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

[REDEEMER]

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.

Foreman is the oldest heavyweight champion and he has fought far better guys then Fury has ,Fury has no actual history Of importance yet . You can’t really be an ATG with no title defense 2 is better then 0.

[-Kev-]

Many boxing fans don’t think much of Wilder so why give Fury credit for that?

Fury essentially has one good win over a 40 year old Wladimir Klitschko, a boring win too.

But if we’re gonna give Fury ATG status for beating Wilder and Wlad then that means that Wilder and Wlad have to be great themselves.

With that said, I do think Wilder and Wlad are very good fighters, Wlad is a HOF’er. But I don’t think those two wins warrant a spot at the ATG list. Not even a win over AJ. He has to do better than 3 very good boxers.

If we are going to start putting boxers in ATG lists for beating 2-3 good fighters and having no depth in their resume then there are many boxers you would have to consider for the ATG list.

Just to name some, John Ruiz, who beat Evander Holyfield, Hasim Rahman, Andrew Golota.

You also would have to consider someone like Sumbu Kalambay who was the first to beat Mike McCallum and beat him badly, schooled him and McCallum is a HOFer and Kalambay isn’t, Iran Barkley, Robbie Simms, Herol Graham, Doug Dewitt. Many people, like close to 100%, also felt he beat Ayub Kalule but was robbed.

Just saying, if we are going to start putting fighters in the ATG list for 2-3 good wins and no other depth wins in their resume, we have a backlog of fighters in line who fit that criteria.

[champion4ever]

Hell no! He ain't done shit! What happens when he gets stopped in his next fight?

[LoadedWraps]

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.

Nice tidbit of history here, thanks for sharing.

[QueensburyRules]

Many boxing fans don’t think much of Wilder so why give Fury credit for that?

Fury essentially has one good win over a 40 year old Wladimir Klitschko, a boring win too.

But if we’re gonna give Fury ATG status for beating Wilder and Wlad then that means that Wilder and Wlad have to be great themselves.

With that said, I do think Wilder and Wlad are very good fighters, Wlad is a HOF’er. But I don’t think those two wins warrant a spot at the ATG list. Not even a win over AJ. He has to do better than 3 very good boxers.

If we are going to start putting boxers in ATG lists for beating 2-3 good fighters and having no depth in their resume then there are many boxers you would have to consider for the ATG list.

Just to name some, John Ruiz, who beat Evander Holyfield, Hasim Rahman, Andrew Golota.

You also would have to consider someone like Sumbu Kalambay who was the first to beat Mike McCallum and beat him badly, schooled him and McCallum is a HOFer and Kalambay isn’t, Iran Barkley, Robbie Simms, Herol Graham, Doug Dewitt. Many people, like close to 100%, also felt he beat Ayub Kalule but was robbed.

Just saying, if we are going to start putting fighters in the ATG list for 2-3 good wins and no other depth wins in their resume, we have a backlog of fighters in line who fit that criteria.

- -I'll take my more nuanced approach to all time greatness than yours.

[LacedUp]

Foreman is the oldest heavyweight champion and he has fought far better guys then Fury has ,Fury has no actual history Of importance yet . You can’t really be an ATG with no title defense 2 is better then 0.

He has? Let's look at it:

Wladimir Klitschko (25 titles defenses)
Deontay Wilder (10 defenses)
Deontay Wilder (10 defenses)
Dereck Chisora
Dereck Chisora

vs

Joe Frazier (5 defenses)
Muhammad Ali (+20 defenses)
Ken Norton
Jose Roman
Ron Lyle

It's not that different imo.

Of course Foreman fought and lost to Ali, the greatest ever, and legend smoking joe.

But really it's similar.

[REDEEMER]

He has? Let's look at it:

Wladimir Klitschko (25 titles defenses)
Deontay Wilder (10 defenses)
Deontay Wilder (10 defenses)
Dereck Chisora
Dereck Chisora

vs

Joe Frazier (5 defenses)
Muhammad Ali (+20 defenses)
Ken Norton
Jose Roman
Ron Lyle

It's not that different imo.

Of course Foreman fought and lost to Ali, the greatest ever, and legend smoking joe.

But really it's similar.

You forgot Tommy Morrison, Shannon Briggs , Mike Moorer , Holyfield and evening Gerry Cooney while not at his best would be a better name then most who Fury fought. You can’t really win this here because Foreman has longevity in the sport ,it goes beyond title defenses .

No one seriously is going to make a case for Furys win over Wilder as a more ATG and no title defenses vs what Foreman has been through . Fury can become undisputed and change it a bit but he would have to sign the fight ,until it happens Wilder just isn’t going to cut it .

[Marchegiano]

He has? Let's look at it:

Wladimir Klitschko (25 titles defenses) Unified -WBC
Deontay Wilder (10 defenses) WBC
Deontay Wilder (10 defenses)
Dereck Chisora Notta Champ
Dereck Chisora

vs

Joe Frazier (5 defenses) Undisputed
Muhammad Ali (+20 defenses) Undisputed
Ken Norton WBC
Jose Roman Notta Champ
Ron Lyle Notta Champ

It's not that different imo.

Of course Foreman fought and lost to Ali, the greatest ever, and legend smoking joe.

But really it's similar.

Just a smidgen of difference

[Marchegiano]

If we cut very deserving guys like Sam Langford and Peter Maher and only look at champions these are the following champions I believe Fury has already done greater things than....in no particular order, this is not a ranked list, I'm not calling the first name the best name.

Anyway, Less Than Fury:

Bentt

Ruiz Jr.

All the regs, Pov, Chageav, Browne, etc

Martin

Stiverne

Peter

Corbett

Willard

Tunney - As a HW!

Schmeling

Baer

Primo

Braddock

Sharkey

Liston

WBO only champions - **** em

Maskaev

Sultan

Liakhovich

Moorer

Tucker

Berbick

Witherspoon

Page

Tubbs

Dokes

Weaver

Tate

Coetzee

Spinkses

Ellis

Terrel

Jones Jr. - At HW

J. Ruiz ..... um...I mean John's got accolades but we all know they're just timing based...he's not really a guy who beats any prime undisputed...I think, I dunno, maybe I should give him more dues and watch this fool more than I have.

I guess Sanders and Brewster etc are covered by the **** any WBO-alone run but still they ought to get mentioned by name.

Rahman

McCall

Seldon

Bruno

Hate to, but, Bonecrusher didn't actually do that much did he?

That's pretty good. I think I've made my point.


There are enough lessers to give Fury ATG if you mean to be all inclusive.

It's only really difficult once you start talking top ATGs.

What's Fury done to out prove Rocky? Louis? Ali? Dempsey? That **** becomes difficult. Bowe ain't exactly the high end of the ATGs but he ain't low either and he is about where I see Tyson.

There is a bias I just don't agree with when you compare resume to accolade. Undisputed means proven best of an era and there ain't no two bones about it. Fury may have toppled Wlad and Wilder and you might think Wlad and Wilder would stomp ass right through any man Rocky ever faced, but, that's your thoughts and bias on the matter. Fact is Marciano dominated his era and Fury has not.

Wlad and Vitali hurt their own standing and anyone who beat them as well. It's not Fury's fault Wlad was never undisputed, but, you can't just give him credit for something never don either. Wlad NEVER faced all the tops. He faced 3/4s of them. Respectable but in the same league as a man who did face ALL the tops.

Fury calls himself lineal because he beat Wlad who was called lineal based on some bull**** Ring made up. So he does get an unfair benefit from beating Wlad. He also get's a bit of an unfair disadvantage; Wlad's got more defenses than anyone except Louis (? even louis?) but isn't an undisputed so he's closer to a Holmes than a Louis.


I struggle to place Fury even above Wlad despite Fury beating him. I struggle with both of them around the Bowe level of undisputeds.

What's it mean to be the clear best of a nice long time frame, but, never prove it compared to the clear and proven best of a short time frame? Juggling is what. You can give a man a nod on just about any ground you see as a tie breaker.



While I struggle with that area of greatness and exactly where Tyson falls in, in terms of proven ability and dominance, one thing I do not struggle with is worldliness.

Is there a colorline?

Nope

So, maybe, we should give Dempsey some **** then? Most of the guys between Johnson and Louis are **** champs anyway and don't qualify as greater than Fury...**** Sharkey, both of em. However, Dempsey is a name that almost certainly son's Fury. Except, the champions before Dempsey cleared out black contenders on their way to the title. So while Jeffries did not fight say Peter Jackson for the title he did fight Peter Jackson. Dempsey never fought a black man. Not as champion, not before champion, not ever. How world champion is he? A whole race cut from the ranks, also during his time boxing was mostly America, Europe, and the Aussies with a blip here and there coming from the hispanos of the south. How World, how global, can you call a man who fought 0 black men his whole career, and only 3 foreign dudes his entire career? Is he the world champ or is he the White American champ during a time when only white america mattered to the wallets and minds of the industry?

I think Fury sons Dempsey already if you include racism and xenophobia against worldliness in the title "world heavyweight champion"


Give me time, I'll compile a ranked list of real ATGs and where I see Fury.

[Marchegiano]

Nice tidbit of history here, thanks for sharing.

I was asked a while back, can't even remember by who, to look into Ring's manipulation of lineal through history. Covid among other set backs has really driven down my ability to buy things like old Ring mags. Soon as I am able to complete my research I am going to prove what is traditional lineal, what is ring imposed, and what from best I can tell is just fan made up nonsense.

Lineal does need defined. I get tired of people telling me it's ineffable. I don't care if folks like the traditional, ring, made up bs or a mix of any of it just as long as we can point to where the ideas came from without causing arguments.

I'd like to see Fury with an actual physical lineal belt but even he doesn't know he should have one.