Is Tyson Fury the weakest puncher pound for pound of the last 4 years?

[removed]

How do any of those things follow to the conclusion that therefore, Wladimir Klitschko couldn't be the best / greatest heavyweight of all time.

The position of Wlad being the greatest / best heavyweight of all time is based on his accomplishments. Out of 69 bouts, all you can do is list a few losses and somehow that is supposed to mean anything?

Also, Fury was barely able to land a glove on Wlad for most parts of their bout. Don't worry, I'm going to create a thread to prove how that bout should've been a draw at best for Fury. 'Schooling' DOE.

Create as many threads as you like, people will just carry on laughing at you.

Anyway, what accomplishments?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Create as many threads as you like, people will just carry on laughing at you.

Anyway, what accomplishments?

Create as many threads as you like, people will just carry on laughing at you.

My threads aren't about me. My threads are about the arguments I share. Ergo, I could care less if people (or even aliens for that matter) laugh at me without having any justifiable reasons to. It only gives a negative indication of them and not me.

Anyway, what accomplishments?

I've already written them. I guess I'll have to copy and paste them.

Here it goes:

1) Being the best /greatest heavyweight champion means to be better than all other heavyweight champions.

2) Being better than all other heavyweight champions means having a better record in championship bouts in relation to the objective of boxing (winning more bouts, getting hit less by the opponent (defensive abilities), landing more effective punches on the opponent (offensive abilities), winning more rounds (combination of offensive and defensive abilities), winning bouts quicker (offensive abilities) and so forth so on).

3) Wladimir Klitschko has the best record out of all heavyweight champions because he has more wins in championship bouts (most proven due to highest consistency), has the highest knockout percentage in championship bouts compared to any past heavyweight champion (best offensive skills), has lost fewer rounds compared to any past heavyweight champion (best offensive and defensive skills), has knocked out more previously unbeaten and UN-KO'ed opponents compared to any past heavyweight champion in history (most proven against the best level of opposition showing the best offensive skills against them) and so forth so on. I can continue listing even more accomplishments but the point is pretty clear!

I challenge you to refute my argument for why Wladimir Klitschko isn't the greatest heavyweight of all time and make a fact based, objective and logical argument to demonstrate how any other heavyweight champion is greater than Wladimir Klitschko or the greatest overall! Somehow I doubt you can do that.

[removed]

My threads aren't about me. My threads are about the arguments I share. Ergo, I could care less if people (or even aliens for that matter) laugh at me without having any justifiable reasons to. It only gives a negative indication of them and not me.



I've already written them. I guess I'll have to copy and paste them.

Here it goes:

1) Being the best /greatest heavyweight champion means to be better than all other heavyweight champions.

2) Being better than all other heavyweight champions means having a better record in championship bouts in relation to the objective of boxing (winning more bouts, getting hit less by the opponent (defensive abilities), landing more effective punches on the opponent (offensive abilities), winning more rounds (combination of offensive and defensive abilities), winning bouts quicker (offensive abilities) and so forth so on).

3) Wladimir Klitschko has the best record out of all heavyweight champions because he has more wins in championship bouts (most proven due to highest consistency), has the highest knockout percentage in championship bouts compared to any past heavyweight champion (best offensive skills), has lost fewer rounds compared to any past heavyweight champion (best offensive and defensive skills), has knocked out more previously unbeaten and UN-KO'ed opponents compared to any past heavyweight champion in history (most proven against the best level of opposition showing the best offensive skills against them) and so forth so on. I can continue listing even more accomplishments but the point is pretty clear!

I challenge you to refute my argument for why Wladimir Klitschko isn't the greatest heavyweight of all time and make a fact based, objective and logical argument to demonstrate how any other heavyweight champion is greater than Wladimir Klitschko or the greatest overall! Somehow I doubt you can do that.

Haha, Wladimir knocked out a load of bums, who is his best win? Pulev? lol

I cba writing a massive load of text, so i'll let Fury go over Wlad's resume for you.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Haha, Wladimir knocked out a load of bums, who is his best win? Pulev? lol

I cba writing a massive load of text, so i'll let Fury go over Wlad's resume for you.

Haha, Wladimir knocked out a load of bums, who is his best win? Pulev?

Define 'bum' and 'best win'.

I cba writing a massive load of text, so i'll let Fury go over Wlad's resume for you.

Unfortunately, what Fury has done to diminish Wladimir Klitschko's career is something that anybody can do to any boxer's career. Most of it is subjective and is based on personal opinion = not fact!

Furthermore, some of what Fury said is even flat out false. 'Carefully selected opponents'? Like who? Who exactly did Wlad duck or avoid that he could've fought against inside the boxing ring? If that was the case, then why would he have boxed against Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury himself when he was around the age of 40? Wouldn't he have avoided them? If you don't realize the falsehood in that claim of Tyson Fury, then you are ******ed.

How about you actually prove (using factual evidence) which heavyweight champion is better / greater than Wladimir Klitschko or who the best / greatest overall heavyweight champion is? Can you do that? Statistically, Wladimir Klitschko's heavyweight record in championship bouts is the best and this is a fact! The numbers prove this. The numbers don't lie. People lie with their mouths practically all the time but arithmetic = fact = irrefutable.

My position is supported by those FACTS!

[removed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by denium

Haha, Wladimir knocked out a load of bums, who is his best win? Pulev? lol

I cba writing a massive load of text, so i'll let Fury go over Wlad's resume for you.


Quote:

Haha, Wladimir knocked out a load of bums, who is his best win? Pulev?

Define 'bum' and 'best win'.

Quote:

I cba writing a massive load of text, so i'll let Fury go over Wlad's resume for you.

Unfortunately, what Fury has done to diminish Wladimir Klitschko's career is something that anybody can do to any boxer's career. Most of it is subjective and is based on personal opinion = not fact!

Furthermore, some of what Fury said is even flat out false. 'Carefully selected opponents'? Like who? Who exactly did Wlad duck or avoid that he could've fought against inside the boxing ring? If that was the case, then why would he have boxed against Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury himself when he was around the age of 40? Wouldn't he have avoided them? If you don't realize the falsehood in that claim of Tyson Fury, then you are ******ed.

How about you actually prove (using factual evidence) which heavyweight champion is better / greater than Wladimir Klitschko or who the best / greatest overall heavyweight champion is? Can you do that? Statistically, Wladimir Klitschko's heavyweight record in championship bouts is the best and this is a fact! The numbers prove this. The numbers don't lie. People lie with their mouths practically all the time but arithmetic = fact = irrefutable.

My position is supported by those FACTS!

Wow, you really are a complete and utter spastic. It's easy to twist stats and figures to suit an agenda.

Wlad fought in one of the weakest eras, and the vast, vast majority of his opponents were rubbish, that's a fact. Name me one HOF fighter that Wladimir defeated. Wlad was the best HW of this era I'll give you that, but the greatest of all time? Forget about it.


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

[Mr Objecitivity]

Wow, you really are a complete and utter spastic. It's easy to twist stats and figures to suit an agenda.

Wlad fought in one of the weakest eras, and the vast, vast majority of his opponents were rubbish, that's a fact. Name me one HOF fighter that Wladimir defeated. Wlad was the best HW of this era I'll give you that, but the greatest of all time? Forget about it.


Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

Wow, you really are a complete and utter spastic. It's easy to twist stats and figures to suit an agenda.

Stats = facts. Facts = reality. If you have a problem with facts, you have a problem with reality. If you have a problem with reality, it is you who is the 'utter spastic'.

Go ahead and present your own factual evidence if you can. Why aren't you? If you can present your own statistics or factual evidence for your claims, then go ahead! I'll wait!

Wlad fought in one of the weakest eras

Unsubstantiated claim = not fact = opinion.

and the vast, vast majority of his opponents were rubbish, that's a fact.

Not a fact unless you can substantiate / prove that claim.

Name me one HOF fighter that Wladimir defeated.

HOF selected boxers are subjectively selected. As in, they are not based on fact. Ergo, irrelevant from an objective standpoint!

Wlad was the best HW of this era I'll give you that, but the greatest of all time? Forget about it.

Go ahead and feel free to present fact based evidence of a boxer who is a better heavyweight champion than Wladimir Klitschko. Are you going to do so?

[removed]

Stats = facts. Facts = reality. If you have a problem with facts, you have a problem with reality. If you have a problem with reality, it is you who is the 'utter spastic'.

Go ahead and present your own factual evidence if you can. Why aren't you? If you can present your own statistics or factual evidence for your claims, then go ahead! I'll wait!




Unsubstantiated claim = not fact = opinion.



Not a fact unless you can substantiate / prove that claim.



HOF selected boxers are subjectively selected. As in, they are not based on fact. Ergo, irrelevant from an objective standpoint!



Go ahead and feel free to present fact based evidence of a boxer who is a better heavyweight champion than Wladimir Klitschko. Are you going to do so?

[alexguiness]

Wladimir Klitschko's reflexes and movement (even at age 40) are just as good, if not better than Fury's. The only difference is that he isn't as flashy / flamboyant. Fury's movement is so far below Wlad's movement when Wlad was in his early 30's, that it isn't even comparable.

Wlad is a natural boxer who can actually knock opponents out. In the heavyweight division when someone like Fury outsizes as many opponents as he does. It's near embarrassing, shameful, pathetic and disgraceful for him not being able to KO opponents that are much smaller in size. Especially when natural cruiserweights like David Haye have better KO records at heavyweight, despite being significantly smaller in size.

It's one thing for someone like Mayweather not being able to KO much heavier and bigger sized opponents at welterweight. It's a total disgrace for someone like Fury being unable to stop opponents as frequently as he's supposed to when he outsizes every opponent.

Being a natural boxer doesn't mean one should lack the offensive skills to knock opponents out more frequently. Especially when one is almost always bigger in size, compared to their opponents.

Using your logic there is no point in having judges or going 12 rounds. Just fight until the KO comes, right?

Any decision based win it tainted because there was no definitive KO etc.

I'm no fan of judges - too many agendas at work but...skills like movement, reflexes and general ring-craft are the cornerstones of boxing NOT just being able to KO people.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Using your logic there is no point in having judges or going 12 rounds. Just fight until the KO comes, right?

Any decision based win it tainted because there was no definitive KO etc.

I'm no fan of judges - too many agendas at work but...skills like movement, reflexes and general ring-craft are the cornerstones of boxing NOT just being able to KO people.

Using your logic there is no point in having judges or going 12 rounds. Just fight until the KO comes, right?

That wasn't my point or 'logic'. Instead, my point and 'logic' was that not being able to KO or stop an opponent inside 12 rounds is actually an indication and evidence of a boxer lacking in skills. Namely offensive skills. If a boxer was more skilled, they would be able to stop their opponents inside 12 rounds.

but...skills like movement, reflexes and general ring-craft are the cornerstones of boxing NOT just being able to KO people.

Boxing skills are divided into 2 parts. Defensive skills and Offensive skills. The most skilled boxers are the ones who have a combination of both at the highest quantity. A boxer who has tremendous defense but a lacking offense (such as Tyson Fury) is less skilled than someone who has a better combination of both (such as Wladimir Klitschko).

[Mr Objecitivity]

Yes, most likely because you lack the facts to substantiate / prove your position / claims.