Is Fury a top 10 all-time great?

[QueensburyRules]

How am I trolling, Queenie?

Fury is a 6'9 fighter who can box and move AND fight coming forward.

Historically we have never seen a heavyweight quite like him. He was the one who ended the Klitschko era.

It's not out of line to ask where he might rank historically.

- -AJ finished Wlad and did so concussively without being a two bit jerk about.

Fury maybe has a claim to being the best zero title defenses in hvy history.

Sorta like U light in the loafies have a claim to being the most hysteria addled fans in hvy history.

When's he give Wallin the rematch? That'd give him 1 defense to tie Neon Leon...Only in boxing, boys!

[Rusty Tromboni]

How am I trolling, Queenie?

Fury is a 6'9 fighter who can box and move AND fight coming forward.

Historically we have never seen a heavyweight quite like him. He was the one who ended the Klitschko era.

It's not out of line to ask where he might rank historically.

You're not. She's a senile old woman who've men have forgotten and don't even recognize. She needs to unload her anger somewhere.

If you point to facts here everyone has a meltdown. We're surrounded by people who still believe they can grow up to be Disney Princesses. They're delusional. And they'll attack anyone who challenges their blissful ignorance.

The footage is obvious. There's never been anyone as good as Fury. He's too big, skilled, smart and tenacious for their heroes. And that kills them.

[ShoulderRoll]

- -AJ finished Wlad and did so concussively without being a two bit jerk about.

Fury maybe has a claim to being the best zero title defenses in hvy history.

Sorta like U light in the loafies have a claim to being the most hysteria addled fans in hvy history.

When's he give Wallin the rematch? That'd give him 1 defense to tie Neon Leon...Only in boxing, boys!

Fury beat Klitschko first, before Anthony Joshua.

The Kronk-trained Tyson Fury seems like a significantly upgraded version of the Fury that fought Wallin.

[kiDynamite92]

He'd be in that top 11 - 15 for me, he'd have good company with the likes of Riddick Bowe, Vitali Klitschko and Wladamir Klitschko.

[DeeMoney]

Once again lots of apples to oranges confusion going on here. Some people define ATG by resume, while others by how good a given fighter is in a head to head comparison.

If you are looking at the first metric, no Fury is not an ATG, he simply does not have that many big fights and accomplishments yet to be ranked that high.

If you are looking at the second criteria then he is in the discussion. Its simply a matter of being one of the best modern heavies. He is so much bigger (and not like a slow Carnera or Valuev big) than the heavies of the past that you have to take that into account.

His relative size to Muhammad Ali would be similar to a Welterweight next to a Light Heavyweight. Imagine putting SRL (as a Welter) in the ring against a solid light heavyweight (weighing in as such); who would you put your money on? Thats the type of advantage that Fury has over many historically ranked heavies.

Now, to be sure as you move up in weight there is probably less of an impact of relative size, but to ignore it all together is wrong.

[Bundana]

Im asking you this because you have a great mind for details. I noticed, and i could be wrong, so I should say, it seemed to me...that one of the provisions of being a great heavyweight champion, is often fighting in an era when there was not necessarily great competition. As a matter of fact it seemed to me at the time, many great heavyweights did not always beat other equally skilled fighters. I would even go so far as to say "most" heavyweights.

I don't even think I should give an example so much as say " Lennox Lewis, Frazier, Ali, Holyfield, were examples of a handful of guys who had good competition to fight... I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this: take any champ top ten, like Louis, like dempsey, Johnson...

Under these conditions I would be willing to put Fury in a relatively short list if he can beat Joshua and maybe a few young lions.

First of all, it's my opinion, that the only thing a boxer can do to prove his greatness, is beating the best of his own time. We can't really ask for more than that - and I don't understand why he should "prove" his greatness by "beating" champions many decades into the future in fantasy match-ups. Being the best of the best in your own era, should be enough to cement your greatness.

So while boxers like (for example) Fitzsimmons and Ketchel look awful (in the little film we have of them) by modern standards, they were standouts in their own time - and should be respected as such.

As for the 3 you mention, Johnson, Dempsey and Louis - they were of course also standouts. Sure, the quality of their opposition can be questioned, and you could say that both Johnson and Dempsey had rather disappointing reigns… whereas Louis was a very busy champion, who defended against the best available challengers. It's just that there weren't really any other "great" heavyweights around during his prime. Not his fault - and I do believe, he was a tremendous boxer.

So while we can always wonder, how they would do against later champions, there's no denying they were 3 of the most iconic figures, with a huge impact on boxing history - thus deserving of their ATG status. Imo.

[billeau2]

Then why don't you head into your dojo, grab a katana, and slice off their heads so we can be done with them once and for all?

Don't temp me!

[billeau2]

First of all, it's my opinion, that the only thing a boxer can do to prove his greatness, is beating the best of his own time. We can't really ask for more than that - and I don't understand why he should "prove" his greatness by "beating" champions many decades into the future in fantasy match-ups. Being the best of the best in your own era, should be enough to cement your greatness.

So while boxers like (for example) Fitzsimmons and Ketchel look awful (in the little film we have of them) by modern standards, they were standouts in their own time - and should be respected as such.

As for the 3 you mention, Johnson, Dempsey and Louis - they were of course also standouts. Sure, the quality of their opposition can be questioned, and you could say that both Johnson and Dempsey had rather disappointing reigns… whereas Louis was a very busy champion, who defended against the best available challengers. It's just that there weren't really any other "great" heavyweights around during his prime. Not his fault - and I do believe, he was a tremendous boxer.

So while we can always wonder, how they would do against later champions, there's no denying they were 3 of the most iconic figures, with a huge impact on boxing history - thus deserving of their ATG status. Imo.

OH I believe the fighters mentioned are deserving, that is not my point. My point is that when we look at Fury, and we see that he has not beat an ATG in his prime... I am willing to give him a pass on that because he is a heavyweight. So for example, to me when we look at great fighters like Floyd, it is a mark against him that he never fought a fellow ATG, like Pac in his physical prime.

To me, for the heavyweights, I don't think this is as important. You answered my question. You made comments about Louis, Dempsey which I agree with, including the ridicule of head to head match ups.

[billeau2]

Fury beat Klitschko first, before Anthony Joshua.

The Kronk-trained Tyson Fury seems like a significantly upgraded version of the Fury that fought Wallin.

Maybe I am missing something? To me Fury handled Wallin well. He did not panick, and he won rounds. He had trained to win rounds, and saw this through and made adjustments as needed. He could not KO Wallin because he had not trained to do so.

I don't see this version of Fury as "better" rather, I see him as on a better horse course, than before... Fury has always shown tremendous boxing skills because he was trained from an early age, like they used to do it!

[Tatabanya]

I'd give Gerry Cooney a good shot to knock Fury out.

PS Just kidding, Rusty