heavyweight fight. Find me a better victorious 12 round defensive performance at HW before you try to discredit Fury's. Against AJ, a 41+, 17 months inactive, defeated in his last fight Wlad threw and landed a lot more punches. Had Fury just stood in front of him, Wlad would have thrown and landed a lot more on Fury.

The Jennings fight was barely any different to the Thompson 1 fight or the Sultan fight. Wlad was a 1/14 favourite, expected to demolish Jennings as he did Pulev but he didn't and wasn't allowed to hold, so people weren't impressed, as they hadn't been on many occasions during Wlad's reign. They wanted to see KO's, not Wlad winning 9/10 rounds on the scorecards and taking little damage. Despite Jennings' speed, reach, toughness and awkward style, it was a very comfortable win, far some comfortable than top contender Joe Joyce's effort in Britain.

Aside from Thompson, Pulev dominated Chisora in Britain and Hughie in Bulgaria. You'll probably say "they're crap" but by what standard? It's meaningless without context (as is your claim that Wlad is overrated: maybe he is but compared to who?) Their performances against apparent top contenders Whyte and Parker make clear that they are on a very similar level. Whyte notably avoided Pulev because he saw what happened to Chisora. A similar Pulev to the one that 38.5 year old Wlad demolished in 5 rounds.

My claim is that AJ's record has aged badly, not that it's a bad record per se. Only a few men at heavyweight currently have better records and have proven themselves to be better fighters. I have never claimed that AJ is "rubbish", it would be nonsense hyperbole and trolling if I did.

Even Wilder's worst title defences Molina and Breazeale were somewhere in the top 30 at the time, you can't go swimming and not get wet. But relative to say, Chisora, Ruiz or Whyte in their fights, how much damage did Wilder take in his defences?

Ruiz hadn't fought in 15 months, 40+ Arreola hadn't fought in 21. Don't give me this revisionist "it's almost impossible for Ruiz to have a good performance" malarkey, EVERYONE was picking him to win by KO over the "beyond shot to bits" Cristobal. Arreola was no world beater but he was a "top 10" heavyweight in his day and one of Vitali's best defences. If you were able to school/KO him as Stiverne did twice, it was notable. Stiverne was coming off his two best career performances when he fought Wilder, he was in his absolute prime but took a bad schooling and beating and got depressed, suffering prolonged bouts of inactivity.

Szpilka wasn't "arguably winning every round" lol, again more nonsense hyperbole. It was a close fight on points that far more had Wilder winning than losing, before Wilder landed and sent him out on a stretcher [url]https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/deontay-wilder-vs-artur-szpilka[/url]

It's irrelevant whether Szpilka "looked like a cruiser". Cruisers have significant advantages over heavyweights and have got some notable scalps in the division, most recently AJ.

I could say "Larry Holmes doesn't have a good record" but as always it's "good compared to who/what?" And what are all of the criteria for judging a record? If we omit the pre-Klitschko eras because of the problem of bias, how many HW boxers have better records than Wilder? You can count them on one hand and still have room for Wilder.