Yeah you knew it was coming. Where do you rankTyson Fury in h2h?

You didn't understand me. Fury is seen as a nightmare because he's big. He hasn't proved that he's that good. I can imagine Fury being as good as he is without his size, but people wouldn't call him the same monster they do now.

I don't say that Fury's size makes him great (that's obvious) but that people view him as better than he actually proved because of size.

 

He has beaten and skilled puncher yet in his prime. Nor has he been any skilled boxer.iin his prime. Louis, and Holmes, are two that I wold pick to beat him at 210 or less. . His defense isn't great and his chin could be had. You'll see when he faces some of the young guys not named Wilder.

 

He's the best heavyweight in the world, has been for about half a decade...possibly even just over a decade (which is impressive no matter how you spin it).

The only fight I'm not completely sure he'd win would be against Usyk, and to be honest I'd probably bet on him for that one as well.

Wilder was the most dangerous heavyweight since Wlad in terms of both punching power and heart, and Fury basically beat him three times. He deserves the accolades, excellent fighter (even though I can't stand him or his fighting style lol.

 

I'm not sure that. Usyk might be better and he hasn't gone gone to war with a semi skilled man who can hit. Wilder is his existing legacy and its a sky one where he was floored 4x. Chisora is the 3rd best man he fought and that is a thin resume. We will see how it plays out. I think if he faces top completion, he looses in two years then what?

 

Then is Fury top 5 or higher on your lists?

Because you dismissed 2 of mine, and those were my top 5. I would be interested to see who you think stands a 50/50 or better shot against Fury.

 

How on earth does Rocky beat any of the highlighted fighters at there bests? Ezzard is 50-50 I get that.

 

All valid. Fury did next to nothing all night and so did Wlad... How can people cite that fight as a great showing?

 

You've been eating tainted haggis again, apparently.

 

Ejagba-Sanchez was very disappointing to me. Sanchez boxed so cautiously it was painful to watch as he's so much better than the Nigerian. Reminded me of Fury-Wlad.

 

I agree with you on the outcome, but the only one of those who were close to their best at a "very advanced" age was Moore.
Foreman, still World Class in his early 40's, but better due to much faster & able to cut off the ring when young, even with his weaknesses.
Louis was very reduced starting in his mid-30's, but so good that he was still world class even then. But retired at 37 (although Eddie Murphy might disagree by a few decades).
Holyfield was able to be close to his best, at least re: his obsessive preperation for Tyson, rallying in his mid-30's.
Walcott was near his best against Marciano, but 30 is not "very advanced" in age.
Charles was tremendous, but he was way worse & started losing many fights in his mid-30's.

 

I just dismissed Jeffries, not Ali. I just said Ali is roughly the same size as Usyk, I did not count him out.
As things stand, Fury is in my top 10. Depending on what he does against Usyk and/or AJ, he might even crack the top 5.

 

I did get you, that's why I made the analogy with Tyson and Ali, who are also seen as nightmares mainly due to their speed of putting together combos.
Fury is not seen as a nightmare just cause he's big. Carnera was bigger and he ain't ****.
Fury is seen as a nightmare cause he is big AND skilled, he can use his size very effectively, just like the Klitschkos.

 

Yeah and you know all that because he beat Wilder, who is nothing special in historical sense.

 

That's why I said we need to see him against Usyk and/or AJ, to see if he qualifies as a top 5 H2H.

 

But top 10 is already accomplished, right?