Tyson Fury’s real ranking in The Pantheon of HWs

[Lenny Cravats]

Difficult question. Fury would make a really, really tough night for any HW in history just due to his size and movement.

You can theorize about him beating all sorts of HWs of the past, but with such a thin resume, you'll have an argument just as thin.

The Klitschko fight was insanely dull, with Klitschko being old, Fury's liking for wild boar around the same time and his refusal to rematch, it takes the edge off it somewhat.

Then there's Wilder. Who hadn't beaten anyone of note.

This era isn't that bad, but Fury's lack of fighting decent opposition does harm his chances of being held in a high position in all time standings.

Mad to think that, after what, 9 years after beating Klitchko? The best he has is 3 fights over Wilder.

[Autobarn]

Fury's career isn't over. He has dethroned a Hall of Famer and engaged in a classic 3 fight trilogy vs the biggest puncher in the sport. These things shouldn't be overlooked. And vs his mandatory, given a decisive and accomplished display of effective, bigger man boxing. Basically using his size and weight and boxing skills in a manner befitting an elite super heavyweight.

Looming is a fight with one of the great fighters of the modern era, Usyk. Is it an utter physical mismatch, like for instance Spence v Mikey Garcia or Lomachenko v Rigondeaux? Or a genuine, Bowe vs Holyfield type of matchup? So if the fight happens and he wins, the result will still split people. (Wlad was old, Wilder is garbage, Whyte etc etc. There's always be a reason why Fury was able to beat this or that guy, in line with the way we seem to take almost all results for granted.)

Should we be ranking him before his career is over? Also, the current context, in which he has taken a novelty/celeb fight, is inviting backlash and will likely affect the way people rank him. Following a popular matchup or an unpopular one, is likely to yield different votes.

[margaret thatcher]

updated all time list

1.fury
2. wilder
3.wlad
4. ngannou
5.otto wallin
6. chisora
7. cunningham
8. luis ortiz
9. ali
10. louis

[Nightmare Roy]

updated all time list

1.fury
2. wilder
3.wlad
4. ngannou
5.otto wallin
6. chisora
7. cunningham
8. luis ortiz
9. ali
10. louis

[cormack]

fury is the great pretender

[Monzon83]

He’s one of the worst HW champions in history. He’s very lucky he’s in an era with a few others on that list.

[tonyevs]

He’s one of the worst HW champions in history. He’s very lucky he’s in an era with a few others on that list.

He is our modern day version of Jess Willard - almost same height, as reluctant to face worthy challenges too.

[margaret thatcher]

he's nowhere near the worst champ of the alphabet era. there were worse champs before that too, plenty in the earliest day of the title, and then at times guys like ernie terrell. clearly he's massive and has tools to use his advantages effectively for the most part.

but some people elevated him to a lofty atg like status (in cases even picking him to beat everyone ever) for the wilder fights, when wilder's opposition is absolutely paper thin. dom breazeale and bermane stiverne are legitimately top 3 opponents for him in terms of wins. fury fans have a weird collective overrating of wilder and luis ortiz going on. his support is very cult like, though tbf he has plenty of over the top haterz too

[tonyevs]

he's nowhere near the worst champ of the alphabet era. there were worse champs before that too, plenty in the earliest day of the title, and then at times guys like ernie terrell. clearly he's massive and has tools to use his advantages effectively for the most part.

but some people elevated him to a lofty atg like status (in cases even picking him to beat everyone ever) for the wilder fights, when wilder's opposition is absolutely paper thin. dom breazeale and bermane stiverne are legitimately top 3 opponents for him in terms of wins. fury fans have a weird collective overrating of wilder and luis ortiz going on. his support is very cult like, though tbf he has plenty of over the top haterz too

In your opinion - has Tyson Fury and the Fury bandwagon been good or bad for the sport of boxing?
And why??

[Riddick Bowie]

Fury outboxed an old, one dimensional Wladimir Klitschko, a result only notable because of the Ukranian's hollow prestige earned from presiding over a Dark Age of talent in the heavyweight division (go back and check his record).

He also has his trilogy with Deontay Wilder, a clumsy, one dimensional fighter with one punch and nothing else, and whose status was enlarged due to careful match making (go back and check his record).

There's not a lot there. He's been down multiple times and ducks opponents who are dangerous, and now we can see why. He's too fragile physically and mentally to rank in the all-time top 10, and all those ex-champs he bumped fists with in his ring walk would have beaten him, as well as many others watching at home like George Foreman and Tim Witherspoon.

[Loftgroov]

He’s one of the worst HW champions in history. He’s very lucky he’s in an era with a few others on that list.

Not even close. In this alphabet era I'd encourage you to look back at who has actually been "HW champion" over the past say, 20 years, and it's chock full of fighters who achieved far less than Fury has.

Whilst everyone is raging about last night's fight, the fact remains Fury beat Klitschko in Germany, and Wilder three times in the USA. I'm not saying this elevates Fury to a status comparable with greats from previous eras, but in the modern era his record is up there and, when he bothers to train, he has the beating of anyone around now.

[Boxerbeetle]

Fury has never been that good, has he. Anyone claiming he’s a genuine ATG heavyweight really needs to educate themselves.

[Frostieballs]

Fury has one good win. That is it.

Been panned for years for saying Wilder is Euro level at best - but I’m sticking to it.

[Kilburn]

It’s quite something, the credit Fury gets for having Wilder’s scalp - a boxer who can barely throw a jab.

[DrDuke]

Wlad has a legit top 20 claim. And Fury is better than him.

[polecateddy]

Wlad has a legit top 20 claim. And Fury is better than him.

Wlad was 4 months shy of his 40th birthday, and already had looked quite ordinary outpointing Bryant Jennings. Most heavyweights are well into retirement at that age. I think Fury is outside the top 20 because he’s clearly a huge beneficiary of being in a very soft era. I wouldn’t put Joshua, Usyk or Fury in the top 20. They all would have been found out in the Bowe/Holyfield/Lewis era. They’d have been hammered!

[DrDuke]

Wlad has a legit top 20 claim. And Fury is better than him.

Wlad was 4 months shy of his 40th birthday, and already had looked quite ordinary outpointing Bryant Jennings. Most heavyweights are well into retirement at that age. I think Fury is outside the top 20 because he’s clearly a huge beneficiary of being in a very soft era. I wouldn’t put Joshua, Usyk or Fury in the top 20. They all would have been found out in the Bowe/Holyfield/Lewis era. They’d have been hammered!

Wlad had a very good performance later, againsf Joshua. He didn't have many hard fights, since he was a king of a relatively weak era, that's why he lasted so long. Fury is a more diverse fighter.

[polecateddy]

Wlad has a legit top 20 claim. And Fury is better than him.

Wlad was 4 months shy of his 40th birthday, and already had looked quite ordinary outpointing Bryant Jennings. Most heavyweights are well into retirement at that age. I think Fury is outside the top 20 because he’s clearly a huge beneficiary of being in a very soft era. I wouldn’t put Joshua, Usyk or Fury in the top 20. They all would have been found out in the Bowe/Holyfield/Lewis era. They’d have been hammered!

Wlad had a very good performance later, againsf Joshua. He didn't have many hard fights, since he was a king of a relatively weak era, that's why he lasted so long. Fury is a more diverse fighter.

I’m not sure it’s a strong argument as I wouldn’t put Wlad anywhere near the top 10 ATG’s, because his chin was poor. He would have got chewed up and spat out in the Bowe/Holyfield/Lewis era too!

[DrDuke]

Wlad was 4 months shy of his 40th birthday, and already had looked quite ordinary outpointing Bryant Jennings. Most heavyweights are well into retirement at that age. I think Fury is outside the top 20 because he’s clearly a huge beneficiary of being in a very soft era. I wouldn’t put Joshua, Usyk or Fury in the top 20. They all would have been found out in the Bowe/Holyfield/Lewis era. They’d have been hammered!

Wlad had a very good performance later, againsf Joshua. He didn't have many hard fights, since he was a king of a relatively weak era, that's why he lasted so long. Fury is a more diverse fighter.

I’m not sure it’s a strong argument as I wouldn’t put Wlad anywhere near the top 10 ATG’s, because his chin was poor. He would have got chewed up and spat out in the Bowe/Holyfield/Lewis era too!

Yeah, but he wasn't that bad. The Lewis/Holy/Bowe era is at least the 2nd greatest era ever.

[polecateddy]

Wlad had a very good performance later, againsf Joshua. He didn't have many hard fights, since he was a king of a relatively weak era, that's why he lasted so long. Fury is a more diverse fighter.

I’m not sure it’s a strong argument as I wouldn’t put Wlad anywhere near the top 10 ATG’s, because his chin was poor. He would have got chewed up and spat out in the Bowe/Holyfield/Lewis era too!

Yeah, but he wasn't that bad. The Lewis/Holy/Bowe era is at least the 2nd greatest era ever.

It’s a happening a bit in slow motion. It was obvious Fury was going to get found out with his Morecambe training camps. Next up it’s surely Wilder getting smashed up by everyone, and then he gets thoroughly put into perspective. There’s not very much propping up Fury’s career in reality.

[Monzon83]

Wlad has a legit top 20 claim. And Fury is better than him.

Why, because he scraped a decision against the worst ever version of Vlad? Klitschko at his best would have battered Fury which is why the con man ducked a rematch and faked his whole mental health routine.

Fury is nowhere near a great HW by any standard. Neither for that matter is Wilder and that’s the guy he gets the most credit for beating.

[gilgamesh]

Wlad has a legit top 20 claim. And Fury is better than him.

Why, because he scraped a decision against the worst ever version of Vlad? Klitschko at his best would have battered Fury which is why the con man ducked a rematch and faked his whole mental health routine.

Fury is nowhere near a great HW by any standard. Neither for that matter is Wilder and that’s the guy he gets the most credit for beating.

When you make your list of who you'd currently have as the all time Top 20. Once you get down to the guys that are say between 13 and 20 on the list. What exactly about them, makes their achievements so far and above Tyson Fury or Wlad?

Most Heavyweight Champions did not have particularly long reigns or particularly deep resumes past a few key wins. So what makes them any different from Wlad or Fury?

For instance, Wladimir's reign as Champion to me is head and shoulders above say Sonny Liston. Sonny Liston is a guy you routinely see on all time lists.

[si7dog7]

he's nowhere near the worst champ of the alphabet era. there were worse champs before that too, plenty in the earliest day of the title, and then at times guys like ernie terrell. clearly he's massive and has tools to use his advantages effectively for the most part.

but some people elevated him to a lofty atg like status (in cases even picking him to beat everyone ever) for the wilder fights, when wilder's opposition is absolutely paper thin. dom breazeale and bermane stiverne are legitimately top 3 opponents for him in terms of wins. fury fans have a weird collective overrating of wilder and luis ortiz going on. his support is very cult like, though tbf he has plenty of over the top haterz too

In your opinion - has Tyson Fury and the Fury bandwagon been good or bad for the sport of boxing?
And why??

Are you taking the proverbial ?

[si7dog7]

Fury outboxed an old, one dimensional Wladimir Klitschko, a result only notable because of the Ukranian's hollow prestige earned from presiding over a Dark Age of talent in the heavyweight division (go back and check his record).

He also has his trilogy with Deontay Wilder, a clumsy, one dimensional fighter with one punch and nothing else, and whose status was enlarged due to careful match making (go back and check his record).

There's not a lot there. He's been down multiple times and ducks opponents who are dangerous, and now we can see why. He's too fragile physically and mentally to rank in the all-time top 10, and all those ex-champs he bumped fists with in his ring walk would have beaten him, as well as many others watching at home like George Foreman and Tim Witherspoon.

A very well constructed post,
Prime/half prime Tim would have Fury for dinner.

[polecateddy]

You’d have to squint a bit to put David Tua in the top 50 of all-time heavies, but he would have smashed Fury and Ngganou like a piñata last night on peak form. He would have done Ngganou in two rounds early evening and come back for Fury at later in the night. Fury and Ngganou were rubbish if we comparing to actual world leading heavyweights in other eras.