How Can Fury Call Himself An ATG Heavyweight When He’s Not Even The Greatest Heavyweight Now????

[Tony1244]

To answer the question I don't have a problem with a great fighter calling himself the GOAT. You don't get to be on top of anything without a tremendous ego and tremendous drive.

Is he worried about Usyk? Perhaps. I think size is overrated and Usyk could give him fits.

Fury isn't great because of size, but the size helps because he has so many other excellent attributes and I don't mean the singing or personality. He moves very well and can switch stances which is an underrated ability.

[RScarf1]

The boxing/sports websites I mentioned are what I would consider major websites, so their opinion matters and has credibility even if it is in the minority. There was not a consensus opinion on Fury vs. Klitschko. The punch stats are an indicator and provide some evidence for how a fight went. It doesn't mean that whoever has the better punch stats should always win a fight. There are other factors involved in scoring beyond punches thrown and landed. Also, rounds are scored separately as a fight is not scored in its entirety. However, there is some value in the information or else why are they provided?

I can discredit the official scorecards for Fury vs. Klitschko just as I can discredit them for Canelo vs. Golovkin. There was an overwhelming belief among the media that Golovkin deserved to win against Canelo in the first fight, but there are probably a minority of people who think otherwise. Why wouldn't there be a need for a rematch with Fury and Klitschko just because of a perception that Fury beat Klitschko by a wide margin? That is an opinion not shared by 100% of people including two of the judges who scored it 115-112. By the way, there were enough rabbit punches from Fury that the fight could have been scored for Klitschko. However, if the referee penalized Fury early in the fight as opposed to towards the end, maybe Fury would have been reluctant to do it.

[DrDuke]

The boxing/sports websites I mentioned are what I would consider major websites, so their opinion matters and has credibility even if it is in the minority. There was not a consensus opinion on Fury vs. Klitschko. The punch stats are an indicator and provide some evidence for how a fight went. It doesn't mean that whoever has the better punch stats should always win a fight. There are other factors involved in scoring beyond punches thrown and landed. Also, rounds are scored separately as a fight is not scored in its entirety. However, there is some value in the information or else why are they provided?

I can discredit the official scorecards for Fury vs. Klitschko just as I can discredit them for Canelo vs. Golovkin. There was an overwhelming belief among the media that Golovkin deserved to win against Canelo in the first fight, but there are probably a minority of people who think otherwise. Why wouldn't there be a need for a rematch with Fury and Klitschko just because of a perception that Fury beat Klitschko by a wide margin? That is an opinion not shared by 100% of people including two of the judges who scored it 115-112. By the way, there were enough rabbit punches from Fury that the fight could have been scored for Klitschko. However, if the referee penalized Fury early in the fight as opposed to towards the end, maybe Fury would have been reluctant to do it.

Klit had an intentional headbutt attempt in that fight, which was completely ignored by the ref, who eventually deducted a point from Fury for some stupid reason.

Actually, the other thing is more outrageous. The revisionism of the Klit fight gets more and more delirious with time. First, there were lolpinions, that Klit somehow got ancient and shot exactly by the Fury fight. Now there's more of comedy, as several experts of this thread suggested the Fury-Klit bout to be close and competetive.

However, nobody will be able to discredit the Gypsy King! Want it or not, kneel before the flabby flanked grandmaster!

[caldo2025]

The general consensus of the media, the fans and also the official scorecards had Fury beating Klitschko by a comfortable 116-111 margin (with Tyson being deducted a point in the 11th round).

Most people believed that Wladimir only won three rounds.

Let’s also point out that the fight is in the running for THE WORST fight in the history of people smacking each other for sport.

How does your point relate to the scorecards?

Please try to stay on topic if you’re going to comment on one of my factually-accurate posts.

Oh I was on topic by explaining that any post attempting to extract anything useful from the worst fight in history in order to prove some kind of point that they were trying to make is very sad and very unnecessary.

[gilgamesh]

We've talked about this for 3 pages...Has Tyson Fury ever SAID he's the greatest Heavyweight or even one of the 10 best?

We're all getting mad at or defending Fury from something he didn't even say

[caldo2025]

I did watch Klitschko vs. Fury and I honestly scored it a draw. This was before I knew about the punch stats.

That’ clearly your prerogative, but you really do need to appreciate the fact your opinion is in the overwhelming minority.

I agree that punch stats are not used by judges to score a fight.

Then there’s no point in citing punch stats as a weak attempt to discredit the official scorecards, especially if your opinion about the outcome of a bout is in a significant minority.

Boxing News 24 agreed with the 115-112 scores and stated that Fury was "a little better" in the fight, but "definitely not much better" than Klitschko. SB Nation scored it 114-113 for Fury. As you can see, there were media that scored it close and it was close in my opinion.

But your opinion is still aligned with an overwhelming minority.

You’re entitled to feel that way, as long as you appreciate that others have a reasonable reason to disagree with you.

If Klitschko got a rematch, I think he would have won. He would have been more prepared, not that he did not try his best before, but it helps to know an opponent better.

That works both ways though, because Fury would have made adjustments too.

Also, Fury has a habit of making his opponents’ appear anomalously bad, to the point you question whether there’s something wrong with them.

What if Wilder and Fury only had the first fight? Would Fury be viewed as an ATG by anyone?

Wilder probably would have been forced to either face Fury again or vacate.

And if Wilder ducked the Fury rematch, then Tyson would have moved onto other foes.

Either way, most people believed that Fury beat Wilder in their first fight.

And he did it twice more to remove all doubt from everyone’s minds.

Whatever the reasons were for the Fury vs. Klitschko rematch not happening twice, it didn't happen and it wasn't Klitschko's fault.

There was no need for the rematch, because Fury beat Klitschko by a wide margin – at least that was the general consensus.

The only reason why Fury was obliged to face Klitschko again was due to the immediate rematch clause.

In fact, the IBF didn’t want Fury to face Klitschko again and even stripped him of his title, because of his contractual obligation to do so.

I see that Fury is rated No. 12 all time heavyweight by BoxRec which is ahead of No. 13 George Foreman, No. 14 Joe Frazier, No. 15 Mike Tyson, and No. 16 Vitali Klitschko. Recently, Golovkin was rated No. 1 pound for pound among active boxers, but BoxRec claimed to me that there was a "bug" that had to be fixed and now Canelo Alvarez is No. 1 and Golovkin is No. 2. However, I read in another post where someone questioned why Golovkin was ahead of Alvarez considering that Alvarez has a win over Golovkin. The response he received was that the algorithm would be adjusted. That doesn't sound to me like a bug. That sounds to me like you adjust the algorithm to get the outcome you want. I disagree with Fury being rated No. 12 all time heavyweight and who he is rated higher than, so maybe the algorithm should be adjusted.

BoxRec’s ratings often contain many inexplicable anomalies, such as some of their previous (fairly recent) mistakes:

• David Mercardo as the third best pound-for-pound fighter on the planet!
• Rating Gervonta Davis above Josh Taylor at junior welterweight
• Luis Nery ranked sixth on their pound-for-pound ratings
• Jared Anderson rated 58th at heavyweight
• Chris Eubank Jr rated above Vasyl Lomachenko
• Billy Joe Saunders rated 4th at 168lb, without even competing in that weight class
• Demetrius Andrade rated 11th and Jermall Charlo rated 6th on their pound-for-pound list

I am not going to defend BoxRec’s ratings.

They are a useful guide, but very flawed, which means they shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Are you guys honestly fighting about the scorecards in the Klit/Fury fight? I mean, REALLY? Scoring that fight was absolutely and positively impossible. You know how the first round in some highly technical bouts are impossible to score because nothing happened? This was 12 rounds of first rounds. THE WORST FIGHT EVER TELECASTED.

[skanksta]

We've talked about this for 3 pages...Has Tyson Fury ever SAID he's the greatest Heavyweight or even one of the 10 best?

We're all getting mad at or defending Fury from something he didn't even say

He did actually in interviews after the Whyte fight.

He was very deferential to Iron Mike tho' - saying he was better than him. Although it's hard to see how a peak Fury would lose to him.

[gilgamesh]

We've talked about this for 3 pages...Has Tyson Fury ever SAID he's the greatest Heavyweight or even one of the 10 best?

We're all getting mad at or defending Fury from something he didn't even say

He did actually in interviews after the Whyte fight.

He was very deferential to Iron Mike tho' - saying he was better than him. Although it's hard to see how a peak Fury would lose to him.

I don't consider Mike Tyson all time Top 10 to be honest with ya so yeah Tyson Fury is arguably better than him. Or at least right on his heels.

[littlepug]

Right then… the Wlad Klit fight as excited as we all were for it turned into a severe bore fest, it kept us watching but nothing really happened, Fury LOOKED the more confident fighter with his posturing and constant feinting but there was certainly no schooling or outboxing going on and I actually didn’t think Fury was going to get the nod, think for a second if he hadn’t, he would’ve been torn apart for not doing enough when it was there for the taking, anyway it’s a good win on paper but not exactly a legacy defining performance in the slightest.

[gilgamesh]

Hell I'd say the Steve Cunningham win does more for his legacy than the Wlad win does almost. Or at least just as much. The Wlad win is a very significant result ON PAPER, but if you see it, it's not impressive at all. It looks like 2 guys who are afraid to fight, one of 'em is a little less scared so he won it unimpressively.

[KiwiRider]

We've talked about this for 3 pages...Has Tyson Fury ever SAID he's the greatest Heavyweight or even one of the 10 best?

We're all getting mad at or defending Fury from something he didn't even say

He did actually in interviews after the Whyte fight.

He was very deferential to Iron Mike tho' - saying he was better than him. Although it's hard to see how a peak Fury would lose to him.

Yep, heard him say it, and thought - more bollocks from the Gypsy Gibberer.
ATG
He isn't even proven to be the best right now, and probably won't be, except on twitter.

[Enlightened-One]

I did watch Klitschko vs. Fury and I honestly scored it a draw. This was before I knew about the punch stats.

That’ clearly your prerogative, but you really do need to appreciate the fact your opinion is in the overwhelming minority.

I agree that punch stats are not used by judges to score a fight.

Then there’s no point in citing punch stats as a weak attempt to discredit the official scorecards, especially if your opinion about the outcome of a bout is in a significant minority.

Boxing News 24 agreed with the 115-112 scores and stated that Fury was "a little better" in the fight, but "definitely not much better" than Klitschko. SB Nation scored it 114-113 for Fury. As you can see, there were media that scored it close and it was close in my opinion.

But your opinion is still aligned with an overwhelming minority.

You’re entitled to feel that way, as long as you appreciate that others have a reasonable reason to disagree with you.

If Klitschko got a rematch, I think he would have won. He would have been more prepared, not that he did not try his best before, but it helps to know an opponent better.

That works both ways though, because Fury would have made adjustments too.

Also, Fury has a habit of making his opponents’ appear anomalously bad, to the point you question whether there’s something wrong with them.

What if Wilder and Fury only had the first fight? Would Fury be viewed as an ATG by anyone?

Wilder probably would have been forced to either face Fury again or vacate.

And if Wilder ducked the Fury rematch, then Tyson would have moved onto other foes.

Either way, most people believed that Fury beat Wilder in their first fight.

And he did it twice more to remove all doubt from everyone’s minds.

Whatever the reasons were for the Fury vs. Klitschko rematch not happening twice, it didn't happen and it wasn't Klitschko's fault.

There was no need for the rematch, because Fury beat Klitschko by a wide margin – at least that was the general consensus.

The only reason why Fury was obliged to face Klitschko again was due to the immediate rematch clause.

In fact, the IBF didn’t want Fury to face Klitschko again and even stripped him of his title, because of his contractual obligation to do so.

I see that Fury is rated No. 12 all time heavyweight by BoxRec which is ahead of No. 13 George Foreman, No. 14 Joe Frazier, No. 15 Mike Tyson, and No. 16 Vitali Klitschko. Recently, Golovkin was rated No. 1 pound for pound among active boxers, but BoxRec claimed to me that there was a "bug" that had to be fixed and now Canelo Alvarez is No. 1 and Golovkin is No. 2. However, I read in another post where someone questioned why Golovkin was ahead of Alvarez considering that Alvarez has a win over Golovkin. The response he received was that the algorithm would be adjusted. That doesn't sound to me like a bug. That sounds to me like you adjust the algorithm to get the outcome you want. I disagree with Fury being rated No. 12 all time heavyweight and who he is rated higher than, so maybe the algorithm should be adjusted.

BoxRec’s ratings often contain many inexplicable anomalies, such as some of their previous (fairly recent) mistakes:

• David Mercardo as the third best pound-for-pound fighter on the planet!
• Rating Gervonta Davis above Josh Taylor at junior welterweight
• Luis Nery ranked sixth on their pound-for-pound ratings
• Jared Anderson rated 58th at heavyweight
• Chris Eubank Jr rated above Vasyl Lomachenko
• Billy Joe Saunders rated 4th at 168lb, without even competing in that weight class
• Demetrius Andrade rated 11th and Jermall Charlo rated 6th on their pound-for-pound list

I am not going to defend BoxRec’s ratings.

They are a useful guide, but very flawed, which means they shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Are you guys honestly fighting about the scorecards in the Klit/Fury fight? I mean, REALLY? Scoring that fight was absolutely and positively impossible. You know how the first round in some highly technical bouts are impossible to score because nothing happened? This was 12 rounds of first rounds. THE WORST FIGHT EVER TELECASTED.

Carls De Leon vs. Johnny Nelson.

[RScarf1]

Are you guys honestly fighting about the scorecards in the Klit/Fury fight? I mean, REALLY? Scoring that fight was absolutely and positively impossible. You know how the first round in some highly technical bouts are impossible to score because nothing happened? This was 12 rounds of first rounds. THE WORST FIGHT EVER TELECASTED.

It was difficult and nearly impossible to score that fight. I had to watch one of the rounds twice. Since it was difficult to score, how could there be a consensus? I don't know of any media that had Klitschko winning, but the opinions varied as to how much Fury won by.

[Enlightened-One]

Since it was difficult to score, how could there be a consensus? I don't know of any media that had Klitschko winning, but the opinions varied as to how much Fury won by.

Consensus: a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people; majority of opinion; general agreement or concord; harmony.

The vast majority of the media, fight fans and boxing pundits felt that Wladimir Klitschko lost eight or nine rounds when he fought Tyson Fury.

Therefore, the general consensus is that Tyson Fury deserved his victory over Wladimir Klitschko. There was no controversy about the outcome.

You even said it yourself in your own post, no one thought that Wladimir Klitschko was robbed against Tyson Fury, because everyone felt 'The Gypsy King' deserved his victory over 'Dr Steelhammer'.

Does it really matter if people felt that Fury won by different margins on the scorecards, because they all agree about the outcome?

It doesn't get any more simpler than that!

[RScarf1]

Since it was difficult to score, how could there be a consensus? I don't know of any media that had Klitschko winning, but the opinions varied as to how much Fury won by.

Consensus: a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people; majority of opinion; general agreement or concord; harmony.

The vast majority of the media, fight fans and boxing pundits felt that Wladimir Klitschko lost eight or nine rounds when he fought Tyson Fury.

Therefore, the general consensus is that Tyson Fury deserved his victory over Wladimir Klitschko. There was no controversy about the outcome.

You even said it yourself in your own post, no one thought that Wladimir Klitschko was robbed against Tyson Fury, because everyone felt 'The Gypsy King' deserved his victory over 'Dr Steelhammer'.

Does it really matter if people felt that Fury won by different margins on the scorecards, because they all agree about the outcome?

It doesn't get any more simpler than that!

I don't know if that is true, but let's say that most of the media felt that Wladimir lost eight rounds. If someone felt that Wladimir lost seven rounds and then factor in the point deduction to Fury, then the margin of victory gets a lot closer and could be considered a draw. I recall that Fury landed several rabbit punches. I think I counted ten of them. The referee waited until the eleventh round to do a point deduction. Regarding a headbutt by Wladimir, I only know of one. If the referee would have given point deductions to half of those rabbit punches, Wladimir would have won.

It matters to me about the opinion of how much Fury won by. I think many in the media were biased in their opinion of this fight. I think some people wanted to see a changing of the guard. Some of Wladimir's fights were boring and he was a champion for many years. The punch stats show that the percentages of punches landed were close. Most of the time when that happens, the fight is scored closely and not by a wide margin. Breitbart.com stated that "The final margin between the two fighters showed a close fight." It is unfortunate that there was never a rematch, so we only have this horrible fight to assess.

[Thomastearns]

I don't know if that is true, but let's say that most of the media felt that Wladimir lost eight rounds. If someone felt that Wladimir lost seven rounds and then factor in the point deduction to Fury, then the margin of victory gets a lot closer and could be considered a draw. I recall that Fury landed several rabbit punches. I think I counted ten of them. The referee waited until the eleventh round to do a point deduction. Regarding a headbutt by Wladimir, I only know of one. If the referee would have given point deductions to half of those rabbit punches, Wladimir would have won.

It matters to me about the opinion of how much Fury won by. I think many in the media were biased in their opinion of this fight. I think some people wanted to see a changing of the guard. Some of Wladimir's fights were boring and he was a champion for many years. The punch stats show that the percentages of punches landed were close. Most of the time when that happens, the fight is scored closely and not by a wide margin. Breitbart.com stated that "The final margin between the two fighters showed a close fight." It is unfortunate that there was never a rematch, so we only have this horrible fight to assess.

I'd go further and say that most of the western media were consistently reluctant to give either of the Klitschko brothers much credit at all. Even now.

Wlad lost a non fight to a drugged up Fury who ran from the rematch.

Even at near 40 he gave Anthony Joshua one hell of a fight.

Fury's fans seem to be very ardent. They don't give a hoot about his performance enhancing drug offences, his serial lying, his dubious ring tactics - glove misuse, excessive holding and tying up, pushing etc - to them he's the best ever.

The rest of us might prefer a more realistic perspective.

Fury has proved he's no pushover, and we all know he's good defensively and especially on the back foot, but the media attention he's getting is out of all proportion to his somewhat limited and dubious achievements so far.

Everywhere you go online or in newsprint, you can bet Fury is never too far away.

[KiwiRider]

If you can believe his latest interview with Piers Morgan :

"This is the truth, the gospel truth, nothing but the truth. I'm done."

Then he never is going to be an ATG.
He isn't now, and without even being the undeniable best in his division, he will never be.
Anything other than that, and all this ATG is just hot air.

[ewenhay]

I thought Fury did enough to nick it against Klitchsko by a couple of rounds.

The real surprise was when he got the decision what with the fight being on Klitchsko turf.

[caldo2025]

Fury, insulting Usyk by calling him a middleweight, again clings to this retirement thing claiming that he’s done everything possible in Boxing. Lol. Can you imagine being a friend of these Fury’s like a couple of mobile homes down growing up, and having to listen to all of these unrealistic claims?

Fury is definitely avoiding Usyk and AJ for that matter. Grab the belt off of the bitch and let’s move on. No one will EVER consider him an ATG if they knew anything about Boxing. He’s done so little comparatively and only a novice would ever dare to voice his name with Ali, Tyson or Marciano.

[H8Usernames]

It pisses me off that people want to see Usyk vs Fury. It's a pointless horrible fight. Do you folks also want to see Fury beat on Briedis then?

[Enlightened-One]

Fury is definitely avoiding Usyk and AJ for that matter.

Fury is not avoiding anyone.

Tyson has claimed his intention to retire during 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

It's something he does regularly, but he keeps coming back.

• November 2013 - Tyson Fury announces his retirement via Twitter, due to David Haye’s withdrawal from their bout
• November 2015 – Tyson Fury claimed he’s considering retirement after the Klitschko bout
• October 2016 – Tyson Fury announces his retirement, but a few hours later he retracted his comments
• July 2017 – Tyson Fury announces his retirement from boxing due to waiting for a date for his UKAD anti-doping hearing
• December 2018 – Tyson Fury promises to retire after he’s competed in his next two outings
• October 2019 – Tyson Fury promises to retire during 2020 after competing in three more bouts
• February 2020 – Sugar Hill Steward said that Tyson Fury will retire after the Deontay Wilder victory
• March 2020 – Tyson Fury makes a 180 degree U-turn and promises to continue boxing well into his forties
• June 2021 – Fury claimed he’d retire after the third Deontay Wilder bout
• November 2021 – Tyson Fury admitted to contemplating retirement, but was now looking forward to a bout against Dillian Whyte
• March 2022 – Tyson Fury announced his plans to retire after the Dillian Whyte fight
• April 2022 – Tyson Fury claims he has officially retired

Only a mentally-deranged intellectually-subnormal person takes his “retirement” claims seriously and accuses him of “ducking” his world-rated peers!

Tyson Fury signed a six-fight co-promotional deal with Top Rank during February 2019.

If ‘The Gypsy King’ decides to face Francis Ngannou next in an exhibition, that will be the sixth event that Top Rank has been involved in with Fury, which will mark the completion of that deal.

Tyson Fury might be using the “retirement” angle as a negotiating tactic to orchestrate a contract renewal, or to encourage other promoters to bid for his services.

Of course, there’s a possibility that Fury may decide to stay “retired”, depending on the outcome of the Joshua-Usyk rematch, but I suspect he’ll inevitably make a comeback if he’s offered a big enough payday.

So enough of the stupid “Tyson is ducking AJ and Usyk” claims please!!!

[pound per pound]

Look, I’m a Fury fan. I love the act and the rebound. I even love his very awkward singing after bouts even though I have to quickly change the channel to avoid it.

But how in the world can this guy lay claim to greatness when there’s a huge doubt to him being the best heavyweight currently? Let’s face facts here, Usyk is a HUGE problem. Perhaps that’s why he’s sprung this whole “I quit” thing once he finally gets worldwide acclaim. My guess is that Usyk has a ton to do with it. Maybe Fury fights AJ for goofs for the Brits longing to see the clash, which I completely understand due to the mad amount of dollars to be paid. But only the novice of boxing fans would call Fury great without fighting Usyk before it’s all said and done.

How can you be an ATG if you couldn’t even prove that you were the best of your era? You can’t.

Your'e right. He also was given a gift win over fat John McDermott.

[Tony1244]

Look, I’m a Fury fan. I love the act and the rebound. I even love his very awkward singing after bouts even though I have to quickly change the channel to avoid it.

But how in the world can this guy lay claim to greatness when there’s a huge doubt to him being the best heavyweight currently? Let’s face facts here, Usyk is a HUGE problem. Perhaps that’s why he’s sprung this whole “I quit” thing once he finally gets worldwide acclaim. My guess is that Usyk has a ton to do with it. Maybe Fury fights AJ for goofs for the Brits longing to see the clash, which I completely understand due to the mad amount of dollars to be paid. But only the novice of boxing fans would call Fury great without fighting Usyk before it’s all said and done.

How can you be an ATG if you couldn’t even prove that you were the best of your era? You can’t.

Your'e right. He also was given a gift win over fat John McDermott.

I thought Fury won, but even if he didn't Ali, Marciano, and Joe Louis all had at least one close decision against journeyman types before their title shot.

[ewenhay]

I'll say one thing for Fury, he doesn't half get some fight fans worked up.

[Loki]

Oleksander Usyk is a cruiserweight who at the age of 21 competed as an amateur in the light heavyweight division.

Tyson Fury is 6"9 heavyweight. 2 inches taller than Vitali Klitschko was and he isn't suffering from the robotic matchstickman syndrome like Vitali was.

This is just Vitali Klitschko vs Tomasz Adamek II. This isn't a good fight and one that I would rather not see happen.

A) Fury isn’t 6’9. He’s 6’7. It’s bollocks. B) Comparing Usyk to Adamek demonstrates you’re an idiot.

I had my doubts about Usyk at HW, but after the AJ fight (and he beats him in the rematch) I think he’s made that transition brilliantly. I also think he will box Furys ears off (takes him into the matrix).