Wladimir Klitschko might be greater than Floyd Mayweather but Mickey Vann wonders if he's nervous about the threat of Tyson Fury?

IF we consider Floyd Mayweather, a very intelligent boxer, as one of the greatest of modern times then we must also give Wladimir Klitschko, who has ruled at heavyweight for many years, at least the same credit.

Unlike Mayweather he hasn’t moved up and down in weight, nor has he fought exclusively on home turf. He has fought many times in America – as well as Germany – while he’s also fought in Switzerland and Russia. Lamon Brewster beat him in Germany eight years ago, as did Corrie Saunders before that. He has had 67 fights and only lost three of those; the metal toughness exhibited to come back from defeat and prove himself time and again is something Mayweather has not done. And like Mayweather, Klitschko makes special fighters look ordinary.

Perhaps Mayweather is the slicker fighter, but Klitschko’s place in history should be regarded as highly, if not higher. Very few champions – Floyd included – have dominated their divisions like Wladimir. If one of my sons asked me who he should use as a role model between Floyd (rarely boxed out of Las Vegas) Mayweather and Wladimir Klitschko it is a no-brainer.

It looks like Klitschko’s fight with Tyson Fury will now take place on November 28. I don’t for one minute think his injury that caused the postponement is in any way a smoke screen, but I do believe the Klitschko camp are apprehensive, and I think this has been the case ever since the fight was announced. I understand that the Klitschko team insisted on a return clause in the contract and the return to be in Germany before the contracts would be signed – this for me is not the actions of a team full of confidence. However, credit to the fighter for taking on Fury in the first place and yet again fighting the best he could; this could not always be said of Mayweather.

Well Frank Buglioni gave a brave performance against Fedor Chudinov in his world title bid but came up short as we expected. He was brave and gave it his all but there was a touch of refereeing controversy at the end of the sixth when the Englishman decked Chudinov with a shot that was clearly after the bell. The roar from the crowd as he launched one of his few assaults on Chudinov could have drowned out the bell, although the referee must have heard it as he at acknowledged it was a foul and deducted two points. The question is should he be disqualified? On this occasion, no I don’t think so, but perhaps the referee should have jumped in before the shot had landed. Again, that’s debatable, as he may not have heard the 10-second clacker – which brings me to the question. Should we have a microphone next to the bell to magnify the sound? This occurs on too many occasions, so the answer a huge yes.