With Tyson Fury's career coming to an end, does he make your top 25 heavyweights of all time?

[ilovemesomeboxing]

Does he crack the list?

[daggum]

wilder is 1, ill add the other 24 later

[Atypicalbrit]

No, his resume is too flimsy for the loss against Usyk to not be catastrophic for his legacy.

His talent was very unusual for a fighter of his size and he'd be a wildcard in any era, but lack of discipline and becoming overly political really puts him down in my opinion.

I think he's in the bottom end of the top 50

[Toffee]

Ranking someone right now and ranking them historically are very different things. I think there are two current Heavyweights who will rank higher than him, historically, so it's a no from me.

Became a champion and got banned. Became champion again and beat Whyte and Chisora. It's an unbelievably thin resume unless he can reverse the Usyk decision in the rematch.

[TheProudLunatic]

Remove the ''AT'' and/or ''G'' and I might rank him in the top 5 of his era. (OHE)

[Citizen Koba]

Remove the ''AT'' and/or ''G'' and I might rank him in the top 5 of his era. (OHE)

What would you define as this 'era'? I'd be thinking of something like 2000ish to 2004 onwards - the 4 belt era / global boxing era / internet era. Last 20 to 25 years / 21st century.

To one way of thinking I'd say the top 3 or 4 fighters in any 'era' of 25 years or so have a case for being at least considered in any top 25 ATG discussion since fighters can only be judged within the context of their own era. Modern boxing only has about a 100 year history if you count from the founding of the NBA or 150 or so if you count from the Queensbury rules. That's only 4 to 6 'eras' of 25 years or so.

[Teetotaler83]

2nd place after Emperor Zhang.

[TheProudLunatic]

What would you define as this 'era'? I'd be thinking of something like 2000ish to 2004 onwards - the 4 belt era / global boxing era / internet era. Last 20 to 25 years / 21st century.

To one way of thinking I'd say the top 3 or 4 fighters in any 'era' of 25 years or so have a case for being at least considered in any top 25 ATG discussion since fighters can only be judged within the context of their own era. Modern boxing only has about a 100 year history if you count from the founding of the NBA or 150 or so if you count from the Queensbury rules. That's only 4 to 6 'eras' of 25 years or so.

HWs of this era (in the time of Fury) have no quality opps to build a decent resume with.
A person will have to really go out of their way to hype up these present day HWs.
Fury, Wilder, ZZ Flop, Joyce, Ruiz....
All would get decimated in other eras.
A guy like Alex Steward would be a legend.

So
The only era where Fury would rule would be the one we are in, imho.

[TMLT87]

Nah.

I think its becoming more and more clear in recent years that people got way too carried away hyping him up off the back of the Wilder fights. Good skills and athleticism for his size but he isnt the giant iron chinned slick master boxer who would be a nightmare for past greats that many bought into him being, never was.

[Citizen Koba]

HWs of this era (in the time of Fury) have no quality opps to build a decent resume with.
A person will have to really go out of their way to hype up these present day HWs.
Fury, Wilder, ZZ Flop, Joyce, Ruiz....
All would get decimated in other eras.
A guy like Alex Steward would be a legend.

So
The only era where Fury would rule would be the one we are in, imho.

So to your way of thinking there will be no more ATGs at HW ever since fighters are just not as 'good' as they used to be and they only fight half as often as those from 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

Like I say you can only measure a fighter by the context of the era that you're in. Conjuring imaginary victories for old timers (or indeed for modern fighters, for those who see the equation the other way round) just doesn't make sense to my way of thinking. We just don't and can't know how modern fighters would stack up historically H2H.