Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[Please Help] Will Fury go down as an ATG???

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by LoadedWraps View Post
    The question is simple. The answer, perhaps not so much. Will 2 fast, 2 slick Fury be remembered as an all time great? Will the name Tyson Fury be remembered with the greats? Will history remember his name?
    - -He'll be remembered as the looniest at this point.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
      - -He'll be remembered as the looniest at this point.

      Why?

      He's the best in boxing, the division, and is the undefeated lineal WBC world champion.

      Comment


      • #33
        The only thing people can realistically knock him for is a lack of defences but I don't see that being a huge issue to sort out.

        He's held every single heavyweight title, the ring magazine champion twice, beaten two long reigning champs who both had over 10 defences going into fighting him, both away from home.

        It's a good set of achievements, great in fact.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by LDBC Slayer View Post
          The only thing people can realistically knock him for is a lack of defences but I don't see that being a huge issue to sort out.

          He's held every single heavyweight title, the ring magazine champion twice, beaten two long reigning champs who both had over 10 defences going into fighting him, both away from home.

          It's a good set of achievements, great in fact.
          Some title defences would be nice, but in all honesty, what do people care about? People say George Foreman is an ATG right? I agree. He has a total of 2 successful title defense in his life. One was against a nobody.

          Just think about that. Fury needs to beat who matters in his era, Klitschko, Wilder, AJ and then hopefully one or two of the 'next big things' or whatever.

          no one cares about him filling a resume of pianetas and wachs and that type of thing.

          At the moment he's the best of this era, that much is clear. Of course Joshua and probably Wilder could still change that but they would need to beat Fury.

          Comment


          • #35
            Not enough time or quality opponents. Not to mention Fury is going to retire soon.

            Comment


            • #36
              Nandrolone Fury will not be an all time great. More like an all time chump with 2 good wins on his record.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ShaneMosleySr View Post
                Patterson, Ali, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis, Fury
                Oh I see, I'm trying to word my response here so it doesn't come out argumentative so much as curious but it's a bit difficult so I'm just telling you straightforward-like; I'm not trying to argue and what I've to say isn't meant to be a counter to the point so much as just additional information.


                It is a bit misleading because back when lineal was actually the only belt it was kind of anarchy. There are more guys who won the lineal championship and lost it then what is commonly found on simplified lists.

                me being me I should say I do mean within Queensberry/Gloved boxing history. I'm not trying to bring bare knuckle x2s lineals into it. I just mean John L, Corbett, and Fitzs's eras are sketchy and a ton of semantics are used to justify their reigns as they're found on places like Boxrec or CBZ.

                Especially Fitzs, he kind of is a x2 lineal. It's really ****ty how history has dealt with him.

                Basically the short story is historians think you're too ****** to understand a several months long deviation from Corbett-Fitzs that lead to Corbett-Fitzs so they cut it out and that alone is why you and most people don't recognize Fitzs as x2

                John's legacy is funny because when exactly he became champions and who he defended gloved or bare knuckle laurels changes as consensus changes rather than new information...to which there basically is none.

                He is "the man" his entire reign from Paddy to Corbett but they award him, in his time, with some very silly trinkets and very silly justifications. He's given 3 or 4 belts as the champion. Never lost a reign but could be considered a x2 lineal just based on how often some authority tried to take control of what 'official' is.

                Corbett's straightforward as ****. He was champion, he retired, there were three guys who won his title since he retired. He came back, reclaimed his title, and lost. Rather than denoting the champs in the interim and the return of the true champ we just expunge the three interim champions. Interim meaning in the mean time not an actual interim belt...those were not thought of yet.

                Anyway that's my pointless history side-bar.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by LoadedWraps View Post

                  Why?

                  He's the best in boxing, the division, and is the undefeated lineal WBC world champion.
                  - -Ducked Wlad rematch and AJ to go after the low hanging fruit of Deyonce.

                  He forfeited any lineal claims.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by LDBC Slayer View Post
                    The only thing people can realistically knock him for is a lack of defences but I don't see that being a huge issue to sort out.

                    He's held every single heavyweight title, the ring magazine champion twice, beaten two long reigning champs who both had over 10 defences going into fighting him, both away from home.

                    It's a good set of achievements, great in fact.
                    And again, there are boxers with comparable achievements who are considered to be nowhere near great.

                    James Douglas for one. He was lineal and undisputed, and beat an even more dominant champion in his prime.

                    Beating Wlad at 39 doesn't make you great. Beating Wilder isn't worth a carrot.

                    And I still don't think he's a two time lineal champion. You don't get that title back for beating Wilder - there's no concensus that they're a clear top two. Especially when there's another guy in the division holding 3/4 of the belts that he unified with a far deeper CV than Wilder. And at the point they fought, Fury's best result in the last 5 years was a draw!

                    Lineal remains at large. Fury has one very good win, and one decent win.

                    Could be great, but he's absolutely nowhere near it yet.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Larry_Rushmore View Post
                      Thing with him is he has to actually make some title defenses
                      Notice many Canelo haters in this thread say the 37 year old Kova was “shot” But somehow the 40+ year old Wlad was fine... as if Wlad was never stopped before.

                      Then Fury dips out of the rematch with Wlad. Lol.

                      The same Fury diehards said Wilder ****** and had the corrupt WBC backing him with those title defenses yet they praise these title defenses. Lol

                      Imagine if Jack Reiss had stopped the fight as he did the Perrella fight against Ramos on Fury?

                      He gave Fury more time than Perrella.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP