Fury's wins over Wlad and Wilder eclipse any single wins on Lennox's resume

Running away from a 40 year old for 12 straight rounds is not that big of an accomplishment. Nor is defeating a titlist such as Wilder who literally proved nothing during his reign

 

Wlad would still easily be a top 10 heavyweight if he didn't rightly retire following his losses to Fury and AJ.

Wlad could comeback tomorrow and knock Whyte out

Can we not compare current active fighters to retired fighters?

Fury still has lots of work to do and he will get it done and retire undefeated, I assure you.

 

Didn't most of the forum were calling Wilder overrated bum killer?? If so, how can anyone rate that as a "big" win??

 

Not sure it works like that. Its hard work taking on challenger after challenger like guys like lewis and wlad done. Although fury may have the best single win he misses out massively with lack of longetivity. Seems much easier to pick and choose who and when you want to fight...think its always to be looked at as the whole body of work as opposed to just single wins. Reckon some of ghe guys lennox beat would have beat wilder anyway and possibly 40 year old klitchko. Some of the not so rated guys we,re actually better than there rated nowadays.

 

Nor is getting brutally ktfo by bum mccall in your prime

 

Are you trolling?

 

Pretty sure this is a straight up trolling thread but I’m bored so here goes:

Lol Wlad was 40 and Wilder couldn’t box or fight. Don’t care how many threads get created fishing for the answers people want. Fury’s good. Lennox was better.

 

The same Wilder who 90% of this board consider the worst title holder in the history of boxing? not just heavy but any weight class? that's and 40 year old Wlad is all Fury has???

 

Fury has never even defended his titles. Yet he now the GOAT.

Someone work that one out.....

 

Fury ****s Lewis ass

 

This is a joke, right? I can't think of a single prime heavyweight in history who looked as underwhelming against a near 40 year old past prime former heavyweight great as Fury did against Wlad.

Prime Mike Tyson was destroying former heavyweight great Larry Holmes when he was in his nearing his 40's.

Even James Toney was destroying Evander Holyfield.

Muhammad Ali was destroying Sonny Liston.

Yet, here we have this little hype-job who is getting all this hype and credit for barely being able to land a clean-punch on a 39 year old Wlad for 12 rounds? Is that how low the standards currently are?

I challenge anybody claiming Fury 'dominated' Wlad to find a clip of Fury landing more than a minutes worth of clean-punches. I'll make it easier. Find half a minute's worth of clean-punching from Fury.

And as for Wilder, Wilder never tested himself against any prime top relevant heavyweight outside of Fury. So Wilder is as untested and unproven as they come. Beating him is beating an unproven hype-job. If Wilder goes on to do actual impressive things, such as beating some of the other top heavyweights, then Fury's win MAY look better against Wilder. But until then, Wilder is no more impressive than many other guys who may have lost more, but had also proven themselves more.

 

Dear god no.

Fury's win over Wlad would be equaled by Vitklit, and slightly declined Holy.

You are giving Wilder way too much credit. Ten or twelve of Lewis' other wins beat him or at least would split a series.

Fury is building himself a legacy. Let's talk in ten years,

 

The difference between the two fighters is as follows.

Fury has 2 legacy defining wins in a career which is still ongoing.

Lewis has 8-10 legacy defining wins in a career which is finished.

So Fury needs at least 4-5 legacy defining wins to be in the same ball park as Lewis in terms of resume.

Then we can start comparing and rating opponents against each other.