Leon Spinks, Jim Braddock & Tyson Fury - rank the worst lineal HW champs in order.

I think Briggs was better than Spinks on account of coming back to win a belt. It's something, whereas Spinks has virtually nothing after Ali.

 

Can't argue with that

 

Mitch Green, James Tillis, Bone Crusher Smith all took Mike the distance. Take a look at the opponent list Mike fought, nobody's.

Once Mike abandoned K Rooney he abandoned his jab and started walking straight into the middle of the ring throwing bombs (Foreman also would have dropped Mike), Mike believed king's bs about being the baddest man on the planet kinda like Rhonda Rousey..

Mike Tyson is a ****** and a bum. He never could beat Holyfield. Mike was 17 and Holy was 21 when they sparred at the Olympic training camp in 83' and Holy beat the **** out of Mike. Most fans did not follow their careers back this far and jumped on mikes train buying into King's happy meal.

Mike was at the Kahala Hilton for the Bobby Brown concert in Honolulu smoking crack with a local fighter one month prior to his loss to Douglas. Wake up sons the man was a bum/****** whom Holyfield totally exposed.

 

Tyson had arguably the greatest run to the championship of any heavyweight ever. His style was not made for longevity but neither was Frazier's or Marciano's.

His temperament certainly did not help, tho.

 

None of which changes my statement,or its accuracy.

 

It's way too early to assess Fury. Let's do this again a year from now.

 

I don't think Fury belongs in the conversation. Its too premature.

IMO he'd beat Braddock, L. Spinks, M. Hart, and Briggs, and could very well be too big for some of the talented, but much smaller old timers not universally thought of as top 15 all time heavyweights.

What do we have in Fury? Well, he likes to fight. He's very tall and long, active on the inside and outside. For a big man, he moves rather well, and he has solid power, enough to get his opponents respect. He also fouls, but gets away with it.

His chin to me is average, but he has some advantages and he knows how to use them. While he famously uppercutted himself, I think he has some ring smarts to that are well hidden beneath his goofy like antics in and out of the ring. He fought smart vs Wlad and stuck to the game plan.

I'd say Fury is #2 right now, behind Povetkin in terms of the best around.

 

You know, it's really easy. All you have to do is say: "Boy, I was wrong about that Tyson Fury." And leave it at that.



But, since you thought he was going to lose badly, and you were proven wrong when he beat a dominant champ ... you can't be objective yourself or broaden your own perspective?

Instead, you become even more stubborn and decide to start a thread saying he's still terrible so he must be one of the three worst ever?

Fury beat Klitschko with one hand (the jab) and some feints. It was a dominant performance. He'll probably be even better in the rematch.

You were wrong. We all are at times. Get over it.:good

 

Braddock and Spinks both lost nearly 40% of their fights, many of them to less than great competition.

Fury is 25-0 and has just deservedly beaten the long-standing, dominant heavyweight champion. Give him the benefit of a full career before putting him on a 'worst ever' list.

 

And won maybe four rounds in total between them. :roll:

 

Why be reasonable about this? It's a great excuse for the old timers to break out their canes and start wagging.

 

I felt that the old timers had been impressively restrained!

 

Maybe someone should start a Fury vs Braddock thread

 

It's just a couple. Hell, I love the old timers, too! I just try to maintain a balanced perspective. Those of the past were not Gladiators from Olympus just as moderns are not scientifically engineered hyper-evolved Super Phenoms.

 

:good excellent post!