Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

[gilgamesh]

There was still generally only ever 1 Champion in that era of Boxing though, and yeah the WBO certainly had some damn solid Champions even before they became a standard part of Boxing's political makeup, I wasn't criticizing any of the Champions, just kinda pointing out the history of the WBO itself, and how at the time of Wlad's reign with it, he was essentially still seen by most as a Contender and a Heavyweight Champion to be, rather than a reigning Champion.

[BoxFrancis]

He ended the longest reign in heavyweight history Wladimir held the titles and was unbeaten for 9 years. Furys the biggest and the best I can’t rate these 6’3 240lbs heavyweights above fury because I know they couldn’t beat him. Just my opinion. Before the rematch wilder was the most devestating hitter in history and know after Furys stepped to him and beat him up he’s a bum who couldn’t box. Near enough every previous hw champion was picking Wilder to win the fight. He ain’t no bum he just came unstuck against an elite level fighter.

Dude; you literally sound about 15 years old. There is so much incorrect with this post, I can’t be bothered to comment.

Don’t comment then

[Enlightened-One]

There was still generally only ever 1 Champion in that era of Boxing though, and yeah the WBO certainly had some damn solid Champions even before they became a standard part of Boxing's political makeup, I wasn't criticizing any of the Champions, just kinda pointing out the history of the WBO itself, and how at the time of Wlad's reign with it, he was essentially still seen by most as a Contender and a Heavyweight Champion to be, rather than a reigning Champion.

You’re right to a certain degree. There have always been multiple versions of the world heavyweight title and it was the media that chose to recognise the most prestigious holder, which is reflected by the history books.

So yes, the history books will only ever recall what the media wrote about.

For example: there was nothing legitimate about Tommy Hearns and Ray Leonard’s 168lbs title reigns, but the history books and the media legitimise them and the public refuse to question this perception.

So I basically agree with you, but there have always been multiple versions of the world heavyweight title and it’s only the media’s perception that counts.

Lennox Lewis was considered the "real" world heavyweight champion at the time of Wladimir Klitschko's title reign.

[BoxFrancis]

These discussions always seem to be Wlad this and Wlad that. To my mind the generations before Wlad were much better fighters, with Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, etc. With a few exceptions the Wlad and beyond generations are pretty weak. I’d think it be fair to say that a fighter as weak on the fundamentals as Wilder, would not have got much past danger man status in other eras. Yes Fury is a terrific heavyweight. No of course he isn’t the best ever :)

I think you mean the Wlad and beyond generation singular, because we haven't yet gotten 2 generations beyond him.

But yeah I don't think many would consider him one of the best ever. He might be Top 10 on some lists, but that's a stretch.

He had one of the longest reigns ever though so that's something worth nothing I guess.

He’s top 5 easy

[gilgamesh]

Generally speaking, multiple Champions should always be weeded down to 1. Whatever the era. Such is the nature of the sport.

Anyway though, carry on.

[gilgamesh]

I think you mean the Wlad and beyond generation singular, because we haven't yet gotten 2 generations beyond him.

But yeah I don't think many would consider him one of the best ever. He might be Top 10 on some lists, but that's a stretch.

He had one of the longest reigns ever though so that's something worth nothing I guess.

He’s top 5 easy

I don't see it. Lower Top 10 possibly. Top 5. Absolutely not.

[gilgamesh]

There was still generally only ever 1 Champion in that era of Boxing though, and yeah the WBO certainly had some damn solid Champions even before they became a standard part of Boxing's political makeup, I wasn't criticizing any of the Champions, just kinda pointing out the history of the WBO itself, and how at the time of Wlad's reign with it, he was essentially still seen by most as a Contender and a Heavyweight Champion to be, rather than a reigning Champion.

You’re right to a certain degree. There have always been multiple versions of the world heavyweight title and it was the media that chose to recognise the most prestigious holder, which is reflected by the history books.

So yes, the history books will only ever recall what the media wrote about.

For example: there was nothing legitimate about Tommy Hearns and Ray Leonard’s 168lbs title reigns, but the history books and the media legitimise them and the public refuse to question this perception.

So I basically agree with you, but there have always been multiple versions of the world heavyweight title and it’s only the media’s perception that counts.

Lennox Lewis was considered the "real" world heavyweight champion at the time of Wladimir Klitschko's title reign.

Yes indeed. Even Ruiz and Byrd were secondary "Contenders with Belts" more so than Champions in the eyes of the fans. Rightfully so.

And for what it's worth. I'm sure Wlad would've mopped the floor with Ruiz and Byrd (hell he DID beat Byrd twice so no argument necessary there).

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Call me crazy but when you go life and death with otto wallin 2 fights ago maybe its premature to call someone the goat.....

[margaret thatcher]

Call me crazy but when you go life and death with otto wallin 2 fights ago maybe its premature to call someone the goat.....

You'd have a point if Otter wasn't also an ATG

[bigjack]

Call me crazy but when you go life and death with otto wallin 2 fights ago maybe its premature to call someone the goat.....

He beat Wlad who was at the end of the line ,and then beat Wilder who had very little actual boxing ability,top ten is crazy talk.

[Controversial]

You don't have to be the best to be able to beat the best. Styles make fights and Fury is as awkward as they come, not only for his sheer size but his unorthodox style. It may be seen as crazy talk but a focused Fury, as he was in the Klitschko/Wilder fights, would give many a HW in history trouble.

[BoxFrancis]

Call me crazy but when you go life and death with otto wallin 2 fights ago maybe its premature to call someone the goat.....

He beat Wlad who was at the end of the line ,and then beat Wilder who had very little actual boxing ability,top ten is crazy talk.

Let’s hear your top ten

[BoxFrancis]

You don't have to be the best to be able to beat the best. Styles make fights and Fury is as awkward as they come, not only for his sheer size but his unorthodox style. It may be seen as crazy talk but a focused Fury, as he was in the Klitschko/Wilder fights, would give many a HW in history trouble.

Crazy talk? Makes perfect sense to me

[BoxFrancis]

Call me crazy but when you go life and death with otto wallin 2 fights ago maybe its premature to call someone the goat.....

He was was way underweight for that fight went in with a bad mindset and you didn’t mention the gash he sufferd in the 3rd round how many heavyweights from the past stay in there with that and find a way to win not many

[adislav123]

louis, liston, ali, foreman, holmes, tyson, bowe, both klits and dozens of other top 10 heavyweights (you name em') of their respective era on their best day in their prime thru history.

put in a fantasy match up against fury they would be all competitive competitive opponents.

HE HAS THE TOOLS and should be convinced to hypthetically have BEATEN THEM ALL& they for sure put back in their prime/brought back to life in their best shape would too all be sure minded to fvck fury up.

DEFINITELY ALL WERE HELLUVA FIGHTERS POSSESSED THE TOOLS TO PUT FURY IN A WORLD OF TROUBLE as well possibly beating him/definitely, given their best effort, putting up a helluva fight to consider for us who would've come out on top, them or fury.

but that's just opinions.

record resume wise he's nowhere near top ten, how could he yet?

history making/championship success wisebeating considered unbeatable, longest ever reigning champion vlad, beating twice "the hardest hitting heavyweight in history" wilder.. he is up there, top whatever for the record books but who gives a shit bout that.

[BoxFrancis]

louis, liston, ali, foreman, holmes, tyson, bowe, both klits and dozens of other top 10 heavyweights (you name em') of their respective era on their best day in their prime thru history.

put in a fantasy match up against fury they would be all competitive competitive opponents.

HE HAS THE TOOLS and should be convinced to hypthetically have BEATEN THEM ALL& they for sure put back in their prime/brought back to life in their best shape would too all be sure minded to fvck fury up.

DEFINITELY ALL WERE HELLUVA FIGHTERS POSSESSED THE TOOLS TO PUT FURY IN A WORLD OF TROUBLE as well possibly beating him/definitely, given their best effort, putting up a helluva fight to consider for us who would've come out on top, them or fury.

but that's just opinions.

record resume wise he's nowhere near top ten, how could he yet?

history making/championship success wisebeating considered unbeatable, longest ever reigning champion vlad, beating twice "the hardest hitting heavyweight in history" wilder.. he is up there, top whatever for the record books but who gives a poo bout that.

You really believe Joe Louis would be competitive vs Fury

[BoxFrancis]

He’s top 5 easy

I don't see it. Lower Top 10 possibly. Top 5. Absolutely not.

Stats say otherwise

[gilgamesh]

I don't see it. Lower Top 10 possibly. Top 5. Absolutely not.

Stats say otherwise

Not really. You can make an argument, but there's a counter argument to be made for a lot of guys to be over him. He'd be Top 15 though I'd say.

[candyslim]

Call me crazy but when you go life and death with otto wallin 2 fights ago maybe its premature to call someone the goat.....

You may have a point - and not just about being crazy

There again which top fighters have never made hard work of defeating a much inferior opponent ?

[margaret thatcher]

That's an ongoing thing with historical discussions, people forget the lacklustre showings of everyone but the last guy. Joe Louis gets ranked as 1 or 2 but got dropped hard on his ass by lard arse Tony G for example, and I think several other times vs not the greatest opponents. It happens for hypotheticals too, everyone is so committed to acting like all these fights would've had one guy kicking the others ass--one guy getting battered and being out of his league, and the other giving a nasty superior beating. Yet look at all the ho hum performances even the greats had

I sure wouldn't rank Fury way up their historically, but then again if people are gonna treat guys like middleweight basher Johnson or Marciano (19 inches shorter reach lol) or Liston as elite ATgs he's not so far off then

[ewenhay]

That's how a lot of hypothetical arguments are based on here.

The best version of the guy they like versus the worst version of the guy they don't.

Plus, I don't think you can rank heavyweights historically using a hypothetical argument based on size of current heavyweights. It's completely dismissive and disrespectful to write off someone's entire career based on the fact that people have got bigger over the last 100 years.

[adislav123]

exactly. disrespectful. and dumb.

to use the fact that 5'9" powerful, cannonball of a fighter(=tiny, obese bum), who dropped guys left & right who all where taller, had longer reach and were more athlecially,(= aesthetically) built...

to use the fact that tony galento dropped the epithome of skills, athleticism, killer instinct and what not.. the champ of his time! joe louis!!!...

to use the fact that joe louis got dropped by galento with a perfect punch as a braindead "argument" that louis couldn't hang with tyson fury... paradox and idiotic statement.

it even would make more sense used the other way round, as an argument for the opposite, that a much smaller, less mobile etc... you name the deficit... guy can still give his towering, stronger,etc. opponent trouble.

just ignorant. height, reach, power!!! and the most ignorant are the most loud, plastering everything on here wit there redundant stupidity.

[Thomastearns]

Call me crazy but when you go life and death with otto wallin 2 fights ago maybe its premature to call someone the goat.....

You'd have a point if Otter wasn't also an ATG

Yes, five minutes ago AJ was the greatest of all time, then it was Wilder (also the hardest single punch of all time) and now it's Mr Nandralone himself, Tyson Fury.

Let's see if Fury can beat Wilder again, then AJ and then Usyk and then just maybe then, the drug cheat can lay a claim a claim to being the best heavyweight in the world today.

[candyslim]

That's how a lot of hypothetical arguments are based on here.

The best version of the guy they like versus the worst version of the guy they don't.

Plus, I don't think you can rank heavyweights historically using a hypothetical argument based on size of current heavyweights. It's completely dismissive and disrespectful to write off someone's entire career based on the fact that people have got bigger over the last 100 years.

You're talking sense there ewenhay. Are you ok?

Just kidding.

I've always maintained that Marciano would have been destroyed by Frazier simply because of the 30lb weight difference (a huge disparity at 185 vs 215) but that doesn't alter the fact that Rocky was one hellova fighter. Same goes for Dempsey - I know he was dwarfed by Willard but as big is he was Willard was no athlete, not like the top rated guys of 6' 6"+ today. He was probably world champion because of his size advantage alone.

I've also always respected and defended the old timers from a century ago, because people like Nat Fleischer rated them ATGs and you gotta respect that he knew a bit about boxing, even if I never actually saw them in action,
Then you get to see some grainy footage of them doing their stuff and they can look slow as molasses and painfully crude. Best maybe to honour their legends and just leave it at that.

[ewenhay]

That's how a lot of hypothetical arguments are based on here.

The best version of the guy they like versus the worst version of the guy they don't.

Plus, I don't think you can rank heavyweights historically using a hypothetical argument based on size of current heavyweights. It's completely dismissive and disrespectful to write off someone's entire career based on the fact that people have got bigger over the last 100 years.

You're talking sense there ewenhay. Are you ok?

Just kidding.

I've always maintained that Marciano would have been destroyed by Frazier simply because of the 30lb weight difference (a huge disparity at 185 vs 215) but that doesn't alter the fact that Rocky was one hellova fighter. Same goes for Dempsey - I know he was dwarfed by Willard but as big is he was Willard was no athlete, not like the top rated guys of 6' 6"+ today. He was probably world champion because of his size advantage alone.

I've also always respected and defended the old timers from a century ago, because people like Nat Fleischer rated them ATGs and you gotta respect that he knew a bit about boxing, even if I never actually saw them in action,
Then you get to see some grainy footage of them doing their stuff and they can look slow as molasses and painfully crude. Best maybe to honour their legends and just leave it at that.

Thanks slim. Was just a temporary burst of sanity!