coneye wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 02:02
You knew has soon has the weights were announced , both these fighters were going after a ko ,, Tyson was always going to lean inside and use his weight , that is obvious not rocket science ,,, Against Ysyk though that weight would be stupid , he'd be trying to hit a fly , AJ is better technicly than Wilder , not much smaller than Fury and got schooled , Fury trying to use his weight would get schooled has well ,,, Tyson could and probably will beat Usyk , but he will have to be lighter and faster than what he was against Wilder , but even losing some pudding he's still more than big enough to out maul Usyk if he gets close , and he has the footwork to catch Usyk , for me a Fury win , if he takes the correct approach .
Regards the fight , it was a cracker , not technical but still a cracker ,, I've said on here before ,, does'nt matter if the two guys can fight , has long has they think they can , and are evenly matched and willing to have a fight then you will see a great fight ,, This proved my point , a big boxer versus a big puncher , both with good and bad points , both willing and wanting to have a fight , and they gave us a very very exciting fight to watch
I don't think we will ever see him under 19 stone again, I just don't think he has the discipline to get under that - 18 and a half maybe? What weight do you think he should get down to see off Uysk?
He is still pretty agile and fleet footed at 19 stone and he knows how to fight 'big' he would be a lot less of a target for Uysk than Joshua was. I am not saying you're wrong in your assessment - the lighter he gets the better he is going to be for it but I just don't think he has the desire or the motivation anymore - who knows what his weight was when he first had to postpone this Wilder trilogy match.
coneye wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 02:02
You knew has soon has the weights were announced , both these fighters were going after a ko ,, Tyson was always going to lean inside and use his weight , that is obvious not rocket science ,,, Against Ysyk though that weight would be stupid , he'd be trying to hit a fly , AJ is better technicly than Wilder , not much smaller than Fury and got schooled , Fury trying to use his weight would get schooled has well ,,, Tyson could and probably will beat Usyk , but he will have to be lighter and faster than what he was against Wilder , but even losing some pudding he's still more than big enough to out maul Usyk if he gets close , and he has the footwork to catch Usyk , for me a Fury win , if he takes the correct approach .
Regards the fight , it was a cracker , not technical but still a cracker ,, I've said on here before ,, does'nt matter if the two guys can fight , has long has they think they can , and are evenly matched and willing to have a fight then you will see a great fight ,, This proved my point , a big boxer versus a big puncher , both with good and bad points , both willing and wanting to have a fight , and they gave us a very very exciting fight to watch
I don't think we will ever see him under 19 stone again, I just don't think he has the discipline to get under that - 18 and a half maybe? What weight do you think he should get down to see off Uysk?
He is still pretty agile and fleet footed at 19 stone and he knows how to fight 'big' he would be a lot less of a target for Uysk than Joshua was. I am not saying you're wrong in your assessment - the lighter he gets the better he is going to be for it but I just don't think he has the desire or the motivation anymore - who knows what his weight was when he first had to postpone this Wilder trilogy match.
He was fleet footed against another very big man, and one with terrible footwork.
I think he would have looked ponderous and often been out of position against Usyk.
I reckon he would definitely benefit from shedding half a stone at least if he's fighting Usyk. Though his plan might be to just try and maul and bully him, which would perhaps not need a reduction in weight.
I need to see Fury against Usyk, Joshua, Whyte, Joyce, Hergovic etc. Beating a limited fighter like Wilder 3 times doesn't make you the greatest of all time.
Blueprint wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 08:11
I need to see Fury against Usyk, Joshua, Whyte, Joyce, Hergovic etc. Beating a limited fighter like Wilder 3 times doesn't make you the greatest of all time.
No buy going to Germany to face a guy who reigned for 11 years and going to the states 3 times to face the most dangerous one punch ko artist gets him massive brownie points imo,Joshua went the States once and shat his shorts,fury is the road warrior
coneye wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 02:02
You knew has soon has the weights were announced , both these fighters were going after a ko ,, Tyson was always going to lean inside and use his weight , that is obvious not rocket science ,,, Against Ysyk though that weight would be stupid , he'd be trying to hit a fly , AJ is better technicly than Wilder , not much smaller than Fury and got schooled , Fury trying to use his weight would get schooled has well ,,, Tyson could and probably will beat Usyk , but he will have to be lighter and faster than what he was against Wilder , but even losing some pudding he's still more than big enough to out maul Usyk if he gets close , and he has the footwork to catch Usyk , for me a Fury win , if he takes the correct approach .
Regards the fight , it was a cracker , not technical but still a cracker ,, I've said on here before ,, does'nt matter if the two guys can fight , has long has they think they can , and are evenly matched and willing to have a fight then you will see a great fight ,, This proved my point , a big boxer versus a big puncher , both with good and bad points , both willing and wanting to have a fight , and they gave us a very very exciting fight to watch
I don't think we will ever see him under 19 stone again, I just don't think he has the discipline to get under that - 18 and a half maybe? What weight do you think he should get down to see off Uysk?
He is still pretty agile and fleet footed at 19 stone and he knows how to fight 'big' he would be a lot less of a target for Uysk than Joshua was. I am not saying you're wrong in your assessment - the lighter he gets the better he is going to be for it but I just don't think he has the desire or the motivation anymore - who knows what his weight was when he first had to postpone this Wilder trilogy match.
The same weight he was for the 2nd wilder fight would probably be his ideal weight for usyk Carlos
oogiebe wrote: ↑11 Oct 2021, 17:23
I'll say this: Fury and Wilder brought out the best in one another. To be an all time great, a fighter needs Joe Frazier; a Rodrigo Valdez; a Ken Norton, etc. Someone who actually pushes you to the limit. To test your mettle; to allow you to show exactly what you're made for. This fight showed me how great Fury is. It also showed me how good Wilder is. Some overrate Fury and some underrate him. When it's all said and done, he'll be somewhere around Wlad's level all time.
He'll be way higher than Wlad. Actually, he's already on par with him. He beat and dethroned him, how 'bout that? And the likes of Haye, Chagaev, Pulev, Peter are quite comparable with the likes of Wilder, Wallin and Chisora.
oogiebe wrote: ↑11 Oct 2021, 17:23
I'll say this: Fury and Wilder brought out the best in one another. To be an all time great, a fighter needs Joe Frazier; a Rodrigo Valdez; a Ken Norton, etc. Someone who actually pushes you to the limit. To test your mettle; to allow you to show exactly what you're made for. This fight showed me how great Fury is. It also showed me how good Wilder is. Some overrate Fury and some underrate him. When it's all said and done, he'll be somewhere around Wlad's level all time.
He'll be way higher than Wlad. Actually, he's already on par with him. He beat and dethroned him, how 'bout that? And the likes of Haye, Chagaev, Pulev, Peter are quite comparable with the likes of Wilder, Wallin and Chisora.
Way above. Ok fanboi.
Your references towards me rooting for Fury and thus giving him extra-dividends aren't valid. When I say that Fury is good in this or that, I can back it up with arguments. Not like with you being Ajagba-fanboi and giving him props without a basis for it.
He'll be way higher than Wlad. Actually, he's already on par with him. He beat and dethroned him, how 'bout that? And the likes of Haye, Chagaev, Pulev, Peter are quite comparable with the likes of Wilder, Wallin and Chisora.
Way above. Ok fanboi.
Your references towards me rooting for Fury and thus giving him extra-dividends aren't valid. When I say that Fury is good in this or that, I can back it up with arguments. Not like with you being Ajagba-fanboi and giving him props without a basis for it.
I am a fan of the limited and perennial non contender Efe. And yes, my reference on you being a fanboi giving Fury over the top credit is VERY valid. Don't fret though, many folks do that.
fury still got work to do to be way above wlad, another really big win or at least a good few over solid contenders
he's got the wlad and wilder wins, which are big no doubt and can edge him ahead of wlad, but then pretty much nothing meaningful in a historical comparison
I'd say he's above Wladimir Klitschko because it took 20 some odd title defenses for Klitschko to really be considered something great. Part of it was the fact that he (Klitschko) had to rebuild himself after embarrassing losses, but it's also the fact that there literally was nobody out there any good to really challenge him.
Look at the record:
Defeats a eight year reigning champ with 20 some odd title defenses
Defeats a seven-eight year reigning champ with 10 or so title defenses not once but three times regardless of what the record books say
Undefeated, winning the British & Irish & European titles. 2x heavyweight champion. All in the span of 32 fights
That's certainly more than what Klitschko accomplished in the same amount of bouts. I sure as hell can't see Fury ever losing to guys like Ross Purrity, Lamon Brewster, and Corrie Sanders.
And not so long ago we were all debating whether Klitschko was a top ten all-time heavyweight. If that's the case, Fury is already in the top 10 of all time. If he beats Whyte, Usyk and Joshua with one or two more voluntary or mandatory matches just to stay active--- I think it's definitely a top five argument when you consider most of the all-time great heavyweights were only 6 ft tall and 200 pounds.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 13:15
I'd say he's above Wladimir Klitschko because it took 20 some odd title defenses for Klitschko to really be considered something great. Part of it was the fact that he (Klitschko) had to rebuild himself after embarrassing losses, but it's also the fact that there literally was nobody out there any good to really challenge him.
Look at the record:
Defeats a eight year reigning champ with 20 some odd title defenses
Defeats a seven-eight year reigning champ with 10 or so title defenses not once but three times regardless of what the record books say
Undefeated, winning the British & Irish & European titles. 2x heavyweight champion. All in the span of 32 fights
That's certainly more than what Klitschko accomplished in the same amount of bouts. I sure as hell can't see Fury ever losing to guys like Ross Purrity, Lamon Brewster, and Corrie Sanders.
And not so long ago we were all debating whether Klitschko was a top ten all-time heavyweight. If that's the case, Fury is already in the top 10 of all time. If he beats Whyte, Usyk and Joshua with one or two more voluntary or mandatory matches just to stay active--- I think it's definitely a top five argument when you consider most of the all-time great heavyweights were only 6 ft tall and 200 pounds.
So he's not then. We need to have in a couple more fights against a live opponent.
oogiebe wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 09:11
Way above. Ok fanboi.
Your references towards me rooting for Fury and thus giving him extra-dividends aren't valid. When I say that Fury is good in this or that, I can back it up with arguments. Not like with you being Ajagba-fanboi and giving him props without a basis for it.
I am a fan of the limited and perennial non contender Efe. And yes, my reference on you being a fanboi giving Fury over the top credit is VERY valid. Don't fret though, many folks do that.
While you're b!tching around instead of telling, where I give Fury over the top credit and why it is actually over the top, all those references are invalid, bruh.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 13:15
I'd say he's above Wladimir Klitschko because it took 20 some odd title defenses for Klitschko to really be considered something great. Part of it was the fact that he (Klitschko) had to rebuild himself after embarrassing losses, but it's also the fact that there literally was nobody out there any good to really challenge him.
Look at the record:
Defeats a eight year reigning champ with 20 some odd title defenses
Defeats a seven-eight year reigning champ with 10 or so title defenses not once but three times regardless of what the record books say
Undefeated, winning the British & Irish & European titles. 2x heavyweight champion. All in the span of 32 fights
That's certainly more than what Klitschko accomplished in the same amount of bouts. I sure as hell can't see Fury ever losing to guys like Ross Purrity, Lamon Brewster, and Corrie Sanders.
And not so long ago we were all debating whether Klitschko was a top ten all-time heavyweight. If that's the case, Fury is already in the top 10 of all time. If he beats Whyte, Usyk and Joshua with one or two more voluntary or mandatory matches just to stay active--- I think it's definitely a top five argument when you consider most of the all-time great heavyweights were only 6 ft tall and 200 pounds.
I could certainly imagine Sanders ko’ing a complacent Fury.
Your references towards me rooting for Fury and thus giving him extra-dividends aren't valid. When I say that Fury is good in this or that, I can back it up with arguments. Not like with you being Ajagba-fanboi and giving him props without a basis for it.
I am a fan of the limited and perennial non contender Efe. And yes, my reference on you being a fanboi giving Fury over the top credit is VERY valid. Don't fret though, many folks do that.
While you're b!tching around instead of telling, where I give Fury over the top credit and why it is actually over the top, all those references are invalid, bruh.
One could go back and read all your repetitive posts in the round by round or anywhere else Fury is discussed. Stop hiding it. It's ok. No bitching here. Just telling it like it is Duke old boy.
oogiebe wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 13:12
I am a fan of the limited and perennial non contender Efe. And yes, my reference on you being a fanboi giving Fury over the top credit is VERY valid. Don't fret though, many folks do that.
While you're b!tching around instead of telling, where I give Fury over the top credit and why it is actually over the top, all those references are invalid, bruh.
One could go back and read all your repetitive posts in the round by round or anywhere else Fury is discussed. Stop hiding it. It's ok. No bitching here. Just telling it like it is Duke old boy.
There's nothing 'over the top' in rooting for a guy during a live fight. And obviously I've never hidden a fact of being a Fury fan. Yet I don't bring anything 'over the top' about him. You can't point at it, because there's no such thing.
While you're b!tching around instead of telling, where I give Fury over the top credit and why it is actually over the top, all those references are invalid, bruh.
One could go back and read all your repetitive posts in the round by round or anywhere else Fury is discussed. Stop hiding it. It's ok. No bitching here. Just telling it like it is Duke old boy.
There's nothing 'over the top' in rooting for a guy during a live fight. And obviously I've never hidden a fact of being a Fury fan. Yet I don't bring anything 'over the top' about him. You can't point at it, because there's no such thing.
"way above Wlad." Everyone sees your posts. Not sure why you are butt hurt over your own sentiments.
oogiebe wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 13:37
One could go back and read all your repetitive posts in the round by round or anywhere else Fury is discussed. Stop hiding it. It's ok. No bitching here. Just telling it like it is Duke old boy.
There's nothing 'over the top' in rooting for a guy during a live fight. And obviously I've never hidden a fact of being a Fury fan. Yet I don't bring anything 'over the top' about him. You can't point at it, because there's no such thing.
"way above Wlad." Everyone sees your posts. Not sure why you are butt hurt over your own sentiments.
And I've told why I think so, while you instead of bringing counter-arguments started to accuse me of being 'over the top'. Now you just going circles with your worthless accusations, still without counter-arguments to that my statement. How pathetic.
There's nothing 'over the top' in rooting for a guy during a live fight. And obviously I've never hidden a fact of being a Fury fan. Yet I don't bring anything 'over the top' about him. You can't point at it, because there's no such thing.
"way above Wlad." Everyone sees your posts. Not sure why you are butt hurt over your own sentiments.
And I've told why I think so, while you instead of bringing counter-arguments started to accuse me of being 'over the top'. Now you just going circles with your worthless accusations, still without counter-arguments to that my statement. How pathetic.
Poor arguing Duke. Your posts speak for themselves. I've already said there's nothing wrong with being a fanboi, but you're still lashing out. Suck it up buttercup.
oogiebe wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 13:50
"way above Wlad." Everyone sees your posts. Not sure why you are butt hurt over your own sentiments.
And I've told why I think so, while you instead of bringing counter-arguments started to accuse me of being 'over the top'. Now you just going circles with your worthless accusations, still without counter-arguments to that my statement. How pathetic.
Poor arguing Duke. Your posts speak for themselves. I've already said there's nothing wrong with being a fanboi, but you're still lashing out. Suck it up buttercup.
Oh, again my arguments are so poor, that you can only say, how poor they are, without bringing any counter-arguments.
Well, keep circling in your spiral of delirium, if it's your comfort zone.
And I've told why I think so, while you instead of bringing counter-arguments started to accuse me of being 'over the top'. Now you just going circles with your worthless accusations, still without counter-arguments to that my statement. How pathetic.
Poor arguing Duke. Your posts speak for themselves. I've already said there's nothing wrong with being a fanboi, but you're still lashing out. Suck it up buttercup.
Oh, again my arguments are so poor, that you can only say, how poor they are, without bringing any counter-arguments.
Well, keep circling in your spiral of delirium, if it's your comfort zone.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 13:15
I'd say he's above Wladimir Klitschko because it took 20 some odd title defenses for Klitschko to really be considered something great. Part of it was the fact that he (Klitschko) had to rebuild himself after embarrassing losses, but it's also the fact that there literally was nobody out there any good to really challenge him.
Look at the record:
Defeats a eight year reigning champ with 20 some odd title defenses
Defeats a seven-eight year reigning champ with 10 or so title defenses not once but three times regardless of what the record books say
Undefeated, winning the British & Irish & European titles. 2x heavyweight champion. All in the span of 32 fights
That's certainly more than what Klitschko accomplished in the same amount of bouts. I sure as hell can't see Fury ever losing to guys like Ross Purrity, Lamon Brewster, and Corrie Sanders.
And not so long ago we were all debating whether Klitschko was a top ten all-time heavyweight. If that's the case, Fury is already in the top 10 of all time. If he beats Whyte, Usyk and Joshua with one or two more voluntary or mandatory matches just to stay active--- I think it's definitely a top five argument when you consider most of the all-time great heavyweights were only 6 ft tall and 200 pounds.
I could certainly imagine Sanders ko’ing a complacent Fury.
I cannot. Here's why:
Sanders didn't hit as hard as Wilder, for starters. If Fury can shake off Wilder, Sanders ain't keeping him down. Sanders had an overall 67% kayo rate mostly against fringe contenders and trial horses.
Secondly, Sanders was incredibly inconsistent in his performances. When he was hot he was good, and when he was cold he was pitiful. Assuming that he could be a threat to Fury is to assume that he would be bringing his A+ game and that's a big if.
Thirdly, Sanders was more interested in golf than he was boxing. Fury is a genuine fighting man, so you have to say Fury wants it more.
Fourth, Sanders could be incredibly sloppy at times. True, Fury can be as well, but he's certainly an all around better boxer than Sanders who relied heavily on the left hook much like how Wilder relies heavily on the right hook.
Fifth, he got knocked out by Hasim Rahman and Nate Tubbs--- one is forgivable the other one is not. Again, the inconsistency. Fury can come in half-assed shape and still hasn't lost.
Sixth, outside of his kayo over the young, green, raw Klitschko the best win he probably had was against Bobby Cysz who was passed his prime. As was Carlos DeLeon and Al Cole passed their primes when Sanders beat them. There's a gulf between the quality of opponents Fury has beaten and what Sanders has beaten.
Don't get me wrong he was an exciting fighter to watch. But we're talking completely different levels here. The only time he took the sport of boxing seriously was when he fought Vitali Klitschko, and while it was a fun fight he was getting the snot knocked out of him after a few rounds.
It would be a good fight while it lasted with Fury, but I can't see the hot-and-cold Sanders being too much of a threat. It could potentially be something similar to the Wilder-Fury III match but Fury coming out on top nonetheless.
The only thing I could give Sanders over Wilder is having more in the tank. He wasn't necessarily the type to gas out fast. But he was wide open to be hit and hit often. If the one-dimensional Rahman could knock out Sanders it's hard to imagine him being all that successful against the multifaceted Fury.
If you watch ((the best version of Sanders as a professional boxer)) he gets caught with those 1-2's much like Wilder did against Fury.
But for the bulk of his career he simply did not perform at this level. That cannot be emphasized enough.
Good first round for Sanders, but in the 2nd he already was breathing heavy and started catching shots.
Third round, catching more and more. Occasionally looping left hands fired that rock Klitschko but getting dead tired. Sound familiar?
Sanders throwing nothing in the fourth of consequence, just catching. The fifth, Klitschko doubling up on the jab and right hands--- Sanders rocking and reeling. Jim Lampley states the obvious, "This is like a bad sparring session although the danger is always there if (keyword) Sanders can throw the left hand." Sanders nearly hits the deck at the end.
Sixth, Klitschko unloading and Sanders taking. Sanders has some small success with the left hand, but Sanders is busted up. Again does this sound familiar? Remember Fury is 30+ pounds heavier and taller than Klitschko too.
Seventh, Klitschko landing 1-2's. Sanders tired. Sanders missing. Round eight, the end of the line for Sanders. Last ditch effort by Sanders, but starts catching bombs and the referee saves him from further punishment.
So all-in-all, a similar type fight to what we saw this passed weekend where a man relies on throwing one bomb at a time versus a more versatile fighter who digs down deep to overcome the power shots.
Fury, no doubt, would have incorporated more clinches and leaning than Klitschko, and would've tired out Sanders faster. Don't get me wrong it would have been a tough fight for the first early rounds but I have little doubt that Tyson Fury would have survived and won in the end.
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021, 13:15
I'd say he's above Wladimir Klitschko because it took 20 some odd title defenses for Klitschko to really be considered something great. Part of it was the fact that he (Klitschko) had to rebuild himself after embarrassing losses, but it's also the fact that there literally was nobody out there any good to really challenge him.
Look at the record:
Defeats a eight year reigning champ with 20 some odd title defenses
Defeats a seven-eight year reigning champ with 10 or so title defenses not once but three times regardless of what the record books say
Undefeated, winning the British & Irish & European titles. 2x heavyweight champion. All in the span of 32 fights
That's certainly more than what Klitschko accomplished in the same amount of bouts. I sure as hell can't see Fury ever losing to guys like Ross Purrity, Lamon Brewster, and Corrie Sanders.
And not so long ago we were all debating whether Klitschko was a top ten all-time heavyweight. If that's the case, Fury is already in the top 10 of all time. If he beats Whyte, Usyk and Joshua with one or two more voluntary or mandatory matches just to stay active--- I think it's definitely a top five argument when you consider most of the all-time great heavyweights were only 6 ft tall and 200 pounds.
I could certainly imagine Sanders ko’ing a complacent Fury.
I cannot. Here's why:
Sanders didn't hit as hard as Wilder, for starters. If Fury can shake off Wilder, Sanders ain't keeping him down. Sanders had an overall 67% kayo rate mostly against fringe contenders and trial horses.
Secondly, Sanders was incredibly inconsistent in his performances. When he was hot he was good, and when he was cold he was pitiful. Assuming that he could be a threat to Fury is to assume that he would be bringing his A+ game and that's a big if.
Thirdly, Sanders was more interested in golf than he was boxing. Fury is a genuine fighting man, so you have to say Fury wants it more.
Fourth, Sanders could be incredibly sloppy at times. True, Fury can be as well, but he's certainly an all around better boxer than Sanders who relied heavily on the left hook much like how Wilder relies heavily on the right hook.
Fifth, he got knocked out by Hasim Rahman and Nate Tubbs--- one is forgivable the other one is not. Again, the inconsistency. Fury can come in half-assed shape and still hasn't lost.
Sixth, outside of his kayo over the young, green, raw Klitschko the best win he probably had was against Bobby Cysz who was passed his prime. As was Carlos DeLeon and Al Cole passed their primes when Sanders beat them. There's a gulf between the quality of opponents Fury has beaten and what Sanders has beaten.
Don't get me wrong he was an exciting fighter to watch. But we're talking completely different levels here. The only time he took the sport of boxing seriously was when he fought Vitali Klitschko, and while it was a fun fight he was getting the snot knocked out of him after a few rounds.
It would be a good fight while it lasted with Fury, but I can't see the hot-and-cold Sanders being too much of a threat. It could potentially be something similar to the Wilder-Fury III match but Fury coming out on top nonetheless.
The only thing I could give Sanders over Wilder is having more in the tank. He wasn't necessarily the type to gas out fast. But he was wide open to be hit and hit often. If the one-dimensional Rahman could knock out Sanders it's hard to imagine him being all that successful against the multifaceted Fury.
If you watch ((the best version of Sanders as a professional boxer)) he gets caught with those 1-2's much like Wilder did against Fury.
But for the bulk of his career he simply did not perform at this level. That cannot be emphasized enough.
Good first round for Sanders, but in the 2nd he already was breathing heavy and started catching shots.
Third round, catching more and more. Occasionally looping left hands fired that rock Klitschko but getting dead tired. Sound familiar?
Sanders throwing nothing in the fourth of consequence, just catching. The fifth, Klitschko doubling up on the jab and right hands--- Sanders rocking and reeling. Jim Lampley states the obvious, "This is like a bad sparring session although the danger is always there if (keyword) Sanders can throw the left hand." Sanders nearly hits the deck at the end.
Sixth, Klitschko unloading and Sanders taking. Sanders has some small success with the left hand, but Sanders is busted up. Again does this sound familiar? Remember Fury is 30+ pounds heavier and taller than Klitschko too.
Seventh, Klitschko landing 1-2's. Sanders tired. Sanders missing. Round eight, the end of the line for Sanders. Last ditch effort by Sanders, but starts catching bombs and the referee saves him from further punishment.
So all-in-all, a similar type fight to what we saw this passed weekend where a man relies on throwing one bomb at a time versus a more versatile fighter who digs down deep to overcome the power shots.
Fury, no doubt, would have incorporated more clinches and leaning than Klitschko, and would've tired out Sanders faster. Don't get me wrong it would have been a tough fight for the first early rounds but I have little doubt that Tyson Fury would have survived and won in the end.
We agree to disagree respectfully of course.
Well that was certainly a detailed response to my 9 word post
