How Do You Rank These Smaller Heavyweight Champions?

[Ambling Alp II]

Some people do overrate him because he was undefeated. Some underrate him for the same reason.
He was consistent. when rating him, we should not look at how good Louis, Charles, and Walcott were at their best. We should look at how good they were when Marciano fought him. They all had to varying degrees something left.

As for Charles, the losses to Layne and Valdes hurt his case the most.

Do we consider Charles in his prime at that stage though? I haven't seen the fight but from the boxrec wiki on it, it does sound like Charles may have been robbed. 2 rounds to 1 with 7 even would give the indication that Dempsey bent over backwards not to give it to Charles.
What you said about what Walcott, Louis and Charles had left is kind of my point Alp. It would appear that Charles beat better versions of some of Marciano's biggest wins. Charles spent a lot more time facing the elite of the HW division than Marciano. Rocky was smart of course and got out when he knew that his time was almost up, Charles unfortunately didn't.

It would be great if that Charles-Layne would show up on Youtube, wouldn't it?
worth mentioning that Marciano did beat Layne fairly easily.
There are certainly some gray areas here.

Louis was obviously past his best when Charles beat him. He was further past it when Marciano beat him; though he wasn't completely shot. Marciano had little less trouble with beat Louis.

Walcott was pretty close to his prime when Charles fought him. He went 2-2. Walcott was a little past that when Marciano fought him the first time, but not much.

Thought Charles should have been able to beat Valdes at that stage of his career. He was a little past it, but should have had enough left.
Charles also lost to Ray earlier, though he did win the rematch.

Overall, I rate Marciano did just enough to be rated higher than mid-tier champs like Charles, Patterson, Schmeling etc. (and Langford, Wills, McVey and Jeannette as well).

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Charles is underrated these days.

He beat around 10 top 10 heavyweights managed 8 title defenses and many felt he won the 4th fight with Walcott which would have made him a two time champion. His accomplishments in his own era seem comparable to Holyfield and greater than Frazier.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agree that some people underrate Charles. We have to be careful about the dreaded word "accomplishments". The amount of title defenses by itself doesn't mean anything. A champion can always find an easy opponent to make a title defense against.
Frazier's accomplishments were clearly better at than Charles (at heavyweight).

[Cojimar 1946]

Charles had more title defenses, beat more top 10 opponents and seems to have been the best heavyweight in the world for roughly 3 years. Frazier seems to benefit a lot from sharing an era with Ali.

Holyfield is an interesting case. He had good longevity but never really established himself as the best heavyweight in the world. It's not clear he was number one at really any point in time.

[DrDuke]

Charles had more title defenses, beat more top 10 opponents and seems to have been the best heavyweight in the world for roughly 3 years. Frazier seems to benefit a lot from sharing an era with Ali.

Holyfield is an interesting case. He had good longevity but never really established himself as the best heavyweight in the world. It's not clear he was number one at really any point in time.

Frazier's resume is better than Charles' not only because of winning Ali.

Holyfield was a clear #1, when he was an undisputed champion.

[Cojimar 1946]

Charles had more title defenses, beat more top 10 opponents and seems to have been the best heavyweight in the world for roughly 3 years. Frazier seems to benefit a lot from sharing an era with Ali.

Holyfield is an interesting case. He had good longevity but never really established himself as the best heavyweight in the world. It's not clear he was number one at really any point in time.

Frazier's resume is better than Charles' not only because of winning Ali.

Holyfield was a clear #1, when he was an undisputed champion.

It's not better if were rating on what they did in their own eras. Not by any metric I can see.
And its not at all clear Holyfield was best during any of his various title reigns. If he was the clear number one that hardly fits with him losing to Bowe. Lewis could have potentially beat him years before they actually fought.

[DrDuke]

Charles had more title defenses, beat more top 10 opponents and seems to have been the best heavyweight in the world for roughly 3 years. Frazier seems to benefit a lot from sharing an era with Ali.

Holyfield is an interesting case. He had good longevity but never really established himself as the best heavyweight in the world. It's not clear he was number one at really any point in time.

Frazier's resume is better than Charles' not only because of winning Ali.

Holyfield was a clear #1, when he was an undisputed champion.

It's not better if were rating on what they did in their own eras. Not by any metric I can see.
And its not at all clear Holyfield was best during any of his various title reigns. If he was the clear number one that hardly fits with him losing to Bowe. Lewis could have potentially beat him years before they actually fought.

He lost to Bowe, he avenged it. Before losing to him he was the man clearly. And Lewis at the early stages had own problems, in particular losing to McCall. It's a bad argument, whether someone could beat somebody earlier. Maybe Marciano could do it with Walcott and Charles, for example.

[Cojimar 1946]

Frazier's resume is better than Charles' not only because of winning Ali.

Holyfield was a clear #1, when he was an undisputed champion.

It's not better if were rating on what they did in their own eras. Not by any metric I can see.
And its not at all clear Holyfield was best during any of his various title reigns. If he was the clear number one that hardly fits with him losing to Bowe. Lewis could have potentially beat him years before they actually fought.

He lost to Bowe, he avenged it. Before losing to him he was the man clearly. And Lewis at the early stages had own problems, in particular losing to McCall. It's a bad argument, whether someone could beat somebody earlier. Maybe Marciano could do it with Walcott and Charles, for example.

Bowe came into the rematch out of shape. In the third fight a better conditioned Bowe knocked Holyfield out. Bowe won the series and won his fights far more decisively than Holyfield.

I don't see any reason to think Bowe couldn't beat Holyfield in 1991. Bowe was already considered a top 10 heavyweight as early as 1990 and his competition didn't really improve up until facing Holyfield. There is nothing strange about thinking a guy who actually beat Holyfield could have done so earlier.

As far as Lewis goes he lost to Rahman at his supposed peak so losing to McCall hardly precludes him from beating Holyfield.

[DrDuke]

It's not better if were rating on what they did in their own eras. Not by any metric I can see.
And its not at all clear Holyfield was best during any of his various title reigns. If he was the clear number one that hardly fits with him losing to Bowe. Lewis could have potentially beat him years before they actually fought.

He lost to Bowe, he avenged it. Before losing to him he was the man clearly. And Lewis at the early stages had own problems, in particular losing to McCall. It's a bad argument, whether someone could beat somebody earlier. Maybe Marciano could do it with Walcott and Charles, for example.

Bowe came into the rematch out of shape. In the third fight a better conditioned Bowe knocked Holyfield out. Bowe won the series and won his fights far more decisively than Holyfield.

I don't see any reason to think Bowe couldn't beat Holyfield in 1991. Bowe was already considered a top 10 heavyweight as early as 1990 and his competition didn't really improve up until facing Holyfield. There is nothing strange about thinking a guy who actually beat Holyfield could have done so earlier.

As far as Lewis goes he lost to Rahman at his supposed peak so losing to McCall hardly precludes him from beating Holyfield.

Again, it's a bad argument, that fighter A never was the man, cause fighter B, who beat fighter A at some point, could have beaten him earlier. You can discredit with this argument many fighters, from Charles and Walcott to Patterson and Tyson. Like, you know, Buster was always around, when Tyson was a champ, and since he beat him so decisively, he should have been a Tyson kryptonite and he could do it at any point.

Talking about Lewis before the Steward alliance and after it, those were quite different fighters. Lewis shouldn't have been favored against Holyfield and Bowe in 92-93.

[Ambling Alp II]

Charles had more title defenses, beat more top 10 opponents and seems to have been the best heavyweight in the world for roughly 3 years. Frazier seems to benefit a lot from sharing an era with Ali.

Holyfield is an interesting case. He had good longevity but never really established himself as the best heavyweight in the world. It's not clear he was number one at really any point in time.

The number of title defense doesn't mean anything at all. It's who you beat that counts. You can always find a stiff to beat.
As for top 10, well you have to factor in the era. Charles fought in a decent era, but nowhere near Frazier's. Also, you are giving the same amount of credit for beat a guy #1 as you #10.

I know that for some bizarre reason, you like you to throw out fighters biggest win out. (Only when it helps your case of course.)
However, you have to count it. Obviously, it wasn't a prime Ali, but still a great fighter. Frazier also beat Quarry and Ellis and Bonavena.

You also have factor in losses to guys that weren't great. Charles lost to Valades and Layne. Frazier never lost to anyone like that.

[p4p1]

Charles had more title defenses, beat more top 10 opponents and seems to have been the best heavyweight in the world for roughly 3 years. Frazier seems to benefit a lot from sharing an era with Ali.

Holyfield is an interesting case. He had good longevity but never really established himself as the best heavyweight in the world. It's not clear he was number one at really any point in time.

The number of title defense doesn't mean anything at all. It's who you beat that counts. You can always find a stiff to beat.
As for top 10, well you have to factor in the era. Charles fought in a decent era, but nowhere near Frazier's. Also, you are giving the same amount of credit for beat a guy #1 as you #10.

I know that for some bizarre reason, you like you to throw out fighters biggest win out. (Only when it helps your case of course.)
However, you have to count it. Obviously, it wasn't a prime Ali, but still a great fighter. Frazier also beat Quarry and Ellis and Bonavena.

You also have factor in losses to guys that weren't great. Charles lost to Valades and Layne. Frazier never lost to anyone like that.

Not to nitpick Alp but in another thread you said that Louis has to be #2 because of the amount of title defences and beating a lot of good but not great fighters. I personally also rank Louis number 2. 12 years on top is undeniable IMO. But that one does seem very hypocritical to me.

[Cojimar 1946]

He lost to Bowe, he avenged it. Before losing to him he was the man clearly. And Lewis at the early stages had own problems, in particular losing to McCall. It's a bad argument, whether someone could beat somebody earlier. Maybe Marciano could do it with Walcott and Charles, for example.

Bowe came into the rematch out of shape. In the third fight a better conditioned Bowe knocked Holyfield out. Bowe won the series and won his fights far more decisively than Holyfield.

I don't see any reason to think Bowe couldn't beat Holyfield in 1991. Bowe was already considered a top 10 heavyweight as early as 1990 and his competition didn't really improve up until facing Holyfield. There is nothing strange about thinking a guy who actually beat Holyfield could have done so earlier.

As far as Lewis goes he lost to Rahman at his supposed peak so losing to McCall hardly precludes him from beating Holyfield.

Again, it's a bad argument, that fighter A never was the man, cause fighter B, who beat fighter A at some point, could have beaten him earlier. You can discredit with this argument many fighters, from Charles and Walcott to Patterson and Tyson. Like, you know, Buster was always around, when Tyson was a champ, and since he beat him so decisively, he should have been a Tyson kryptonite and he could do it at any point.

Talking about Lewis before the Steward alliance and after it, those were quite different fighters. Lewis shouldn't have been favored against Holyfield and Bowe in 92-93.

Lewis has plenty of good performances pre-Stewart. I don't see any reason to dismiss his chances against Bowe and Holyfield pre-Stewart. Bowe was very easy to hit and Lewis is a huge puncher. Arguing he could beat Holyfield in 1989 or 1990 would be silly but by late 1991/1992 he had emerged as a credible threat at least in my view.

And there is plenty of historical precedent for the champion not being the best in the world from multiple divisions. During Carnera's title reign I would favor Schmelling and Baer to beat him. During Spinks reign I would favor Larry Holmes over him. During Burns title reign I would favor Jack Johnson to beat him. Does anyone disagree with these picks?

[DrDuke]

Bowe came into the rematch out of shape. In the third fight a better conditioned Bowe knocked Holyfield out. Bowe won the series and won his fights far more decisively than Holyfield.

I don't see any reason to think Bowe couldn't beat Holyfield in 1991. Bowe was already considered a top 10 heavyweight as early as 1990 and his competition didn't really improve up until facing Holyfield. There is nothing strange about thinking a guy who actually beat Holyfield could have done so earlier.

As far as Lewis goes he lost to Rahman at his supposed peak so losing to McCall hardly precludes him from beating Holyfield.

Again, it's a bad argument, that fighter A never was the man, cause fighter B, who beat fighter A at some point, could have beaten him earlier. You can discredit with this argument many fighters, from Charles and Walcott to Patterson and Tyson. Like, you know, Buster was always around, when Tyson was a champ, and since he beat him so decisively, he should have been a Tyson kryptonite and he could do it at any point.

Talking about Lewis before the Steward alliance and after it, those were quite different fighters. Lewis shouldn't have been favored against Holyfield and Bowe in 92-93.

Lewis has plenty of good performances pre-Stewart. I don't see any reason to dismiss his chances against Bowe and Holyfield pre-Stewart. Bowe was very easy to hit and Lewis is a huge puncher. Arguing he could beat Holyfield in 1989 or 1990 would be silly but by late 1991/1992 he had emerged as a credible threat at least in my view.

And there is plenty of historical precedent for the champion not being the best in the world from multiple divisions. During Carnera's title reign I would favor Schmelling and Baer to beat him. During Spinks reign I would favor Larry Holmes over him. During Burns title reign I would favor Jack Johnson to beat him. Does anyone disagree with these picks?

The mentioned 'champions' were either short-lived or reigned in weak eras for a reason, it can't be compared to Holyfield.

[Ambling Alp II]

Charles had more title defenses, beat more top 10 opponents and seems to have been the best heavyweight in the world for roughly 3 years. Frazier seems to benefit a lot from sharing an era with Ali.

Holyfield is an interesting case. He had good longevity but never really established himself as the best heavyweight in the world. It's not clear he was number one at really any point in time.

The number of title defense doesn't mean anything at all. It's who you beat that counts. You can always find a stiff to beat.
As for top 10, well you have to factor in the era. Charles fought in a decent era, but nowhere near Frazier's. Also, you are giving the same amount of credit for beat a guy #1 as you #10.

I know that for some bizarre reason, you like you to throw out fighters biggest win out. (Only when it helps your case of course.)
However, you have to count it. Obviously, it wasn't a prime Ali, but still a great fighter. Frazier also beat Quarry and Ellis and Bonavena.

You also have factor in losses to guys that weren't great. Charles lost to Valades and Layne. Frazier never lost to anyone like that.

Not to nitpick Alp but in another thread you said that Louis has to be #2 because of the amount of title defences and beating a lot of good but not great fighters. I personally also rank Louis number 2. 12 years on top is undeniable IMO. But that one does seem very hypocritical to me.

I never said that I ranked Louis #2 because of the amount of title defenses. (Maybe someone else did.)
I rank him high mostly because he had a lot of quality wins and only one loss near his prime, and that was to a great fighter. He also looks great on film.

[DrDuke]

The number of title defense doesn't mean anything at all. It's who you beat that counts. You can always find a stiff to beat.
As for top 10, well you have to factor in the era. Charles fought in a decent era, but nowhere near Frazier's. Also, you are giving the same amount of credit for beat a guy #1 as you #10.

I know that for some bizarre reason, you like you to throw out fighters biggest win out. (Only when it helps your case of course.)
However, you have to count it. Obviously, it wasn't a prime Ali, but still a great fighter. Frazier also beat Quarry and Ellis and Bonavena.

You also have factor in losses to guys that weren't great. Charles lost to Valades and Layne. Frazier never lost to anyone like that.

Not to nitpick Alp but in another thread you said that Louis has to be #2 because of the amount of title defences and beating a lot of good but not great fighters. I personally also rank Louis number 2. 12 years on top is undeniable IMO. But that one does seem very hypocritical to me.

I never said that I ranked Louis #2 because of the amount of title defenses. (Maybe someone else did.)
I rank him high mostly because he had a lot of quality wins and only one loss near his prime, and that was to a great fighter. He also looks great on film.

What about Bobby Fitz? Did he look greater on film than Vit Klit?

[margaret thatcher]

number of title defenses

eye test

[Cojimar 1946]

Again, it's a bad argument, that fighter A never was the man, cause fighter B, who beat fighter A at some point, could have beaten him earlier. You can discredit with this argument many fighters, from Charles and Walcott to Patterson and Tyson. Like, you know, Buster was always around, when Tyson was a champ, and since he beat him so decisively, he should have been a Tyson kryptonite and he could do it at any point.

Talking about Lewis before the Steward alliance and after it, those were quite different fighters. Lewis shouldn't have been favored against Holyfield and Bowe in 92-93.

Lewis has plenty of good performances pre-Stewart. I don't see any reason to dismiss his chances against Bowe and Holyfield pre-Stewart. Bowe was very easy to hit and Lewis is a huge puncher. Arguing he could beat Holyfield in 1989 or 1990 would be silly but by late 1991/1992 he had emerged as a credible threat at least in my view.

And there is plenty of historical precedent for the champion not being the best in the world from multiple divisions. During Carnera's title reign I would favor Schmelling and Baer to beat him. During Spinks reign I would favor Larry Holmes over him. During Burns title reign I would favor Jack Johnson to beat him. Does anyone disagree with these picks?

The mentioned 'champions' were either short-lived or reigned in weak eras for a reason, it can't be compared to Holyfield.

I bet in 20 years the 1990s will be seen as a poor era. Its pretty obvious just by talking with people that the era is not held in high esteem by many younger fans. Moreover it was easier to pick up belts due to proliferation of titles and PEDs/infrequent fight schedules. Holyfield got more opportunities by virtue of the era he fought in.

[DrDuke]

Lewis has plenty of good performances pre-Stewart. I don't see any reason to dismiss his chances against Bowe and Holyfield pre-Stewart. Bowe was very easy to hit and Lewis is a huge puncher. Arguing he could beat Holyfield in 1989 or 1990 would be silly but by late 1991/1992 he had emerged as a credible threat at least in my view.

And there is plenty of historical precedent for the champion not being the best in the world from multiple divisions. During Carnera's title reign I would favor Schmelling and Baer to beat him. During Spinks reign I would favor Larry Holmes over him. During Burns title reign I would favor Jack Johnson to beat him. Does anyone disagree with these picks?

The mentioned 'champions' were either short-lived or reigned in weak eras for a reason, it can't be compared to Holyfield.

I bet in 20 years the 1990s will be seen as a poor era. Its pretty obvious just by talking with people that the era is not held in high esteem by many younger fans. Moreover it was easier to pick up belts due to proliferation of titles and PEDs/infrequent fight schedules. Holyfield got more opportunities by virtue of the era he fought in.

Yeah, probably you will indeed see the 90s as a poor era in 20 years, when diagnosed with the elderly dementia.

[Cojimar 1946]

The mentioned 'champions' were either short-lived or reigned in weak eras for a reason, it can't be compared to Holyfield.

I bet in 20 years the 1990s will be seen as a poor era. Its pretty obvious just by talking with people that the era is not held in high esteem by many younger fans. Moreover it was easier to pick up belts due to proliferation of titles and PEDs/infrequent fight schedules. Holyfield got more opportunities by virtue of the era he fought in.

Yeah, probably you will indeed see the 90s as a poor era in 20 years, when diagnosed with the elderly dementia.

90s worship is a generation X phenomenon. Many people at the time didn't view it as a great era. Has nothing to do with me. And increasing numbers of younger fans don't see it as great either. You really think the 1990s will still be seen as a golden age in the 2040s/50s? By then people will probably argue Holyfield and Tyson are too little to compete anymore. But objectively I don't think Foreman, Moorer, and Rahman winning lineal titles reflects very well on the era. I don't see those guys being lineal today or beating Wladimir Klitschko.

In any case it has no bearing on whether Holyfield was ever the best in the world. I would say his best case is 1989 and 1990 but its not clear he was better than Tyson at that stage and by 1991 Lewis and Bowe had emerged as threats.

[oogiebe]

I bet in 20 years the 1990s will be seen as a poor era. Its pretty obvious just by talking with people that the era is not held in high esteem by many younger fans. Moreover it was easier to pick up belts due to proliferation of titles and PEDs/infrequent fight schedules. Holyfield got more opportunities by virtue of the era he fought in.

Yeah, probably you will indeed see the 90s as a poor era in 20 years, when diagnosed with the elderly dementia.

90s worship is a generation X phenomenon. Many people at the time didn't view it as a great era. Has nothing to do with me. And increasing numbers of younger fans don't see it as great either. You really think the 1990s will still be seen as a golden age in the 2040s/50s? By then people will probably argue Holyfield and Tyson are too little to compete anymore. But objectively I don't think Foreman, Moorer, and Rahman winning lineal titles reflects very well on the era. I don't see those guys being lineal today or beating Wladimir Klitschko.

In any case it has no bearing on whether Holyfield was ever the best in the world. I would say his best case is 1989 and 1990 but its not clear he was better than Tyson at that stage and by 1991 Lewis and Bowe had emerged as threats.

Been watching since late 60's. The 90's were a great era for HW's.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think era perceptions have much to do with ability. Other factors like competition and matchmaking are a lot more important.

The fighters of the Klitschko era seem to be underrated simply because fans found it boring how dominant Wladimir and Vitali were.

[DrDuke]

I bet in 20 years the 1990s will be seen as a poor era. Its pretty obvious just by talking with people that the era is not held in high esteem by many younger fans. Moreover it was easier to pick up belts due to proliferation of titles and PEDs/infrequent fight schedules. Holyfield got more opportunities by virtue of the era he fought in.

Yeah, probably you will indeed see the 90s as a poor era in 20 years, when diagnosed with the elderly dementia.

90s worship is a generation X phenomenon. Many people at the time didn't view it as a great era. Has nothing to do with me. And increasing numbers of younger fans don't see it as great either. You really think the 1990s will still be seen as a golden age in the 2040s/50s? By then people will probably argue Holyfield and Tyson are too little to compete anymore. But objectively I don't think Foreman, Moorer, and Rahman winning lineal titles reflects very well on the era. I don't see those guys being lineal today or beating Wladimir Klitschko.

In any case it has no bearing on whether Holyfield was ever the best in the world. I would say his best case is 1989 and 1990 but its not clear he was better than Tyson at that stage and by 1991 Lewis and Bowe had emerged as threats.

That's a one of the dumbest posts here for quite a while, even covering the delirium by a couple of the well-known local Klit-haters.

[Cojimar 1946]

Yeah, probably you will indeed see the 90s as a poor era in 20 years, when diagnosed with the elderly dementia.

90s worship is a generation X phenomenon. Many people at the time didn't view it as a great era. Has nothing to do with me. And increasing numbers of younger fans don't see it as great either. You really think the 1990s will still be seen as a golden age in the 2040s/50s? By then people will probably argue Holyfield and Tyson are too little to compete anymore. But objectively I don't think Foreman, Moorer, and Rahman winning lineal titles reflects very well on the era. I don't see those guys being lineal today or beating Wladimir Klitschko.

In any case it has no bearing on whether Holyfield was ever the best in the world. I would say his best case is 1989 and 1990 but its not clear he was better than Tyson at that stage and by 1991 Lewis and Bowe had emerged as threats.

That's a one of the dumbest posts here for quite a while, even covering the delirium by a couple of the well-known local Klit-haters.

You haven't said anything to refute my point about Holyfields inability to cement himself as the best at any point in time. He lost the Bowe trilogy and Bowe was ranked through both of his reigns. He also lost when he faced Lewis who again was ranked years prior to Holyfield facing him. These are facts not opinions.

[DrDuke]

90s worship is a generation X phenomenon. Many people at the time didn't view it as a great era. Has nothing to do with me. And increasing numbers of younger fans don't see it as great either. You really think the 1990s will still be seen as a golden age in the 2040s/50s? By then people will probably argue Holyfield and Tyson are too little to compete anymore. But objectively I don't think Foreman, Moorer, and Rahman winning lineal titles reflects very well on the era. I don't see those guys being lineal today or beating Wladimir Klitschko.

In any case it has no bearing on whether Holyfield was ever the best in the world. I would say his best case is 1989 and 1990 but its not clear he was better than Tyson at that stage and by 1991 Lewis and Bowe had emerged as threats.

That's a one of the dumbest posts here for quite a while, even covering the delirium by a couple of the well-known local Klit-haters.

You haven't said anything to refute my point about Holyfields inability to cement himself as the best at any point in time. He lost the Bowe trilogy and Bowe was ranked through both of his reigns. He also lost when he faced Lewis who again was ranked years prior to Holyfield facing him. These are facts not opinions.

And you've said nothing to refute the point of Tyson's inability to cement himself as the best at any point, since Douglas was always around.

And about Wlad since he never beat the #1 contender in Vitali.

[Cojimar 1946]

That's a one of the dumbest posts here for quite a while, even covering the delirium by a couple of the well-known local Klit-haters.

You haven't said anything to refute my point about Holyfields inability to cement himself as the best at any point in time. He lost the Bowe trilogy and Bowe was ranked through both of his reigns. He also lost when he faced Lewis who again was ranked years prior to Holyfield facing him. These are facts not opinions.

And you've said nothing to refute the point of Tyson's inability to cement himself as the best at any point, since Douglas was always around.

And about Wlad since he never beat the #1 contender in Vitali.

I agree with you on Wladimir though. He cant claim to be the best during the years in which his brother was also fighting. I think he was only the clear number 1 in 2006 and 2007. By the time Vitali retired Tyson Fury has emerged as a dangerous rival.