Comments Thread For: Fury: No Need to Mention Wilder Since I Beat Klitschko

[Fury4daWIN]

Why do people keep talking about how "athletic" Wilder is?

Wilder isn't athletic. He's a big gangly uncoordinated idiot who took thirty fights to learn how to throw a jab properly. He still falls over his own feet when throwing power punches and continues to make the same elementary mistakes over and over again, with no sign of improvement. Those aren't athletic traits. Wilder is fast and explosive. That's it. He has an extremely limited ability to take what he learns in the gym and apply it to his own neural pathways.

Lest people feel I'm unfairly criticising Americans here, let it be know that I consider Jennings to be an excellent athlete and a true natural born fighter. In half the fights Wilder had he was already fighting the likes of Perez and Klitschko. This was with virtually no amateur experience and having joined the sport at a later age than Wilder did. He also continues to show marked improvements in every fight while Wilder shows very little progress at all.

Wilder is an athlete only in the most shallow sense of the term.

[Drunken Cat]

That is an example that everyone who knows a bit about boxing should know. Duran is crude he won't stand a chance against Slick Ray Leonard~ Or I will use lumbering oaf Fury won't be able to outbox the more technically sound Wladimir (who was also a gold medalist).

If you don't know that then you obviously know less than me, you said that yourself. Don't be mad at me for pointing something out based on what you said.

Fury ain't that good, so saying Wilder will kill him isn't saying that much. You don't know anything until you see the fight~

I know a Foreman was an underdog. I disagree with your analogy.

[The Gambler1981]

I know a Foreman was an underdog. I disagree with your analogy.

It is why Foreman was the underdog, he was untested, crude looking and relied on his power. Frazier was coming off the biggest win of his career against a great boxer so there was no way this crude looking untested brawler would beat him.

That is the exact argument you are using really. Except Fury is also no Frazier so Wilder doesn't need to be Foreman.

It has happened before it will happen again~

[Drunken Cat]

It is why Foreman was the underdog, he was untested, crude looking and relied on his power. Frazier was coming off the biggest win of his career against a great boxer so there was no way this crude looking untested brawler would beat him.

That is the exact argument you are using really. Except Fury is also no Frazier so Wilder doesn't need to be Foreman.

It has happened before it will happen again~

No it is you who created the absurd analogy. We know now that Foreman was a great heavyweight. Therefore Wilder is destined to be.

Completely ridiculous line of argument devoid of any critical thinking.

Foreman-Frazier is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation about Fury-Wilder.

[The Gambler1981]

No it is you who created the absurd analogy. We know now that Foreman was a great heavyweight. Therefore Wilder is destined to be.

Completely ridiculous line of argument devoid of any critical thinking.

Foreman-Frazier is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation about Fury-Wilder.

No an argument devoid of critical thinking is, that guy sucks he is a fraud without saying anything else. That is just mouthing off.

Fury can be hit, Fury is not some master boxer and Wilder is long and aggressive with power. I have backed up everything I have said. The fact that you think I am saying one is equal to the other also show a lack of understanding, it is just how they are thought of by their detractors without really giving it any real thought.

Wilder isn't destined to be anything except beat Fury which doesn't make him great, he just has the proper tools for the job.