I'd say Wilder's prime was 2019. He's certainly not in his prime now. Age, inactivity, and the damage he took from the Fury trilogy imo have taken that away. Fury himself didn't come out unscathed. That trilogy took a lot out of both men.
Probably top 25 for me. He has some good wins and good qualities but, ultimately (particularly later on), is a fighter who actively chose soft touches instead of regularly testing himself against the best. He spent too much time fighting the Ngannou's, Schwartz's and Chisoras of this world. He could have been rated higher - and its his own fault he isnt.
Yep and he beat wilder in 2020 and again in 2021. By the third fight wilder was like 36 I think and Mark Breland was no longer in his corner. Fury was decked twice in that match too.
Even if Fury were to fight Usyk again and win, how much credit would we give him for splitting wins with what will probably be a 38 year old former cruiser who’s only fought once a year for the past half decade ? Twenty years ago the idea would have been considered by most as ludicrous. But our standards have dropped. It’s become normalized for guys to turn pro later. Fight longer and far less actively. Hell you have guys out there now who have been pro for 8-9 years, are well into their thirties and STILL 16-19 fight prospects
Top 10-15, I'd say. Even though he hasn't had the greatest career wins and has fought questionable opposition, he's been in some great fights (particularly the Wilder trilogy) and you can't deny his talent. Just been abit too inactive and his career has lacked momentum at times to warrant a top 10 place.
Not in my top ten. If he retired I would not miss him.I don't like the way he carries himself,I think he lacks any sort of class.Usyk winning made my week end!
It forced both guys to properly fight for the first time in their career. Brought Fury out of his smoke and mirrors jiving for three good performances.
He’s too 30. But I suppose it’s how u rate people. I’m big into quality and variety of scalps. Some fighters like Fury spent a career avoiding guys. Y should I give him more credit than a guy like Holyfield who fought everyone even if it didn’t fit his style? There is no doubt he’s talented but he squandered it w steroid suspensions and retiring ten times. Only two good wins to his name. That doesn’t bode well for me.
Whether he wasted his talent or not, it’s more often the case that potentials are not realised as opposed to being fully advantaged. It’s a discredit to the much lesser number of fighters who do train and apply themselves 100% and who provide material proofs - so called “unrealised potential” remains very much in the realm of speculation. Also, if Fury had better proven himself against greater, quality competition - then there’s the added wear/tear/accrued damage factors that goes along with providing those material proofs. This is often left out of the “realised potential” equation. Some say the Wilder trilogy took it out of him - but should he have incurred such wear/tear/damage against the likes of Wilder in the first place?
Fury defeated a p4p #2, unified champion in Vladimir Klitschko in Vlad's back yard. Regardless of how entertaining you found it, when an underdog nearly shuts out a p4p #2 fighter, you have to give credit. I'm not sure if you're serious arguing whether Wilder was prime when Fury fought him.
30-50 Anybody throwing him into top 10 discussions, even top 20 discussions is braindead. In no order think of these names: Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Lewis, Holyfield, Liston, Tyson, Dempsey, Walcott, Tunney, Wlad, Vitali, Usyk, Bowe, Jeffries, Charles, Patterson. That's 20 names. All of them have very sound claims to be rated ahead of Fury. Most of them are that far ahead of Fury that it's not even an argument.
Prime Fury vs geriatric Wlad. How many rounds to you think Fury lasts against a Dr Steelhammer who is 10 years youger?