Fury & Usyk Historical Ranking

[Legends456]

Before Fury “won” a close fight with Ngannou, and lost to Usyk, many were hailing him as one of the great all-time heavyweights, and even said he’d have a shot head-to-head with any heavyweight from any era. I’m not just talking about random posters, but professional pundits as well.

Now, very few people are considering Fury an all-time great.

However, I’ve noticed that after beating Fury, Usyk hasn’t reached the same level of adulation and acclamation as Fury had after the Wilder trilogy and the Whyte fight.

Usyk hasn’t lost (yet), and he unified two divisions. I’m not saying Usyk is necessarily on the level to compete with any heavyweight from any era, as I’m not sure he deserves that level of acclaim. I would still consider him an all-time great, as long as the bottom doesn’t fall out of his career.

So, why did Fury at his peak receive much higher praise than the Usyk who beat him, and who also arguably accomplished more than Fury ever did in his career?

[Richard]

Possibly a lack of great heavyweights and the way Fury fought in the first Wilder fight. I think his personality may have something to do with it as he can be quite inspiring (although this maybe just to market himself ). I still credit him for the way he fought Wilder, especially in the first fight. Very inspiring for me.

[Boxing 112]

Before Fury “won” a close fight with Ngannou, and lost to Usyk, many were hailing him as one of the great all-time heavyweights, and even said he’d have a shot head-to-head with any heavyweight from any era. I’m not just talking about random posters, but professional pundits as well.

Now, very few people are considering Fury an all-time great.

However, I’ve noticed that after beating Fury, Usyk hasn’t reached the same level of adulation and acclamation as Fury had after the Wilder trilogy and the Whyte fight.

Usyk hasn’t lost (yet), and he unified two divisions. I’m not saying Usyk is necessarily on the level to compete with any heavyweight from any era, as I’m not sure he deserves that level of acclaim. I would still consider him an all-time great, as long as the bottom doesn’t fall out of his career.

So, why did Fury at his peak receive much higher praise than the Usyk who beat him, and who also arguably accomplished more than Fury ever did in his career?

"I’m not saying Usyk is necessarily on the level to compete with any heavyweight from any era"

He literally proved he is one of the best. He came up and beat the giants of the division. Is one of the all time greats off his resume. BOTH Fury and Usyk can compete with heavyweights of the past,they are the best in their division.

[Legends456]

"I’m not saying Usyk is necessarily on the level to compete with any heavyweight from any era"

He literally proved he is one of the best. He came up and beat the giants of the division. Is one of the all time greats off his resume. BOTH Fury and Usyk can compete with heavyweights of the past,they are the best in their division.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge Usyk fan. For reference I’m part Slavic myself and as we know, boxing is very tribal.

That said, I just don’t see him competing speed-for-speed with Prime Ali. Also, if Lennox or Big George was landing the kind of shots Fury was landing mid-rounds, would he have stayed up? I have my doubts…

That said, you’re right, Usyk IS an ATG… but I guess I wouldn’t rank him in the top five heavyweights all time. Probably more like top fifteen.

Fury, I’m not so sure. Love the guy, he’s a great character, but I am starting to think his skill level was a bit overrated IMO…..

[Toffee]

I'm not too sure what the question is? Are we ranking on adulation, fantasy head to head, or resume?

Personally I think prime Fury is a problem for most heavyweights in fantasy head to heads. But that's fantasy stuff. Doesn't mean anything.

In terms of adulation he's no Ali or Tyson.

Resume wise, Fury was never in those conversations as an all time great. He was a legend in his own mind in his own era.

Usyk is right in those conversations.

[Toffee]

"I’m not saying Usyk is necessarily on the level to compete with any heavyweight from any era"

He literally proved he is one of the best. He came up and beat the giants of the division. Is one of the all time greats off his resume. BOTH Fury and Usyk can compete with heavyweights of the past,they are the best in their division.

Is Fury really, though?

What wins give him that status? Whyte? Chisora? It's just all built on beating a completely overrated Wilder isn't it? And a win nearly a decade ago against a guy coming toward the end of his career.

I don't want to diminish Usyk's win because he's beaten what the division was able to put in front of him, and that makes him great. But I'm not convinced Fury really earned his standout status - he kind of just claimed it by giving Wilder the credit he hadn't achieved and then dodged any test of the validity of his claim until he finally faced a top fighter.

[Legends456]

I'm not too sure what the question is? Are we ranking on adulation, fantasy head to head, or resume?

Personally I think prime Fury is a problem for most heavyweights in fantasy head to heads. But that's fantasy stuff. Doesn't mean anything.

In terms of adulation he's no Ali or Tyson.

Resume wise, Fury was never in those conversations as an all time great. He was a legend in his own mind in his own era.

Usyk is right in those conversations.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I guess what I meant is that I remember when Fury was at the peak of his game and had just beaten Wilder in the Trilogy, and had beaten Whyte in front of 94,000 screaming British fans, that there was talk that on his day he could beat anybody in history.

After Usyk beat him, people were giving Usyk his flowers, but I haven’t really heard the same level of praise (specifically, that on his day, Usyk could beat anyone in history).

In fact, I can’t remember what site or comments section it was, but after the fight with Fury, I made comparisons between a former great and Usyk (simply that they had a similar aura and completeness to their boxing arsenals, and had proved their championship mettle against others of their respective eras), and I remember the general consensus from other posters was that it was ridiculous to say that about Usyk and that Usyk didn’t deserve the comparison.

So, I’ve often wondered why Usyk doesn’t get as much praise for beating everyone in front of him and staying undefeated as Fury got for simply beating Wilder in the trilogy, beating Whyte, and beating an aged Wladimir.

I personally think it mostly has to do with Wilder’s aura being negated after multiple embarrassing losses, and people’s opinion of Fury after the Ngannou fight taking a general nosedive (as many considered that, not Usyk, his first loss).

Hence, Usyk beating Fury didn’t carry the same level of historical significance in many boxing fans’ eyes anymore, as it would have had it happened right after the Whyte fight, before Fury fought Ngannou and before Wilder looked cracked.

But I wanted to get other peoples’ thoughts about the phenomenon.

[_Rexy_]

Because Fury dominated Wilder, who a lot of American pundits seemed to only take notice of after the Ortiz fight, sio they saw Fury beat this Monster 42-0 (41) 3 times without really realizing that Wilder has two left feet and only a right hand.

I think a lot of it is both how Fury looked against Francis, but also the fact that Wilder got demolished by Parker and Zhang immediately after the Fury trilogy, Whyte almost losing a decision to Franklin, then taking a third PED suspension, and Francis getting KO2 to Joshua (Who then got his **** pushed in by DDD)

but also most casual fans have recency bias.


As for Usyk, he will never get his praise on here. He beat AJ twice and Fury once, and the UK fans are still saying "Well, he did okay, but AJ/Fury lost the fight, Usyk didn't win it. He just capitalized off of their mistakes. If AJ fought him a third or fourth time, he'd probably win. Fury would have won the fight if it was only 7 rounds long!" nonsense.

[Legends456]

Is Fury really, though?

What wins give him that status? Whyte? Chisora? It's just all built on beating a completely overrated Wilder isn't it? And a win nearly a decade ago against a guy coming toward the end of his career.

I don't want to diminish Usyk's win because he's beaten what the division was able to put in front of him, and that makes him great. But I'm not convinced Fury really earned his standout status - he kind of just claimed it by giving Wilder the credit he hadn't achieved and then dodged any test of the validity of his claim until he finally faced a top fighter.

I’m thinking you’re getting at similar conclusions that I am. Specifically, that much of Fury’s claim to ATG status, rested on Wilder being seen as an unstoppable force of nature that Fury (and ONLY Fury), had somehow managed to endure, and break down, and defeat. He had solved the puzzle when everyone else (even better boxers who managed to win more rounds) ended up on the canvas getting counted out.

Then we saw Parker walk the tightrope against Wilder and clearly outpoint him, putting on a boxing clinic that was much more comprehensive and one-sided than anyone had ever managed to do before against Wilder.

Later, we saw Zhang take Wilder’s right hand flush and just sort of nod, and fire back and buzz Wilder on several occasions in their fight, before finally knocking him out in a similar fashion to some of Wilder’s most memorable highlight-reel knockouts.

Fury, on the other hand, lacked the tightness and clinical nature of Parker when facing Wilder (except for, arguably, the second fight of the trilogy, but even so, he hadn’t gone twelve perfect rounds the way Parker did).

Also, seeing someone else (Zhang) take Wilder’s power much better than Fury did also took away some of the myths of Fury’s vaunted chin and recovery ability.

These are just some of my thoughts. I still like both Fury and Usyk. But I remember during the Fury-Wilder trilogy there was a lot of talk (even from various pundits) that Wilder was the hardest puncher in history and that he wouldn’t be able to avoid the inevitable. Fury, of course, proved them wrong and his stock skyrocketed. For awhile (even after Wilder sparked out his former sparring partner), Fury could still claim the mantle of the ONLY boxer who had survived and beaten Wilder without being knocked out. Once others did what he did, and in arguably easier fashion, a major part of Fury’s claim to legendary status no longer held water, since Wilder (his career-defining opponent) was no longer held to the same level of aura and mystique.

[Boxing 112]

Is Fury really, though?

What wins give him that status? Whyte? Chisora? It's just all built on beating a completely overrated Wilder isn't it? And a win nearly a decade ago against a guy coming toward the end of his career.

I don't want to diminish Usyk's win because he's beaten what the division was able to put in front of him, and that makes him great. But I'm not convinced Fury really earned his standout status - he kind of just claimed it by giving Wilder the credit he hadn't achieved and then dodged any test of the validity of his claim until he finally faced a top fighter.

The top heavyweights of each era can compete with each that is why they are the top of their eras. People love being stuck on the past. Athletes got better with time not worse, nutrition, training methods, tactics etc easier to watch 100s of videos of fights and analylse tactics and opponents then you could decades ago. Even AJ Wilder can compete with the top heavyweights of the past. That's not me saying they win them all the question was can they compete. Yes, top fighters from any division today can compete with the top of divisions in the past