Official Tyson Fury vs Wladimir Klitschko Post Fight Discussion Thread

[sunny31]

Nut bag argument

[sunny31]

Scott Wieland..

Only the real fans and experts of this sport can understand what's going on around here at the moment my friend!!

Sadly the behaviour will continue.

Even if Wladimir wastes Fury in the rematch, there will be SOME reason to further discredit Wladimir.

We should put ourselves deep into the darkness of the nut bag mind to try and predict what that "reason" might be

No one cares what Klit nuthuggers think. Don't make me pull out all the embarrassing threads with you two and your opinions leading up to the Fury fight. Because lets face it, they are indeed embarrassing.

[Elroy1]

No one cares what Klit nuthuggers think. Don't make me pull out all the embarrassing threads with you two and your opinions leading up to the Fury fight. Because lets face it, they are indeed embarrassing.

Hmm interesting. I don't recall anything I posted being particularly embarrassing actually.. CAUTIOUS fellow that I am Other than making the wrong prediction of course.

[Elroy1]

It will be hilarious if Wilder beats Povetkin and then Wlad...HILARIOUS. The funny part is that I think there is a distinct possibility that it happens. If it does, please don't hide from these forums because I will be looking for you. Wilder is nothing special but he can beat these guys because, quite simply, they are nothing special.

Now THAT would be cause for considerable embarrassment on my part wouldn't it

Somehow I kind of doubt I will have to deal with that one though!!

[LacedUp]

We know now that Wlad has been feasting on physically and skillfully inferior opponents for weeks. First time he meets a real man, he caves in, shows his true colours and is left looking like a stiff robotic contender.

After 9 rounds had thrown 45 punches despite his corner telling him that he needs a KO to win.

Fury would beat any version of Wlad and that is the sad truth.

[Elroy1]

We know now that Wlad has been feasting on physically and skillfully inferior opponents for weeks. First time he meets a real man, he caves in, shows his true colours and is left looking like a stiff robotic contender.

After 9 rounds had thrown 45 punches despite his corner telling him that he needs a KO to win.

Fury would beat any version of Wlad and that is the sad truth.

Entereth another nut!

So let's get your official statement in too same as Bill..

From Peter, Chagaev, Rahman, Byrd, Chambers, Povetkin, Haye, Brock, Jennings, Ibragimov and on and on... Fury's lack lustre the other night convinced you he was better than all of these guys and the Wladimir that beat them all up also right?

And his 18 power punches and 40 odd jabs he threw the entire fight (that's 1 non jab every 2 minutes of fighting and only about 4 jabs a round) is wholly attributable to Fury's genius skills, which ALSO looked rather amateurish mind you as well, and not to Wladimir's faded efforts?

Again, just like Bill, you don't really believe this!

It is more psychological soil you choose to lay down. using the MYTH of a weak era, to discredit the greatest of all champs and promote your old favourite champs from times past and maybe some more recent ones (like Wilder maybe), who would be totally irrelevant without such myths.

[Luiz]

[MisterPullman]

We know now that Wlad has been feasting on physically and skillfully inferior opponents for weeks. First time he meets a real man, he caves in, shows his true colours and is left looking like a stiff robotic contender.

After 9 rounds had thrown 45 punches despite his corner telling him that he needs a KO to win.

Fury would beat any version of Wlad and that is the sad truth.

I wouldn't rush ahead and write Wlad off just yet, a rematch is coming. We'll see what he's made of when he has nothing to lose.

[billeau2]

You completely ommitted the fact that Wladimir was missing clear openings all fight long, certainly a sign of either fading, a horrible showing or some of both.

I am about truth, no matter where it goes, totally adherent to the crushing mountain of evidence that is in support of "most" (ok not all) of what I write.

You on thew other hand give accounts based on nothing but your own gut feeling and faith and what is in line with what you view will amount to a "popular opinion".

Clear openings as explicated by a guy who doesn't know how to use a heavy bag? ok...what openings? what might appear as openings can be set ups, can be at a percieved distance that looks one way but is farther/closer, etc etc etc. WHAT OPENINGS? Describe them.

Again, we will get some bs "you should know where those openings are".... or some such bs.

You are a fraud Elroid, and you have no underdstanding what so ever, on a technical/ analytical level about any percieved openings that were present via fury.

[billeau2]

That great nut bag agenda of yours.. You know, the only reason you have for being here?

Not to FULLY discredit your break down Bill, but it is certainly very very biased view with a clear and obvious agenda.

IT's what I like to call "spin". And just as you can spin the same story your way, I can easily spin them the other, except when I do it I keep to first principles, whereas you take your result you want as given and THEN seek an explaination.

In descring me you just described exactly what you do. Sorry Elroid this thread is a record and I defy anyone who ever gave this idiot green K to find an instance where he supports his point of view with any evidence, like a breakdown of the fight, in tangible technical terms, an anecdotal source, etc. There is none.

He claims I have an agenda when he clearly does nothing but try to puff his opinions with empty accusations.