Fury - Top 10 of all time

[Kilburn]

I shake my head when I see Fury’s name anywhere near a top 10 of all time.

[jamesmcdonnell]

It's pretty ludicrous.

The bigger is better argument is full of holes.

[keithmoonhangover]

Definitely top 5 of all time.

Athletes in every sport get better with every generation. Someone might say "Wuttabout Marciano!" but Marciano get absolutely spanked in three rounds by today's heavyweights because they're bigger, tougher, hit harder, train better and have better conditioning.

There is less of a gap between the 90s and today--Lennox and possibly Holyfield would probably all be able to complete with this generations boxers to a degree. Tyson not sure about because of the massive height disadtantage. But before then, no chance.

So a top 10 ranking, would be mainly boxers from the 2000s+ with a handful form the 90s. Because they would beat all who came before. That's a fact.

There are plenty of track and field world records that prove you wrong.

[Boxerbeetle]

It's pretty ludicrous.

The bigger is better argument is full of holes.

Was really hoping Usyk’s domination of both Fury and Joshua would finally put pay to that ridiculous argument, but apparently not.

[smiling assassin]

All time rankings are about what was done in their respective eras not head to heads. For example, If people think Fury would beat Marciano because he was much bigger doesn’t stop the fact Marciano done a lot more as a Heavyweight than Fury ever did therefore sits higher in all time rankings.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Definitely top 5 of all time.

Athletes in every sport get better with every generation. Someone might say "Wuttabout Marciano!" but Marciano get absolutely spanked in three rounds by today's heavyweights because they're bigger, tougher, hit harder, train better and have better conditioning.

There is less of a gap between the 90s and today--Lennox and possibly Holyfield would probably all be able to complete with this generations boxers to a degree. Tyson not sure about because of the massive height disadtantage. But before then, no chance.

So a top 10 ranking, would be mainly boxers from the 2000s+ with a handful form the 90s. Because they would beat all who came before. That's a fact.

There are plenty of track and field world records that prove you wrong.

Most of the advances in track and field are down to equipment changes.

Starting blocks, track design and changes to running shoes, have shaved off far more than training methods.

There's a piece about Jesse Owens, where they analyse his running style, and conclude that he would probably have been running sub 9.9 with modern tracks, based on analysis of his performances, and maybe even 9.8.

The other major component, is talent pool, professionalizing sport raises standards, because of increased competition.

By that Metric boxing has gone backwards, as there are far fewer boxers now, than there were in the 1950's. Fighters also competed a lot more often, and I would argue were in better shape. Look at the state of some of our current heavyweights, blowing out of their arse after four moderate rounds of action. It's shocking.

I've watched thousands of fights in my life, and I'd say skill levels of modern fighters are not on a par with previous eras. There's always been big useless lumps in the heavyweight division, but the likes of Whyte and Chisora would never have been top draw fighters in previous eras. The fact they got so many top tier opportunities shows how shite the division is.

[CaptainSpacerod]

Well…he ducked Price and ducked AJ, should have been stopped against Usyk, the Wlad fight was an embarrassment to boxing, Wilder is godawful and was easily beaten by Parker & Zhang.

Fury would of course be a relatively troublesome fight for anyone given his size, but he’s miles away from top 10 of all time. He’s never even been definitively the best of his own era.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph but the first one not so much.

There are so many moving parts to align that it’s hard to say with certainty that a fight didn’t happen because x ducked y. Another way of looking at the Usyk fight is that he heroically stayed on his feet and bravely came back into the fight. Some might say the Wlad fight was a tactical masterclass from a relatively inexperienced fighter who had all the cards stacked against him. And Wilder, when Fury fought him, was a much feared bogeyman knocking over all comers - he was a shadow of his former self in the zhang and Parker fights

[jamesmcdonnell]

All time rankings are about what was done in their respective eras not head to heads. For example, If people think Fury would beat Marciano because he was much bigger doesn’t stop the fact Marciano done a lot more as a Heavyweight than Fury ever did therefore sits higher in all time rankings.

Agreed. Marciano's record knocks spots off Fury's.

His win over Walcott, eclipses anything Fury ever achieved, not to mention victories over Ezzard Charles, one of the greatest fighters who ever lived.

Fury beat the ghost of Klitchsko, and bottled the rematch, in one of the worst, if not the worst heavyweight title fights ever (Haye v Valuev springs to mind).

He went life and death with Wilder 2 out of 3 times, considering Wilder's own really poor record, and obviously shockingly poor technical ability, that's not a great achievement.

[keithmoonhangover]

Definitely top 5 of all time.

Athletes in every sport get better with every generation. Someone might say "Wuttabout Marciano!" but Marciano get absolutely spanked in three rounds by today's heavyweights because they're bigger, tougher, hit harder, train better and have better conditioning.

There is less of a gap between the 90s and today--Lennox and possibly Holyfield would probably all be able to complete with this generations boxers to a degree. Tyson not sure about because of the massive height disadtantage. But before then, no chance.

So a top 10 ranking, would be mainly boxers from the 2000s+ with a handful form the 90s. Because they would beat all who came before. That's a fact.

There are plenty of track and field world records that prove you wrong.

Most of the advances in track and field are down to equipment changes.

Starting blocks, track design and changes to running shoes, have shaved off far more than training methods.

There's a piece about Jesse Owens,

The other major component, is talent pool, professionalizing sport raises standards, because of increased competition.

By that Metric boxing has gone backwards, as there are far fewer boxers now, than there were in the 1950's. Fighters also competed a lot more often, and I would argue were in better shape. Look at the state of some of our current heavyweights, blowing out of their arse after four moderate rounds of action. It's shocking.

I've watched thousands of fights in my life, and I'd say skill levels of modern fighters are not on a par with previous eras. There's always been big useless lumps in the heavyweight division, but the likes of Whyte and Chisora would never have been top draw fighters in previous eras. The fact they got so many top tier opportunities shows how shite the division is.

Good post.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Well…he ducked Price and ducked AJ, should have been stopped against Usyk, the Wlad fight was an embarrassment to boxing, Wilder is godawful and was easily beaten by Parker & Zhang.

Fury would of course be a relatively troublesome fight for anyone given his size, but he’s miles away from top 10 of all time. He’s never even been definitively the best of his own era.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph but the first one not so much.

There are so many moving parts to align that it’s hard to say with certainty that a fight didn’t happen because x ducked y. Another way of looking at the Usyk fight is that he heroically stayed on his feet and bravely came back into the fight. Some might say the Wlad fight was a tactical masterclass from a relatively inexperienced fighter who had all the cards stacked against him. And Wilder, when Fury fought him, was a much feared bogeyman knocking over all comers - he was a shadow of his former self in the zhang and Parker fights

Let's be clear, Fury should have been stopped in that fight. The ref should either have stopped it, or let Usyk keep working, Tyson was out on his feet, and Usyk would have almost certainly flattened him and ended the fight had the ref not stepped in. It's was shockingly poor officiating. Fury was bounced all over the ring, and the ropes held him up several times.

Well done to Fury, whose powers of recovery are impressive, but that should have been a stoppage loss.

Wilder is undoubtedly the shittest world title holder at heavyweight who held a belt for any duration. Terrible technical ability, and a very weak run as a belt holder. The draw with Fury is easily his best achievement.

The wlad fight was crap, with a handful of punches landed by either man over the entire fight. Wlad clearly wasn't himself, and looked much better in his bout with Joshua.

[keithmoonhangover]

Definitely top 5 of all time.

Who do you rate above Fury in the 5?

[Coco]

It's pretty ludicrous.

The bigger is better argument is full of holes.

Was really hoping Usyk’s domination of both Fury and Joshua would finally put pay to that ridiculous argument, but apparently not.

It's not a ridiculous argument, a good biggun normally beats a big littlun

Uysk is special, Marciano too, Ali wasn't a big guy.

Nevertheless 9 times out of 10 the heavy champ would beat the cruiser champ

[jamesmcdonnell]

It's pretty ludicrous.

The bigger is better argument is full of holes.

Was really hoping Usyk’s domination of both Fury and Joshua would finally put pay to that ridiculous argument, but apparently not.

It's not a ridiculous argument, a good biggun normally beats a big littlun

Uysk is special, Marciano too, Ali wasn't a big guy.

Nevertheless 9 times out of 10 the heavy champ would beat the cruiser champ

There is a trade off however, really big guys tend to have poor stamina, once you get over around 220 and 6'4 I don't think that advantages in size really matter much.

Look at Wlad, he was battered shitless by Corrie Sanders, who was no giant.

Ali was 6'4" and around 215-220 in his prime, which is plenty big enough.

Are you really saying Fury would have beaten Ali because he was too big?

The only really top drawer really big man, was Lewis. Wlad was technically good, but wasn't on Lewis' level, and nor was Vitali, Fury not close. I think that after a certain point, the additional size, and weight no longer confers advantages.

[CaptainSpacerod]

Well…he ducked Price and ducked AJ, should have been stopped against Usyk, the Wlad fight was an embarrassment to boxing, Wilder is godawful and was easily beaten by Parker & Zhang.

Fury would of course be a relatively troublesome fight for anyone given his size, but he’s miles away from top 10 of all time. He’s never even been definitively the best of his own era.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph but the first one not so much.

There are so many moving parts to align that it’s hard to say with certainty that a fight didn’t happen because x ducked y. Another way of looking at the Usyk fight is that he heroically stayed on his feet and bravely came back into the fight. Some might say the Wlad fight was a tactical masterclass from a relatively inexperienced fighter who had all the cards stacked against him. And Wilder, when Fury fought him, was a much feared bogeyman knocking over all comers - he was a shadow of his former self in the zhang and Parker fights

Let's be clear, Fury should have been stopped in that fight. The ref should either have stopped it, or let Usyk keep working, Tyson was out on his feet, and Usyk would have almost certainly flattened him and ended the fight had the ref not stepped in. It's was shockingly poor officiating. Fury was bounced all over the ring, and the ropes held him up several times.

Well done to Fury, whose powers of recovery are impressive, but that should have been a stoppage loss.

Wilder is undoubtedly the shittest world title holder at heavyweight who held a belt for any duration. Terrible technical ability, and a very weak run as a belt holder. The draw with Fury is easily his best achievement.

The wlad fight was crap, with a handful of punches landed by either man over the entire fight. Wlad clearly wasn't himself, and looked much better in his bout with Joshua.

Based on his rising from the dead act against Wilder I don’t think you can say with absolute certainty that Fury wouldnt have got up and rallied even if Usyk had flattened him. It’s a moot point I suppose as it was a decisive victory for Usyk.

I’m not as well versed in the technical intricacies as many on here but I can see Wilder looks a bit clumsy and unorthodox but that didn’t preclude him from being very effective. Can’t we give him any credit for the Ortiz wins or KO ing Stiverne and Breazale in the 1st round.

Re Wlad I could say Fury didn’t allow him to look like himself whereas Joshua didn’t have the skills or tactical nous to stop Wlad looking something like his real self. That win by Fury is scandalously under appreciated imo.

[stujones]

100% not top 10. arguable case for top 15. Outside top 20 and it might be harsh. Depends I think where people consider the likes of Corbett , Jeffries, Sullivan and Fitz. It could be argued they are all above him. If yes, then hes struggling to be in top 20.

Hes somewhere in the Patterson, Bowe (who would have splattered him in a contest), Vitali Klitschko ranking. Ahead of world champions like Joshua, Johansson, Wilder and the other 1980s belt holder

I’d have to have Wlad above him. As I would guys like Tunney, Johnson etc.

[keithmoonhangover]

100% not top 10. arguable case for top 15. Outside top 20 and it might be harsh. Depends I think where people consider the likes of Corbett , Jeffries, Sullivan and Fitz. It could be argued they are all above him. If yes, then hes struggling to be in top 20.

Hes somewhere in the Patterson, Bowe (who would have splattered him in a contest), Vitali Klitschko ranking. Ahead of world champions like Joshua, Johansson, Wilder and the other 1980s belt holder

I’d have to have Wlad above him. As I would guys like Tunney, Johnson etc.

I find it hard to rate Vitali because his best wins were against poor opposition.

[Taansend]

Interesting point Mr Moth

When grading heavyweights of the past should we divide them into weight classes?

Under 200
200-220
220-240
Big pudenda

226 lb Usyk beat 281 lb Fury
212 lb Wilder drew with 256 lb Fury
Mike Tyson and Holyfield were sub 220 lbs boxers

I don't believe that there is an optimum weight, especially that weight being the bigger the better, just different sizes and weights with different benefits and weaknesses. When crushing cans it's probably easier being s huge behemoth, but when up against a skilled opponent that can use speed, skill, footwork and reflexes then size isn't always the answer.

Are you calling out Mothy? How dare you....

[mickey1975]

100% not top 10. arguable case for top 15. Outside top 20 and it might be harsh. Depends I think where people consider the likes of Corbett , Jeffries, Sullivan and Fitz. It could be argued they are all above him. If yes, then hes struggling to be in top 20.

Hes somewhere in the Patterson, Bowe (who would have splattered him in a contest), Vitali Klitschko ranking. Ahead of world champions like Joshua, Johansson, Wilder and the other 1980s belt holder

I’d have to have Wlad above him. As I would guys like Tunney, Johnson etc.

I find it hard to rate Vitali because his best wins were against poor opposition.

He pushed Lennox all the way, as did Ray Mercer but obviously this should never be held against Lennox, like the times he got chinned.

[stujones]

100% not top 10. arguable case for top 15. Outside top 20 and it might be harsh. Depends I think where people consider the likes of Corbett , Jeffries, Sullivan and Fitz. It could be argued they are all above him. If yes, then hes struggling to be in top 20.

Hes somewhere in the Patterson, Bowe (who would have splattered him in a contest), Vitali Klitschko ranking. Ahead of world champions like Joshua, Johansson, Wilder and the other 1980s belt holder

I’d have to have Wlad above him. As I would guys like Tunney, Johnson etc.

I find it hard to rate Vitali because his best wins were against poor opposition.

He pushed Lennox all the way, as did Ray Mercer but obviously this should never be held against Lennox, like the times he got chinned.

Shall we mention Steve Cunningham, Francis Ngannou and John McDermott. Most people think 2 Ls there.

[mickey1975]

I find it hard to rate Vitali because his best wins were against poor opposition.

He pushed Lennox all the way, as did Ray Mercer but obviously this should never be held against Lennox, like the times he got chinned.

Shall we mention Steve Cunningham, Francis Ngannou and John McDermott. Most people think 2 Ls there.

I wasn't talking about Tyson.

[paultom]

Two words...

Larry holmes.

Against Shavers definitely

[paultom]

100% not top 10. arguable case for top 15. Outside top 20 and it might be harsh. Depends I think where people consider the likes of Corbett , Jeffries, Sullivan and Fitz. It could be argued they are all above him. If yes, then hes struggling to be in top 20.

Hes somewhere in the Patterson, Bowe (who would have splattered him in a contest), Vitali Klitschko ranking. Ahead of world champions like Joshua, Johansson, Wilder and the other 1980s belt holder

I’d have to have Wlad above him. As I would guys like Tunney, Johnson etc.

I find it hard to rate Vitali because his best wins were against poor opposition.

He pushed Lennox all the way, as did Ray Mercer but obviously this should never be held against Lennox, like the times he got chinned.

Still can't let that go eh Micky ? Lennox beat everyone he faced, despite Lewis getting ko'd twice he still is way above your man in almost everybody's eyes.

[stujones]

Not really sure how Vitali pushed Lewis all the way - it was only half way through the contest when the fight got stopped and Lewis had won Round 5 and 6.

[keithmoonhangover]

100% not top 10. arguable case for top 15. Outside top 20 and it might be harsh. Depends I think where people consider the likes of Corbett , Jeffries, Sullivan and Fitz. It could be argued they are all above him. If yes, then hes struggling to be in top 20.

Hes somewhere in the Patterson, Bowe (who would have splattered him in a contest), Vitali Klitschko ranking. Ahead of world champions like Joshua, Johansson, Wilder and the other 1980s belt holder

I’d have to have Wlad above him. As I would guys like Tunney, Johnson etc.

I find it hard to rate Vitali because his best wins were against poor opposition.

He pushed Lennox all the way, as did Ray Mercer but obviously this should never be held against Lennox, like the times he got chinned.

He got comprehensively beaten by Lewis and he quit against Byrd. Who was his best win, Arreola?

[Taansend]

100% not top 10. arguable case for top 15. Outside top 20 and it might be harsh. Depends I think where people consider the likes of Corbett , Jeffries, Sullivan and Fitz. It could be argued they are all above him. If yes, then hes struggling to be in top 20.

Hes somewhere in the Patterson, Bowe (who would have splattered him in a contest), Vitali Klitschko ranking. Ahead of world champions like Joshua, Johansson, Wilder and the other 1980s belt holder

I’d have to have Wlad above him. As I would guys like Tunney, Johnson etc.

I find it hard to rate Vitali because his best wins were against poor opposition.

He pushed Lennox all the way, as did Ray Mercer but obviously this should never be held against Lennox, like the times he got chinned.

He got stopped by the halfway stage. Not all the way, Mickey.

I was there, mate. Vitali had a great start but Lewis had taken over before it got stopped.