Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

[Thomastearns]

About 2/3 years ago there were some who were asking here whether, mainly because of his size, Anthony Joshua was the greatest heavyweight of all time.

If Wilder had flattened Me Nandralone then his fans would have been asking the same question. Probably demanding it.

I thought Ruiz beating Joshua put an end to this nonsense.

A better question would be just how fast would a peak Jack Dempsey on PEDs tear through today's top 10?

[margaret thatcher]

About 2/3 years ago there were some who were asking here whether, mainly because of his size, Anthony Joshua was the greatest heavyweight of all time.

If Wilder had flattened Me Nandralone then his fans would have been asking the same question. Probably demanding it.

I thought Ruiz beating Joshua put an end to this nonsense.

A better question would be just how fast would a peak Jack Dempsey on PEDs tear through today's top 10?

That version of Dempsey never existed

[Duran1970]

Tell me what fury has done to garner such accolades? A finished Klitschko? 1-0-1 vs a guy who doesn't know how to box? The latest isn't always the greatest pal..to think fury is the best is just pure delusion..Ali with his speed and skill set would handle fury with ease

No he wouldn’t with ease Tell me who Ali faced with the size of Tyson? Let alone who could move like Tyson. His reach. His skils. These men didn’t exist in ali time. He was too busy beating 200 pounders, some of whom are not even good ejiugh to spar tyson

So fury's the best cause he's the biggest?.
Man this is getting old.

[candyslim]

About 2/3 years ago there were some who were asking here whether, mainly because of his size, Anthony Joshua was the greatest heavyweight of all time.

If Wilder had flattened Me Nandralone then his fans would have been asking the same question. Probably demanding it.

I thought Ruiz beating Joshua put an end to this nonsense.

A better question would be just how fast would a peak Jack Dempsey on PEDs tear through today's top 10?

That version of Dempsey never existed

Dempsey was a genuine heavyweight champion and deserves his props but he did lose twice to Gene Tunney who wasn't a puncher and he was reported as having been absolutely battered in sparring by middleweight Harry Greb who was practically blind in one eye. Can you seriously imagine a 190lb Jack Dempsey beating Joe Frazier because I can't. Bob Foster was unbeatable at 175 and he lasted two rounds against Frazier. Size isn't everything but it's a massive advantage when other factors are roughly equal.

There are the twin imposters of recency and nostalgic exaggeration, and we should be wary of both.

[Duran1970]

I'll take speed and skill over size and strength any day

[margaret thatcher]

Pretty common tactic there--people say size matters, someone accuses them of saying that only size matters. how dare it be mentioned!

[ewenhay]

The issue here though is that it's a flawed argument to measure the greatness of a heavyweight by physical size across multiple generations.

A ped fuelled Jack Dempsey doesn't exist today.

Equally a giant Tyson Fury doesn't exist in the 1920s.

[margaret thatcher]

It's not flawed at all, comparing them as they actually were is a far better method than dreaming up some fantasy 6'2 220 Marciano who never existed. If a guy was from an era where he was a 6 foot 180 pound HW, that's just who he was and how he should be assessed. Too bad for him if the lack of size works against him.

[oogiebe]

Fury is a bit of a freak of nature. He has the size and strength. And we all know he is an elusive target. But not both at the same time. Vs Wilder in the first fight, there were glimmers of an offensive fury, but he was mostly defensive. In Wilder II, he was mostly offense. No, there's never been a fighter like Fury before, but that doesn't make him the best HW ever. Let's let him finish his career and see where we rate him then.

Ali attacked off his elusiveness. Taking advantage of the openings that he created by making his opponents miss, and making openings thanks to his incredible speed and punch output. There was never anyone like Ali. But take Ali's full body of work and you make the argument that he was the greatest HW ever. That said, I still say that Lennox Claudius Lewis was the greatest HW ever.

[ewenhay]

It's not flawed at all, comparing them as they actually were is a far better method than dreaming up some fantasy 6'2 220 Marciano who never existed. If a guy was from an era where he was a 6 foot 180 pound HW, that's just who he was and how he should be assessed. Too bad for him if the lack of size works against him.

It's totally flawed on multiple levels.

Your argument is too simplistic, based primarily on fantasy match ups where the biggest guy generally wins.

[margaret thatcher]

It's not flawed at all, comparing them as they actually were is a far better method than dreaming up some fantasy 6'2 220 Marciano who never existed. If a guy was from an era where he was a 6 foot 180 pound HW, that's just who he was and how he should be assessed. Too bad for him if the lack of size works against him.

It's totally flawed on multiple levels.

Your argument is too simplistic, based primarily on fantasy match ups where the biggest guy generally wins.

It's not at all...it's taking the guys as they actually were, not turning it into a video game where you can just adjust their stats as you please. Hmm. should we make Jack Johnson 6'7 , 6'5, or 6'3? Do we still get as many speed points? What about all his opposition? Plus of course if we brought them into today they'd be playing NBA right

The times and sizes are part of who the fighters were. Too bad for them if part of that is being small, that just points to a weakness in those particular eras.

[ewenhay]

It's totally flawed on multiple levels.

Your argument is too simplistic, based primarily on fantasy match ups where the biggest guy generally wins.

It's not at all...it's taking the guys as they actually were, not turning it into a video game where you can just adjust their stats as you please. Hmm. should we make Jack Johnson 6'7 , 6'5, or 6'3? Do we still get as many speed points? What about all his opposition? Plus of course if we brought them into today they'd be playing NBA right

The times and sizes are part of who the fighters were. Too bad for them if part of that is being small, that just points to a weakness in those particular eras.

I'm not changing anyone's stats.

I'm saying that you shouldn't measure the greatness of heavyweights by comparing physical size over multiple generations

[margaret thatcher]

Pretty much never see anyone saying that, as if it's all based on size and that there is some linear ranking based on body, just that size is a factor and that many HWs of the past would be vastly outsized today. Shh above gets labelled as a size extremist for example, but he mentions Fury's skill and abilities right along with the size. It works together.

All this talk of how big so and so would be in what and what period, or if they had what and what peds,......all that is talking about making them into fighters they never were. There was no such person as a 6'5 Jack Johnson for example.

[ewenhay]

Once again you are reading but not understanding. Or choosing to ignore.

You're the boxrec equivalent of a small child in the back of a car on a long journey repeatedly asking 'are we there yet?'

[margaret thatcher]

Not at all, I'm just someone who takes account of relevant factors that were actually there. Maybe ignoring those things or evening them out through fantasy size changes works better for you ('oh, but so and so would be this much bigger if he were around today lol)

[ewenhay]

Not at all, I'm just someone who takes account of relevant factors that were actually there. Maybe ignoring those things or evening them out through fantasy size changes works better for you

When have I ever suggested we should have fantasy size changes?

[ewenhay]

You do know that there are multiple posters on here?

You're not conversing with one person with one opinion?

[margaret thatcher]

LOL you mention Fury being put into a time machine and being much smaller and shrunk down in the 1920s. You say it's flawed and even unfair to mention size. But the only way size isn't relevant is if you go to fantasy land and shrink down a bunch of guys, blow up a bunch of guys, and make them all the same.

Fact is, it is far better to talk about fighters as they actually existed then to change them into people they weren't, and to add all sorts of extra variables to it. Tough luck for guys from the 1910s if they were 185 pound 6 foot hws, or 5'7 160s in the case of the guy Johnson won the title from lol

[ewenhay]

LOL you mention Fury being put into a time machine and being much smaller and shrunk down in the 1920s. You say it's flawed and even unfair to mention size. But the only way size isn't relevant is if you go to fantasy land and shrink down a bunch of guys, blow up a bunch of guys, and make them all the same.

Fact is, it is far better to talk about fighters as they actually existed then to change them into people they weren't, and to add all sorts of extra variables to it.

I never said that at all.

I said that Fury didn't exist in the 1920s any more than Jack Dempsey exists today.

Read the post again.

[ewenhay]

Are we there yet?

[margaret thatcher]

Ya, you sent him back to the 1920s and shrunk him

Bruh, got some news for you, Tyson Fury is a giant

[ewenhay]

You just read what you want to read. Regardless of what's written.

You make one simplistic point and repeat it over and over again.

[oogiebe]

Ya, you sent him back to the 1920s and shrunk him

Bruh, got some news for you, Tyson Fury is a giant

Nah. He said Fury didn't exist in 1920. You do tend to bend the truth at times for the sake of your argument (or taunting).

[margaret thatcher]

Bruh, it's right there, Fury in the 1920s, Fury shrunken down

So what ? Fury, as he actually exists, is a giant.

[ewenhay]

Where did I shrink Fury down? You're talking complete nonsense