BoxRec

I've heard people saying Fury would be in the top 5 heavyweights of all time let alone the top 10.

It got me thinking who are his best 5 wins.

It's not great reading

Jake Paul

forcefraser wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 16:52 I've heard people saying Fury would be in the top 5 heavyweights of all time let alone the top 10.

It got me thinking who are his best 5 wins.

It's not great reading

The talk sport lot were saying he's the best of all time before he ran into the middleweight, had me scratching my head to be honest, only a few title fights against a couple of different opponents. He's obviously very good but top 10 I doubt it.

He’s nowhere near top 10.

His best win came in one of the worst fights I have ever seen against Klitsckho, who is also nowhere near the top 10.

His best win after that is Wilder - look at that form line.

forcefraser wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 16:52 It got me thinking who are his best 5 wins.

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

joshj909 wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 17:34

forcefraser wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 16:52 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?

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 17:42

joshj909 wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 17:34

forcefraser wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 16:52 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?

Yes in that order. The older Chisora but arguably any of them

Hes top 15 maybe, just not enough good wins.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 17:52 Hes top 15 maybe, just not enough good wins.

Nowhere near mate.

A prime AJ and Uysk would have made him the best of his generation, but he is short of that, not an ATG
I thin the Wilder fights took a lot of of him, ruined Wilder

Frostieballs wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 18:31

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 17:52 Hes top 15 maybe, just not enough good wins.

Nowhere near mate.

Im being charitable, but heavyweight division isnt that deep to be fair, not too many heavyweights who won a title who had logevity.

Outside top 10, gets hard to rate people.

Is he above or below Bruno? Hard to say.

For what its worth, i think Fury had a lot of talent, with more discipline he could have done more. Never elite level, but he was competitive with Usyk twice, tjough of course should have lost by KO in their first fight.

Coco wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 18:32 A prime AJ and Uysk would have made him the best of his generation, but he is short of that, not an ATG
I thin the Wilder fights took a lot of of him, ruined Wilder

I agree, i think the first fight took something out of fury.

I still have no idea how he got up. He was out.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 18:47

Coco wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 18:32 A prime AJ and Uysk would have made him the best of his generation, but he is short of that, not an ATG
I thin the Wilder fights took a lot of of him, ruined Wilder

I agree, i think the first fight took something out of fury.

I still have no idea how he got up. He was out.

The 3rd was real hard too.

In the first, I don't think I have ever seen a heavy hit so hard and still get up

Two words...

Larry holmes.

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.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 19:15 Two words...

Larry holmes.

After Hagler, Holmes is my favourite boxer.

How he got up from that Shavers shot I'll never know.

Such a skilled fighter and tough as nails.

I'd say his 5 best wins in order are:

Wilder 2
Klitschko
Chisora 2
McDermott 2
Cunningham

That's in terms of how his opponents were regarded in relation to him at the time, rather than their historic places in retrospect (where Klitschko'd be top etc).

He's in the Top Ten Fury's.

1 - Tommy Fury. Beat Jake Paul who beat Mike Tyson who beat Larry Holmes who beat Muhammad Ali.
2 - Hughie Fury. Wait til he gets his Man Strength.
3 - Roman Fury. The World bent it's knee to Roman Fury 2,000 years ago. & it shall do so again one day.
4 - John Fury. Lennox Lewis ducked him. Nuff said.
5 - James Dean Fury. Would have been one of the best if it wasn't for California Highway 46.
6 - Tyson Fury. Beat an undefeated fighter named Rich Power, which sounds like a pseudonym for Tony Bellew.
7 - Snowy Fury. If you're an Aussie named Snowy you deserve to be on every list.
8 - Young Fury. There's been five of them. Combined, they are a mighty force.
9 - Ace Fury. Possibly the greatest ever boxer to come out of Hilgard Oregon.
10 - Rachael Fury. No one is calling me Misogynistic. Not today & not tomorrow.

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.

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

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 20:24 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 like that, "embarrassment to boxing"
It was the most boring HW title fight I've seen. He also choked the rematch.

There's guys who never won a world heavyweight title who are better.

Taansend wrote: ↑27 Nov 2025, 00:34 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.

tigermoth87 wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 23:15 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.

What is your top 10? Interesting to see who makes the cut other than Usyk, Joshua, Fury, Klitschko, Klitschko, Lennox, Holyfield and Tyson.

tigermoth87 wrote: ↑26 Nov 2025, 23:15 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.