How good is Tyson fury actually?

[gilgamesh]

I'd rather see AJ win because in general he's had the more exciting career, and has been more fun to watch.

Personality wise I'm not high on either of them.

[gilgamesh]

Wilder is almost the dictionary definition of having a “puncher’s chance” but his overall skill level is abysmal and was exposed every single time he stepped up in opposition. Even Ortiz won basically every second of every round against him before getting lazy. Wilder would have had a very similar career to Bruno in the 80s, but the current proliferation of titles and the constant cherry-picking of opponents meant he could hang on to the claim of being champion for far longer than he should have been able to.

His numbers did ultimately wind up being remarkably similar to Bruno's. Close to the same amount of wins. Same KO percentage. Same amount of losses, especially since it's looking like Wilder is determined to fight until he gets that 5th loss at minimum.

[Boxerbeetle]

^ Having said that, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Wilder had ko’d Joshua in the first round if they met, nor vice versa. They were both all wrong for each other, so would have been a great match up

[gilgamesh]

^ Having said that, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Wilder had ko’d Joshua in the first round if they met, nor vice versa. They were both all wrong for each other, so would have been a great match up

Yeah that's the Heavyweight fight of the last era I always wanted most personally. Guaranteed shootout, with an unpredictable ending.

A knockout either way in the first half of the fight is downright likely. If somehow they both fought cautiously, and tried to avoid each other's bombs then AJ is the only one who could ever win a decision in any of their bouts, but I suspect if they fought a dozen times they'd go the distance maybe once.

[Frostieballs]

Who could you name from the 80's that's better than Wilder besides Tyson and Holmes?

This must be a wind-up. I also said the 90’s. Why do you hold Wilder in so much regard?

Is it the trilogy with Fury - because there is nothing else on his record?

Fury only came in against Wilder in decent shape once - and decimated him.

I don't hold Wilder in high regard. I judge him accurately. You don't.

Because I don’t think he could have beaten every heavyweight in the 80’s bar two? Ok.

[gilgamesh]

This must be a wind-up. I also said the 90’s. Why do you hold Wilder in so much regard?

Is it the trilogy with Fury - because there is nothing else on his record?

Fury only came in against Wilder in decent shape once - and decimated him.

I don't hold Wilder in high regard. I judge him accurately. You don't.

Because I don’t think he could have beaten every heavyweight in the 80’s bar two? Ok.

I've never said he could beat every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2, but he undoubtedly had a better career than every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2.

Skill wise he's well behind some of the 1980's Heavyweights. Achievement wise he's behind only Holmes and Tyson really.

He was never THE Champion. He had a belt. That goes for almost all the other names of 1980's Heavyweight Boxing, and they didn't have their belt nearly as long.

[Frostieballs]

I don't hold Wilder in high regard. I judge him accurately. You don't.

Because I don’t think he could have beaten every heavyweight in the 80’s bar two? Ok.

I've never said he could beat every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2, but he undoubtedly had a better career than every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2.

Skill wise he's well behind some of the 1980's Heavyweights. Achievement wise he's behind only Holmes and Tyson really.

He was never THE Champion. He had a belt. That goes for almost all the other names of 1980's Heavyweight Boxing, and they didn't have their belt nearly as long.

You literally said:

“Who could you name from the 80's that's better than Wilder besides Tyson and Holmes?”

Even if you spin it as in your last post, its an outrageous claim. I think his career was dire, but you’re entitled to to your opinion Gigamesh.

[gilgamesh]

Because I don’t think he could have beaten every heavyweight in the 80’s bar two? Ok.

I've never said he could beat every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2, but he undoubtedly had a better career than every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2.

Skill wise he's well behind some of the 1980's Heavyweights. Achievement wise he's behind only Holmes and Tyson really.

He was never THE Champion. He had a belt. That goes for almost all the other names of 1980's Heavyweight Boxing, and they didn't have their belt nearly as long.

You literally said:

“Who could you name from the 80's that's better than Wilder besides Tyson and Holmes?”

Even if you spin it as in your last post, its an outrageous claim. I think his career was dire, but you’re entitled to to your opinion Gigamesh.

I don't think it is. When you weigh his career against those guys side by side, they really don't have anything better than he has. Could they box better? Sure. Everyone can at the World Class level pretty much. But where's the wins? Where's the definitive thing that makes them better than him?

[Frostieballs]

I've never said he could beat every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2, but he undoubtedly had a better career than every Heavyweight in the 80's except 2.

Skill wise he's well behind some of the 1980's Heavyweights. Achievement wise he's behind only Holmes and Tyson really.

He was never THE Champion. He had a belt. That goes for almost all the other names of 1980's Heavyweight Boxing, and they didn't have their belt nearly as long.

You literally said:

“Who could you name from the 80's that's better than Wilder besides Tyson and Holmes?”

Even if you spin it as in your last post, its an outrageous claim. I think his career was dire, but you’re entitled to to your opinion Gigamesh.

I don't think it is. When you weigh his career against those guys side by side, they really don't have anything better than he has. Could they box better? Sure. Everyone can at the World Class level pretty much. But where's the wins? Where's the definitive thing that makes them better than him?

I ask again Gigamesh - tell me what the outstanding achievement in Wilder’s career was?

Fury only turned up in shape once against him - and destroyed him.

[Perkin Warbeck]

Fury isn't as good as his fans make him out to be.

- He used a lot of dishonorable tactics against Klitschko, they made the old fighter wrap his hands twice and created nonsense about the ring mat and had it changed. He used a cowardly negative style to edge out a win in an exceedingly dull fight. Then he twice ducked out of the contracted rematch.

In contrast, Joshua beat Klitschko fair and square in an exciting fight.

- The referee gave a long count in Wilder-Fury I to benefit Fury, an honest ref would have stopped the fight.

- He should have lost to Ngannou (a boxing novice!) with fair and honest judges, while Joshua did what an experienced pro boxer SHOULD DO against an inexperienced opponent.

- With an honest referee, Usyk would have won the first fight by stoppage. The dodgy ref protected and saved Fury. In contrast, Joshua was outboxed by Usyk but never nearly so seriously hurt.

- Fury's wins have aged like milk. Joshua's win over Parker has aged very well.

- Fury struggled against the light-punching Wallin, Joshua took care of business.

And Fury avoided multiple heavyweight contenders like Parker while fighting the likes of Schwarz and Seferi.

And once again, Fury has "retired" to avoid heavyweights like Dubois (who would knock him out), Kabayel, Wardley, Parker and Itauma.

[gilgamesh]

You literally said:

“Who could you name from the 80's that's better than Wilder besides Tyson and Holmes?”

Even if you spin it as in your last post, its an outrageous claim. I think his career was dire, but you’re entitled to to your opinion Gigamesh.

I don't think it is. When you weigh his career against those guys side by side, they really don't have anything better than he has. Could they box better? Sure. Everyone can at the World Class level pretty much. But where's the wins? Where's the definitive thing that makes them better than him?

I ask again Gigamesh - tell me what the outstanding achievement in Wilder’s career was?

Fury only turned up in shape once against him - and destroyed him.

He doesn't have an outstanding achievement, and neither do most of the random ABC titleholders of the 1980's. Their great achievement was winning a belt. Usually over a guy that wasn't as good as Wilder or at least nothing to indicate they were any better.

But while all of those guys won the belt, and then promptly lost it on their first defense. Wilder actually managed to somehow hang onto his for about 4 years.

If Luis Ortiz had challenged Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith or Trevor Berbick he probably would've taken the belt off of them. Or at least would've had a 50/50 chance with any of them.

Stiverne I would say falls more into the Mike Weaver camp of an even lower tier than those guys, but he's about on that level.

Do any of the above mentioned Champions from the 80's have more than 2 or 3 marquee wins over anyone in their era?

[Frostieballs]

I don't think it is. When you weigh his career against those guys side by side, they really don't have anything better than he has. Could they box better? Sure. Everyone can at the World Class level pretty much. But where's the wins? Where's the definitive thing that makes them better than him?

I ask again Gigamesh - tell me what the outstanding achievement in Wilder’s career was?

Fury only turned up in shape once against him - and destroyed him.

He doesn't have an outstanding achievement, and neither do most of the random ABC titleholders of the 1980's. Their great achievement was winning a belt. Usually over a guy that wasn't as good as Wilder or at least nothing to indicate they were any better.

But while all of those guys won the belt, and then promptly lost it on their first defense. Wilder actually managed to somehow hang onto his for about 4 years.

If Luis Ortiz had challenged Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith or Trevor Berbick he probably would've taken the belt off of them. Or at least would've had a 50/50 chance with any of them.

Stiverne I would say falls more into the Mike Weaver camp of an even lower tier than those guys, but he's about on that level.

Do any of the above mentioned Champions from the 80's have more than 2 or 3 marquee wins over anyone in their era?

How long you hold onto a belt is irrelevant if you career is manufactured. Particularly in this era.

If you honestly think Ortiz would have a 50/50 change against Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith etc. I’m going to leave this conversation here Gigamesh.

[gilgamesh]

Bonecrusher Smith was 18-5 when he beat Witherspoon bro. He could be beat for Christ's sake. Obviously as could Witherspoon.

Witherspoon lost a lot of fights people didn't think he was gonna lose.

[NazNaci1]

To be fair, Gil, and I do genuinely respect your opinion and tend to agree with you on most boxing topics but I can't say I agree here.

Smith's 5 losses - James Broad (on his debut and he beat Broad, later), Holmes. Tubbs, Witherspoon, Frazier (Marvis), before that TKO 1 over Witherspoon. Not exactly a poor list. I would pick each one of them to beat Wilder, taking them at their respective primes..

Witherspoon only lost to Holmes on a SD, and Thomas (both for World titles) prior to that Smith loss then was unbeaten for 6yrs, losing again at 34 and then slowly taking more L's. I think you are reading a bit too much into these guys losses towards the ends of their careers. Most were broke so had to keep fighting, even when the skills had all but gone.

You look at someone like Wilder, yeah he held the belt for 4 yrs but just look at the guys he defend it against? They were appalling. Atrocious. He could have kept another 10 yrs, fighting at that level. His team went out of their way to protect him from anyone even semi dangerous, shamelessly ducking Whyte, the No 1 Contender, for 2 yrs. That says a lot.

The HW 80's HW skillsets were way more advanced than today's HWs (Uysk apart). Back then you had proper trainers like Benton Steward, Dundee, Futch, Slim Robinson etc..Smaller purses, bigger pools of fighters, more regular activity and less emphasis on the 0.

Watching Wilder fight, in his 'prime' and the way he just stood there, blatantly loading up and telegraphing his one only punch, would be meat and drink for these 80's and 90's guys. Pretty suicidal and he would never land it.

American HW's are my favourites, going back the 80's, 90's etc but Wilder is just nowhere near anything approaching those levels.

We can disagree and that's cool. I just don't see what you see, I suppose.

[gilgamesh]

To be fair, Gil, and I do genuinely respect your opinion and tend to agree with you on most boxing topics but I can't say I agree here.

Smith's 5 losses - James Broad (on his debut and he beat Broad, later), Holmes. Tubbs, Witherspoon, Frazier (Marvis), before that TKO 1 over Witherspoon. Not exactly a poor list. I would pick each one of them to beat Wilder, taking them at their respective primes..

Witherspoon only lost to Holmes on a SD, and Thomas (both for World titles) prior to that Smith loss then was unbeaten for 6yrs, losing again at 34 and then slowly taking more L's. I think you are reading a bit too much into these guys losses towards the ends of their careers. Most were broke so had to keep fighting, even when the skills had all but gone.

You look at someone like Wilder, yeah he held the belt for 4 yrs but just look at the guys he defend it against? They were appalling. Atrocious. He could have kept another 10 yrs, fighting at that level. His team went out of their way to protect him from anyone even semi dangerous, shamelessly ducking Whyte, the No 1 Contender, for 2 yrs. That says a lot.

The HW 80's HW skillsets were way more advanced than today's HWs (Uysk apart). Back then you had proper trainers like Benton Steward, Dundee, Futch, Slim Robinson etc..Smaller purses, bigger pools of fighters, more regular activity and less emphasis on the 0.

Watching Wilder fight, in his 'prime' and the way he just stood there, blatantly loading up and telegraphing his one only punch, would be meat and drink for these 80's and 90's guys. Pretty suicidal and he would never land it.

American HW's are my favourites, going back the 80's, 90's etc but Wilder is just nowhere near anything approaching those levels.

We can disagree and that's cool. I just don't see what you see, I suppose.

You think Deontay Wilder at 34 years old can't get by an Everett "Bigfoot" Martin? I can see Wilder losing to any of those guys in the 80's, but I can see him beating them also. I don't personally think he'd lose to a Tubbs or a Pinklon Thomas.

Guys with hard chins that in all likelihood ain't going nowhere like Spoon or Bonecrusher are gonna be more trouble for him.

Even so, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility he could outwork Spoon or Bonecrusher. They don't exactly fight at a sizzling pace, and yes I know Wilder doesn't either.

I just don't see anything Wilder couldn't at bare minimum compete with when I see those guys. They're tough guys, reasonably skilled, but certainly not the toughest lot of Heavyweights the world has ever produced.

Wilder is essentially a faster Earnie Shavers with better stamina. So he's definitely a guy that's going to be a problem for many a Heavyweight.

[gilgamesh]

And to be clear. I think Riddick Bowe, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Oliver McCall, and probably even Old Man Foreman all would knock out Wilder.

So I think I have a realistic take on how good he is and isn't.

I think a match between him and Bruno or Lamon Brewster would be 50/50. I think that's a reasonable assessment of him.

[a force]

Well it never really affected his career much. He didn't have any results overturned. To me it's a very minor story in his career. If it's a big deal, and a detriment to his career for you.

I hope you hold Evander Holyfield, Roy Jones, Shane Mosley, and Canelo Alvarez to the same standard, and don't just hold it against somebody when you're not rooting for him.

I find it easier to just ignore it across the board personally. I can't keep up with who's taken what, and I don't care to.

Your Boxing career to me is what happens from bell to bell. Any of the other stuff outside the ring is an insignificant part of the story.

I hold any drug cheats to the same standard. I can’t stand Fury, Canelo, Whyte, Povetkin etc.

Once you fail a test your whole career is questionable.

[a force]

Fury isn't as good as his fans make him out to be.

- He used a lot of dishonorable tactics against Klitschko, they made the old fighter wrap his hands twice and created nonsense about the ring mat and had it changed. He used a cowardly negative style to edge out a win in an exceedingly dull fight. Then he twice ducked out of the contracted rematch.

In contrast, Joshua beat Klitschko fair and square in an exciting fight.

- The referee gave a long count in Wilder-Fury I to benefit Fury, an honest ref would have stopped the fight.

- He should have lost to Ngannou (a boxing novice!) with fair and honest judges, while Joshua did what an experienced pro boxer SHOULD DO against an inexperienced opponent.

- With an honest referee, Usyk would have won the first fight by stoppage. The dodgy ref protected and saved Fury. In contrast, Joshua was outboxed by Usyk but never nearly so seriously hurt.

- Fury's wins have aged like milk. Joshua's win over Parker has aged very well.

- Fury struggled against the light-punching Wallin, Joshua took care of business.

And Fury avoided multiple heavyweight contenders like Parker while fighting the likes of Schwarz and Seferi.

And once again, Fury has "retired" to avoid heavyweights like Dubois (who would knock him out), Kabayel, Wardley, Parker and Itauma.

I agree with a lot of that but I don’t criticise Fury for the style he beat Klitschko with. If you’re taller & younger than your opponent, why not outbox him from range & use your attributes? It might be boring but you do what you need to do to win.

I don’t think he ducked the rematch, he just couldn’t get a license to fight due to the positive drugs test.

[Frostieballs]

Fury isn't as good as his fans make him out to be.

- He used a lot of dishonorable tactics against Klitschko, they made the old fighter wrap his hands twice and created nonsense about the ring mat and had it changed. He used a cowardly negative style to edge out a win in an exceedingly dull fight. Then he twice ducked out of the contracted rematch.

In contrast, Joshua beat Klitschko fair and square in an exciting fight.

- The referee gave a long count in Wilder-Fury I to benefit Fury, an honest ref would have stopped the fight.

- He should have lost to Ngannou (a boxing novice!) with fair and honest judges, while Joshua did what an experienced pro boxer SHOULD DO against an inexperienced opponent.

- With an honest referee, Usyk would have won the first fight by stoppage. The dodgy ref protected and saved Fury. In contrast, Joshua was outboxed by Usyk but never nearly so seriously hurt.

- Fury's wins have aged like milk. Joshua's win over Parker has aged very well.

- Fury struggled against the light-punching Wallin, Joshua took care of business.

And Fury avoided multiple heavyweight contenders like Parker while fighting the likes of Schwarz and Seferi.

And once again, Fury has "retired" to avoid heavyweights like Dubois (who would knock him out), Kabayel, Wardley, Parker and Itauma.

I agree with a lot of that but I don’t criticise Fury for the style he beat Klitschko with. If you’re taller & younger than your opponent, why not outbox him from range & use your attributes? It might be boring but you do what you need to do to win.

I don’t think he ducked the rematch, he just couldn’t get a license to fight due to the positive drugs test.

Either way, I have to say, the Klitschko fight is one of the worst spectacles I have ever seen.

Somehow though it is a lauded as a win for the ages.

[Boxerbeetle]

Fury isn't as good as his fans make him out to be.

- He used a lot of dishonorable tactics against Klitschko, they made the old fighter wrap his hands twice and created nonsense about the ring mat and had it changed. He used a cowardly negative style to edge out a win in an exceedingly dull fight. Then he twice ducked out of the contracted rematch.

In contrast, Joshua beat Klitschko fair and square in an exciting fight.

- The referee gave a long count in Wilder-Fury I to benefit Fury, an honest ref would have stopped the fight.

- He should have lost to Ngannou (a boxing novice!) with fair and honest judges, while Joshua did what an experienced pro boxer SHOULD DO against an inexperienced opponent.

- With an honest referee, Usyk would have won the first fight by stoppage. The dodgy ref protected and saved Fury. In contrast, Joshua was outboxed by Usyk but never nearly so seriously hurt.

- Fury's wins have aged like milk. Joshua's win over Parker has aged very well.

- Fury struggled against the light-punching Wallin, Joshua took care of business.

And Fury avoided multiple heavyweight contenders like Parker while fighting the likes of Schwarz and Seferi.

And once again, Fury has "retired" to avoid heavyweights like Dubois (who would knock him out), Kabayel, Wardley, Parker and Itauma.

I agree with a lot of that but I don’t criticise Fury for the style he beat Klitschko with. If you’re taller & younger than your opponent, why not outbox him from range & use your attributes? It might be boring but you do what you need to do to win.

I don’t think he ducked the rematch, he just couldn’t get a license to fight due to the positive drugs test.

Either way, I have to say, the Klitschko fight is one of the worst spectacles I have ever seen.

Somehow though it is a lauded as a win for the ages.

It was utterly dreadful, but the main blame has to fall to Klitschko. He was totally unwilling to get involved and let Fury dictate the awful pace. Deserved to lose the titles for being so meek.

[big lennox]

A very talented boxer. He would be a hard nights work for anyone in boxing history, I believe.

It was frustrating to see him waste his talents boxing Chisora for a third time and Ngannou, and the Uysk fight negotiations were very drawn out.

But, ultimately, he was excellent in both Uysk fights. Whilst I think he lost them both, there is no doubt that he was in each fight and a genuine world class talent. He showed incredible bravery and powers of recovery withstanding that 9th round in their first fight.

He has made a lot of money, had some fine wins and lost to the very best, in close fights. A career to be proud of overall.

I actually think Fury vs Uysk 1 was a better fight than either of the Lewis vs Holyfield fights.

[Controversial]

I feel he could’ve achieved more if he lived the life. He is one of those fighters that rises to the occasion when needed so can look pretty average when the opposition isn’t as good. When he is up for it no fighter would have an easy night against him, he’s awkward and unconventional.

[gilgamesh]

The more I look at his and AJ’s resume the more I’m unsure who’s is actually better.

Which gave me a thought on the grander scale; how good actually is/was he?

Such a polarising figure but in terms of ‘legacy’ and his CV could he really be classed as elite?

His CV isn’t nowhere near elite, him tho, he could have a fight with anyone in history and hold his own. I’d put him outside top15 myself but I know loads who have him top 10. His sheer size and mobility make him a tough fight for literally anyone in boxing.

Usyks top 5 and he’s gave him tough fights as an example.

When thinking about it, only Lennox would stop him on his best form. In a bad Lewis night he could well be beaten himself by Fury.

Usyk being Top 5 is a bit of a stretch for now, but he's off to a damn good start that's for sure.

[gilgamesh]

I feel he could’ve achieved more if he lived the life. He is one of those fighters that rises to the occasion when needed so can look pretty average when the opposition isn’t as good. When he is up for it no fighter would have an easy night against him, he’s awkward and unconventional.

Hard to get used to his movement too. Very herky jerky and awkward as you say, he's weirdly lanky even for a main his height he has really long arms. He tends to crouch his head down a little which probably drops his height, but them long ass arms will still reach out and get you even when you think you're out of range.

[Riddick Bowie]

I do think Wilder would knock out Greg Page, Trevor Berbick and Tony Tubbs.

But while all of those guys won the belt, and then promptly lost it on their first defense. Wilder actually managed to somehow hang onto his for about 4 years.

If Luis Ortiz had challenged Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith or Trevor Berbick he probably would've taken the belt off of them. Or at least would've had a 50/50 chance with any of them.

Stiverne I would say falls more into the Mike Weaver camp of an even lower tier than those guys, but he's about on that level.

Bonecrusher Smith was 18-5 when he beat Witherspoon bro. He could be beat for Christ's sake. Obviously as could Witherspoon.

So Deontay Wilder KOs Berbick and Tubbs, men who in their prime were KOd only by prime Mike Tyson... Bermane Stiverne is the same level as Mike Weaver, who took prime Larry Holmes to hell... the fragile Luis Ortiz is 50/50 with prime, hard punching, gifted heavies like Witherspoon and Pinklon Thomas...

Some people might say 'Wow, Bonecrusher Smith fought, on the trot(!!), Bruno, Holmes, Tubbs, Ribalta, Witherspoon, Frazier, Weaver, Ferguson, Bey, Witherspoon again, Tyson...' whereas Gilgamesh's take is 'He was 18-5 bro! He could be beat!!'

You fundamentally don't understand what you're looking at. You really show your hand with your comment, 'Those guys lost their title on their first defence but Wilder held onto his for a while'. In the 1980s Deontay Wilder would never get anywhere near a title shot. He would not have been protected or built up, he would have been fighting in a deep talent pool, getting KOd, and looking enviously at records like 18-5.