BoxRec

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:Fury pulled out of an eliminator against Pulev.

To fight Haye.

Why do you keep repeating that rubbish and making it out like Fury was afraid of Pulev?

I have to read your rubbish a lot of the time horse so it's only fair. Pulev would beat Fury, deal with it.

If Pulev is the second best heavyweight in the division, they should suspend it until a new pool of talent can be developed. He was shockingly inept.

SteveDow wrote:Wlad would slaughter Fury on the evidence of Saturday night. I think people are underestimating how good a display and a win that was from Wlad. He utterly destroyed the second best heavyweight in the division.

Pulev was not the second best heavyweight. Povetkin had reclaimed the No. 2 spot after beating Takam.

Would Pulev beat Takam if they fought? I'd favour Takam.

He did recover well against Cunningham but the fact he was dropped hard by a Cruiserweight who has never been a puncher tells me his punch resistance is poor. He shouldn't have had to do well to recover because Cunningham shouldn't be able to hurt him.

Horse wrote:

SteveDow wrote:Wlad would slaughter Fury on the evidence of Saturday night. I think people are underestimating how good a display and a win that was from Wlad. He utterly destroyed the second best heavyweight in the division.

Pulev was not the second best heavyweight. Povetkin had reclaimed the No. 2 spot after beating Takam.

Would Pulev beat Takam if they fought? I'd favour Takam.

So because Povetkin beat Takam that automatically puts him above Pulev for you even though Pulev has never fought Takam to compare?

lefty wrote:I have to read your rubbish a lot of the time horse so it's only fair.

Why do you keep repeating it though?

lefty wrote:Pulev would beat Fury, deal with it.

Fury would beat Pulev easily. Pulev is not really very good.

lefty wrote:So because Povetkin beat Takam that automatically puts him above Pulev for you even though Pulev has never fought Takam to compare?

Automatically? What does that mean?

Pulev is better than Thompson and Thompson is Pulev's best win.

Povetkin has a better record than Pulev and he did better against Wlad.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:I have to read your rubbish a lot of the time horse so it's only fair.

Why do you keep repeating it though?

lefty wrote:Pulev would beat Fury, deal with it.

Fury would beat Pulev easily. Pulev is not really very good.

Do you think Pulev would be dropped heavily by Cunningham?

Boxerbeetle wrote:Do you think Pulev would be dropped heavily by Cunningham?

Quite possibly. Cunningham would be a live underdog against Pulev.

Heavily, heavily, heavily, heavily, heavily.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:So because Povetkin beat Takam that automatically puts him above Pulev for you even though Pulev has never fought Takam to compare?

Automatically? What does that mean?

Pulev is better than Thompson and Thompson is Pulev's best win.

Povetkin has a better record than Pulev and he did better against Wlad.

I guess it depends on what your definition of better is. Yes he lasted the distance but he also got bounced off the canvas about 5 times and never looked like a threat either.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Do you think Pulev would be dropped heavily by Cunningham?

Quite possibly. Cunningham would be a live underdog against Pulev.

Heavily, heavily, heavily, heavily, heavily.

Fury wouldnt fight Ustinov if the fight was offered to him again.

lefty wrote: I guess it depends on what your definition of better is. Yes he lasted the distance but he also got bounced off the canvas about 5 times and never looked like a threat either.

Povetkin did a lot better. If Wladimir didn't make a monkey of himself with his shameful clinching tactics then Povetkin could have had a lot more success.

Pulev looked like garbage from very early on.

Were people actually impressed by Pulev's performance? He looked like a novice.

lefty wrote:Fury wouldnt fight Ustinov if the fight was offered to him again.

Why not?

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote: I guess it depends on what your definition of better is. Yes he lasted the distance but he also got bounced off the canvas about 5 times and never looked like a threat either.

Povetkin did a lot better. If Wladimir didn't make a monkey of himself with his shameful clinching tactics then Povetkin could have had a lot more success.

Pulev looked like garbage from very early on.

Were people actually impressed by Pulev's performance? He looked like a novice.

I cant recall him having any significant success in the entire fight.

lefty wrote:I cant recall him having any significant success in the entire fight.

I gave Povetkin a couple of rounds. Clinches are not point scoring.

Povetkin would wipe the floor with Pulev.

What's with all of the Pulev hype? His record isn't that good and he's not that impressive looking in the ring either. I don't get it.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:I cant recall him having any significant success in the entire fight.

I gave Povetkin a couple of rounds. Clinches are not point scoring.

Povetkin would wipe the floor with Pulev.

What's with all of the Pulev hype? His record isn't that good and he's not that impressive looking in the ring either. I don't get it.

Neither is povetkin.

What a lot of people are forgetting in the interminable back & forth is what we saw evidence of Saturday night: big fighters trained in the Steward mode who have shown vulnerabilities & been made aware of how to compensate for these vulnerabilities in training (so, yeah, Wladdy & Lewis, basically) tend to smash the ever-living fvck out of big dudes who they think might be able to give them some grief.

They get psyched up for it & don't fvck about. Against movers or swarmers or men who they don't see as a physical threat (& it's normally a physical threat thing, it doesn't seem to matter that the opponent isn't naturally much of a hitter) they don't fight like it, but against big strong lumps who are willing to give it a go they seem to prosper & really let fly.

Fury is a big strong lump. He got caught so utterly flush vs Pajkic & Cunningham I thought he'd had a flip-top head installed. When Klit hits him like that with the right hand, his skull will end up in the fourth row.

PS: I'm with Horse, btw. Povetkin's much, much better than Pulev. Fatter, & might lose to him 6/10 times ('cos styles make fights, kiddies!), but Povetkin's a much better, more natural fighter than the big amateurish Bulgarian.

Pulev is better than Povetkin. I thought Huck beat Povetkin. He's probably improved a little since then but his win over Takam is the only credible win imo at world level.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:I cant recall him having any significant success in the entire fight.

I gave Povetkin a couple of rounds. Clinches are not point scoring.

Povetkin would wipe the floor with Pulev.

What's with all of the Pulev hype? His record isn't that good and he's not that impressive looking in the ring either. I don't get it.

Sums up the quality of challenger in the division when he is accepted as being one of the best out there. People are giving him props because he at least tried to beat Wlad and took chances. A lot of fighters just accept defeat when it comes to Wlad.

Fury wouldn't be one of these, he would give it his all. Hence why he would get knocked out.

lefty wrote:Neither is povetkin.

Povetkin's record is good. He's stopped Takam and Charr within the last 6 months.

His record is far superior to Pulev's.

lillywhite14 wrote:
Sums up the quality of challenger in the division when he is accepted as being one of the best out there. People are giving him props because he at least tried to beat Wlad and took chances. A lot of fighters just accept defeat when it comes to Wlad.

Fury wouldn't be one of these, he would give it his all. Hence why he would get knocked out.

Succinctly (and correctly) summed up.

Povetkin is probably slightly better than Pulev. Both are miles ahead of Fury though.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:Neither is povetkin.

Povetkin's record is good. He's stopped Takam and Charr within the last 6 months.

His record is far superior to Pulev's.

The Takam victory is decent il give you that but who the hell has Charr ever beaten of any significance?

lefty wrote:The Takam victory is decent il give you that but who the hell has Charr ever beaten of any significance?

Johnson (yes, he is significant and underrated).

If the Charr win is worthless then so are Pulev's Dimitrenko and Ustinov wins.