Fury has won all the belts.
Mike never got the WBO did he.
I only just realised I was arguing with a child.
thank you for pointing this out, saves me further posts.
So no counter argument.
Just some emojis.
Sums you up really.
You're being owned left and right in your own thread repeatedly. Sums you up really. :rolleyes:
Sure, make a logical argument why Mike is Greater.
Why can't any fat yanks do that?
Mike is the youngest heavyweight champ of all time, that statistic alone makes him greater. He also has 10 consecutive defenses of his world heavyweight championship, that makes him greater. He also has a better resume of fighters, that makes him greater.
I am doing exactly that, we don't know what would have happened if prime for prime he had faced other HW greats but he had a decade of dominance, plenty of title defenses, and more unbeaten opponents 0s taken than nearly any world class fighter in the modern era.
Ok.
Not a dead era at all.
An era Americans did not like because anyone they put up get a beat down from Wlad.
Fury beat two champs to win his belts who had a total 29 title defense going into fight Fury.
How many were the defenses did the likes of Spinks, Smith and Berbick have?
Add Bruno and Seldon to that list as well.
Deal with the FACTS!!
Pfffft... :rolleyes:
You can say he was the best of his (dead) era but you cannot claim he's one of the best Heavyweights ever. It's simple.
Not a dead era at all.
An era Americans did not like because anyone they put up get a beat down from Wlad.
Fury beat two champs to win his belts who had a total 29 title defense going into fight Fury.
How many were the defenses did the likes of Spinks, Smith and Berbick have?
Add Bruno and Seldon to that list as well.
Deal with the FACTS!!
I love how 14 rotten tooth Brits actually voted for Fury.... just lol.
Sure, make a logical argument why Mike is Greater.
Why can't any fat yanks do that?
If dominating a sizable chunk of the history of the HW division is not good enough to be considered the best idk what standard there is.
You can say he was the best of his (dead) era but you cannot claim he's one of the best Heavyweights ever. It's simple.
I don't have to tell you all of the opponents Wlad fought and beat, you know who they are and if you don't can look them up.
He dominated his era, has stopped many unbeaten contenders and was on top for a decade.
SO? That's not good enough to considered one of the best Heavyweight fighters ever. GOT IT?
He fought everyone he was supposed to and the best a a available opponent during his run.
If we wanna go that route who are Mike Tyson's best wins? A terrified lwh in Spinks? Or Larry Holmes best wins? Old Ali
That's what I thought. First he ducks the answer then he starts making excuses. :lol1:
Wlad is one of the best HWs to ever lace them up. Its a fantastic win unseating his decade long reign.
YEAH? Name Wladimir's best wins then. :lol1: :rolleyes: :lol1:
I've asked the question, you have refused.
You make statements about standard and when asked to back them up, you run away.
Come back when you are able to deal with the FACTS!
You couldn't respond to this post so what do you do? LIE and invent excuses that I wasn't responding to you. :rolleyes: You're pathetic, little girl.
What are these standards? :lol1:
Let's start with MINIMUM beating at LEAST one prime fellow ATG and all available top tier competition.
DUH.
But that's not actually enough. Beating a slew of elite competition and prime HOF'ers is what it ACTUALLY takes to be considered an ATG.
Now log off.
Good try coward. Reply to my post.
SCARED?
I've asked the question, you have refused.
You make statements about standard and when asked to back them up, you run away.
Come back when you are able to deal with the FACTS!
Ok IDIOT. NOW YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THIS POST AND NOT RESPOND WITH A QUESTION.
SCARED?
Still running scared.
You know the truth disproves your assertions.