Fury - Top 10 of all time

[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.

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.

No, I have as much a problem with it as I do Mike Tyson gaining mythical status with his undisputed run 86-90. Again, I'm not talking about Fury. I wouldn't put him top ten, either.

[Coco]

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.

Usyk showed the way to beat Fury, and Ali definitely could have done that
I actually think Ali was better when he was younger and lighter

[jamesmcdonnell]

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.

Usyk showed the way to beat Fury, and Ali definitely could have done that
I actually think Ali was better when he was younger and lighter

Ali's prime was something else, there's never been another heavyweight could move like that. Ali was also a pretty devastating puncher because of the incredible handspeed, that guy would have given Fury a total whipping, weight difference or no.

Who can say how good Fury might have been if he had the dedication to match the talent, he almost never came into a fight in really top condition. He moved well for a big man, and was also at his best when he was carrying less timber

[Coco]

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.

Usyk showed the way to beat Fury, and Ali definitely could have done that
I actually think Ali was better when he was younger and lighter

Ali's prime was something else, there's never been another heavyweight could move like that. Ali was also a pretty devastating puncher because of the incredible handspeed, that guy would have given Fury a total whipping, weight difference or no.

Who can say how good Fury might have been if he had the dedication to match the talent, he almost never came into a fight in really top condition. He moved well for a big man, and was also at his best when he was carrying less timber

Also being great is much more than talent, longevity and discipline are crucial

[jamesmcdonnell]

Absolutely.

Talent is never enough.

[stujones]

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.

No, I have as much a problem with it as I do Mike Tyson gaining mythical status with his undisputed run 86-90. Again, I'm not talking about Fury. I wouldn't put him top ten, either.

Yep I wouldn’t have Mike Tyson top 10 either. But his wins over belt holders ex belt holders and genuine top 5/10 heavyweights of his era (and perhaps 2 eras) mean he is closer to the 10 than Fury.

No one can dispute that Bebick, Smith, Tucker, Thomas, Spinks, Williams, Tubbs, Bruno (1996), Seldon ( ok I know but he can only beat what was in front of him) were top ten at the time of the fight.

Fringe top 10 would be Bruno 1989, Biggs (probably but a bit unproven), Holmes ( would later get back into top 10), Golota (at time of fight) and Botha were fringe top 10. Even Clifford Etteine was inflatedely ranked 10 by boxing monthly.

There wasn’t anyone really underserving of their shot in his first reign.

It’s a poor bunch really , but it was a very close to cleaning up the division in the 1980s run….onky Witherspoon was the big part missing.

[Taansend]

I know it's tough because he was pre tv but I do think Gene Tunney is underrated.

Obviously small by today's standards but his record is exceptional.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I know it's tough because he was pre tv but I do think Gene Tunney is underrated.

Obviously small by today's standards but his record is exceptional.

Yes, Tunney has one hell of a record.

[mickey1975]

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.

No, I have as much a problem with it as I do Mike Tyson gaining mythical status with his undisputed run 86-90. Again, I'm not talking about Fury. I wouldn't put him top ten, either.

Yep I wouldn’t have Mike Tyson top 10 either. But his wins over belt holders ex belt holders and genuine top 5/10 heavyweights of his era (and perhaps 2 eras) mean he is closer to the 10 than Fury.

No one can dispute that Bebick, Smith, Tucker, Thomas, Spinks, Williams, Tubbs, Bruno (1996), Seldon ( ok I know but he can only beat what was in front of him) were top ten at the time of the fight.

Fringe top 10 would be Bruno 1989, Biggs (probably but a bit unproven), Holmes ( would later get back into top 10), Golota (at time of fight) and Botha were fringe top 10. Even Clifford Etteine was inflatedely ranked 10 by boxing monthly.

There wasn’t anyone really underserving of their shot in his first reign.

It’s a poor bunch really , but it was a very close to cleaning up the division in the 1980s run….onky Witherspoon was the big part missing.

I meant I wouldn't put Fury top ten or Mike.

[joshj909]

Usyk showed the way to beat Fury, and Ali definitely could have done that
I actually think Ali was better when he was younger and lighter

Ali's prime was something else, there's never been another heavyweight could move like that. Ali was also a pretty devastating puncher because of the incredible handspeed, that guy would have given Fury a total whipping, weight difference or no.

Who can say how good Fury might have been if he had the dedication to match the talent, he almost never came into a fight in really top condition. He moved well for a big man, and was also at his best when he was carrying less timber

Also being great is much more than talent, longevity and discipline are crucial

That's one of the key things. Some of the best wins in boxing history are by fairly average boxers. It's about winning as many top wins as possible without getting caught out that really shows who is the better boxer. Nearly every boxer gets caught slipping at some point but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not good, they were just willing to face top contenders.

[keithmoonhangover]

I know it's tough because he was pre tv but I do think Gene Tunney is underrated.

Obviously small by today's standards but his record is exceptional.

Usyk is small by today's standards.

[joshj909]

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

Wilder was a can crusher that finally stepped up and lost every time he did.

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.

Why should the Stiverne and Breazeale wins be reason for credit? Did they beat anyone relevant or were they gatekeeper level boxers who had favourable matches?

Ortiz is Wilder's best win by a long shot but even then, Ortiz was untested. It's difficult to gauge whether Ortiz was actually any good beyond somewhat passing the eye test.

[Taansend]

I know it's tough because he was pre tv but I do think Gene Tunney is underrated.

Obviously small by today's standards but his record is exceptional.

Usyk is small by today's standards.

He is, but he's fought them.

Whereas when you talk about heavyweights from the old old days people will mention their size.

I've had that so many times when I big up Jack Johnson

[keithmoonhangover]

I know it's tough because he was pre tv but I do think Gene Tunney is underrated.

Obviously small by today's standards but his record is exceptional.

Usyk is small by today's standards.

He is, but he's fought them.

Whereas when you talk about heavyweights from the old old days people will mention their size.

I've had that so many times when I big up Jack Johnson

The people who focus on size alone, don't know much about boxing.

[stujones]

No, I have as much a problem with it as I do Mike Tyson gaining mythical status with his undisputed run 86-90. Again, I'm not talking about Fury. I wouldn't put him top ten, either.

Yep I wouldn’t have Mike Tyson top 10 either. But his wins over belt holders ex belt holders and genuine top 5/10 heavyweights of his era (and perhaps 2 eras) mean he is closer to the 10 than Fury.

No one can dispute that Bebick, Smith, Tucker, Thomas, Spinks, Williams, Tubbs, Bruno (1996), Seldon ( ok I know but he can only beat what was in front of him) were top ten at the time of the fight.

Fringe top 10 would be Bruno 1989, Biggs (probably but a bit unproven), Holmes ( would later get back into top 10), Golota (at time of fight) and Botha were fringe top 10. Even Clifford Etteine was inflatedely ranked 10 by boxing monthly.

There wasn’t anyone really underserving of their shot in his first reign.

It’s a poor bunch really , but it was a very close to cleaning up the division in the 1980s run….onky Witherspoon was the big part missing.

I meant I wouldn't put Fury top ten or Mike.

Agree - Just saying that I would have Mike closer to the top 10 than Fury, but neither in the 10 for me. Manner of Tyson's defeats also play are part for me in terms of why he isn't in the top 10 - but his resume is better than Fury's IMO.

[forcefraser]

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.

Usyk showed the way to beat Fury, and Ali definitely could have done that
I actually think Ali was better when he was younger and lighter

Ali's prime was something else, there's never been another heavyweight could move like that. Ali was also a pretty devastating puncher because of the incredible handspeed, that guy would have given Fury a total whipping, weight difference or no.

Who can say how good Fury might have been if he had the dedication to match the talent, he almost never came into a fight in really top condition. He moved well for a big man, and was also at his best when he was carrying less timber

Prime Ali v Prime Usyk would be a purists fight for the ages. I'd go with Ali on points

[CaptainSpacerod]

Why should the Stiverne and Breazeale wins be reason for credit? Did they beat anyone relevant or were they gatekeeper level boxers who had favourable matches?

Ortiz is Wilder's best win by a long shot but even then, Ortiz was untested. It's difficult to gauge whether Ortiz was actually any good beyond somewhat passing the eye test.

In the case of Breazale I was comparing the way Wilder dealt with him to how AJ dealt with him and with Stiverne the way Wilder maybe learnt from their first fight and dare I say it improved

Rather than dismissing Wilder out of hand is it not fairer to say that we don’t really know how good he was. He dealt with everyone spectacularly before two brutal defeats against the lineal champ Fury who was widely regarded as the clear number one in the division back then.

Who do you think would’ve beaten peak Wilder ?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Usyk showed the way to beat Fury, and Ali definitely could have done that
I actually think Ali was better when he was younger and lighter

Ali's prime was something else, there's never been another heavyweight could move like that. Ali was also a pretty devastating puncher because of the incredible handspeed, that guy would have given Fury a total whipping, weight difference or no.

Who can say how good Fury might have been if he had the dedication to match the talent, he almost never came into a fight in really top condition. He moved well for a big man, and was also at his best when he was carrying less timber

Prime Ali v Prime Usyk would be a purists fight for the ages. I'd go with Ali on points

Woof!

Yeah what a fight.

[Frostieballs]

Why should the Stiverne and Breazeale wins be reason for credit? Did they beat anyone relevant or were they gatekeeper level boxers who had favourable matches?

Ortiz is Wilder's best win by a long shot but even then, Ortiz was untested. It's difficult to gauge whether Ortiz was actually any good beyond somewhat passing the eye test.

In the case of Breazale I was comparing the way Wilder dealt with him to how AJ dealt with him and with Stiverne the way Wilder maybe learnt from their first fight and dare I say it improved

Rather than dismissing Wilder out of hand is it not fairer to say that we don’t really know how good he was. He dealt with everyone spectacularly before two brutal defeats against the lineal champ Fury who was widely regarded as the clear number one in the division back then.

Who do you think would’ve beaten peak Wilder ?

But he didn’t deal with anyone who was any good spectacularly!

[Flump]

This is why I try and avoid putting anyone in an ATG discussion until they are finished, you can say something when they are on a run, but until the whole story plays out, it's pointless.

[Nightmare Roy]

I think you have to judge on body of work and longevity at the top, that's why guys like Lewis, Louis, Ali, Homls etc are always at the top of these lists.

[jameswilson]

It got me thinking who are his best 5 wins.

1) Klitschko
2) Whyte
3) Chisora
4) Wilder
5) Wallin

In that order?

Also which Chisora?

Derek.

[joshj909]

Why should the Stiverne and Breazeale wins be reason for credit? Did they beat anyone relevant or were they gatekeeper level boxers who had favourable matches?

Ortiz is Wilder's best win by a long shot but even then, Ortiz was untested. It's difficult to gauge whether Ortiz was actually any good beyond somewhat passing the eye test.

In the case of Breazale I was comparing the way Wilder dealt with him to how AJ dealt with him and with Stiverne the way Wilder maybe learnt from their first fight and dare I say it improved

Rather than dismissing Wilder out of hand is it not fairer to say that we don’t really know how good he was. He dealt with everyone spectacularly before two brutal defeats against the lineal champ Fury who was widely regarded as the clear number one in the division back then.

Who do you think would’ve beaten peak Wilder ?

Dealing with cans spectacularly is not impressive. He struggled with Ortiz who was the only competent opponent he faced. Peak Wilder would've lost to Joshua, Parker, Zhang, Povetkin, possibly Whyte and Chisora, maybe Ruiz, Dubois, Usyk of course, possibly Pulev, there's also a number of other guys ranked in the top 15 I'd favour in a matchup against him too.

Comparing the way different guys beat different guys is silly because styles make fights.

[Ruthless-RKO]

1) Klitschko
2) Whyte
3) Chisora
4) Wilder
5) Wallin

In that order?

Also which Chisora?

Derek.

funny

[mickey1975]

Why should the Stiverne and Breazeale wins be reason for credit? Did they beat anyone relevant or were they gatekeeper level boxers who had favourable matches?

Ortiz is Wilder's best win by a long shot but even then, Ortiz was untested. It's difficult to gauge whether Ortiz was actually any good beyond somewhat passing the eye test.

In the case of Breazale I was comparing the way Wilder dealt with him to how AJ dealt with him and with Stiverne the way Wilder maybe learnt from their first fight and dare I say it improved

Rather than dismissing Wilder out of hand is it not fairer to say that we don’t really know how good he was. He dealt with everyone spectacularly before two brutal defeats against the lineal champ Fury who was widely regarded as the clear number one in the division back then.

Who do you think would’ve beaten peak Wilder ?

Dealing with cans spectacularly is not impressive. He struggled with Ortiz who was the only competent opponent he faced. Peak Wilder would've lost to Joshua, Parker, Zhang, Povetkin, possibly Whyte and Chisora, maybe Ruiz, Dubois, Usyk of course, possibly Pulev, there's also a number of other guys ranked in the top 15 I'd favour in a matchup against him too.

Comparing the way different guys beat different guys is silly because styles make fights.

But you can't state that as fact. Like all fictional match ups, it's all opinion.