Do you consider Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua to be all time greats ?

Yes. Let's define the term before commenting. Same with the term "overrated ".

 

Nah dog, I didn't really mean it ... so meanly? For lack of a better term.

My only point was Wlad made hating on Wlad easy.

 

Depends on the person responding, and (often) on the fighter you're asking them about, too.

Often there's a healthy chunk of gut feeling about how mythical head-to-head matches might go, but again how those estimations go are open to significant amounts of bias depending on the posters opinion of the fighter/s in question...

It's also made more difficult by the difficulty in gauging the relative strengths of different era's, regardless of whether you're looking at how strong a fighter's resume is within their era or whether you're going more with gut H2H guesstimates.

 

I'm sorry but Fury, Bowe and Vitali are above Moorer. All 3 would have beaten him. Vitali would have likely stopped him, Bowe and Fury might have done.

 

Fury borderline (top 20 ATG so on the cusp), Joshua no (top 40ish)

 

Fury could have been. Losing to Usyk doesn't mean you can't be an ATG. But he spent his career fighting Wilder and Chisora. Didn't fight so many of other top guys. He never proved he is an ATG.

 

Not sure your comment is sarcasm or not.

But there was a big deal amde about the TOP 3 of Wilder, AJ and Fury.
If AJ had fought Fury and Wilder, that could have bumped up the status of the overall winner... but for whatever reason (and they all blame each other for it not happening) the fights never materialised.

 

ATG seems to me more than a feeling than a clear concept with definition. I feel it is like 'Top 20 all time' but not only based on skills but mostly achievements, aura, legendary fights, recognizability and dominance at their time.

I think fury and Joshua are borderline ATGs. Fury brings a great story, Joshua had a lot of dominance for a while, but both lack the great wins in rivalries, if we don't count wilder. And they lack more historically relevant prime opposition they won against.

Either way they are firmly placed in boxing's history as you can not tell the story of boxing after klitschko without them.

 

A fair opinion. Personal preference for his biggest win and how big it was perhaps.

I wouldn't dispute what you're saying in a H2H necessarily, but that's a different matter

 

They will be classed as 2 of the best Heavyweights between the 2010/2020 era. Nothing more. Neither can lay claim to being the Number 1. Both beaten comfortably by the actual number 1. Twice. The fact they are each others biggest rival, especially domestically and now look likely never to fight each other, this should hinder both of their legacies greatly. I hope British Boxing fans never forgive them both for failing to meet in the ring.

 

ATG? AJ isn't even very good. He's just a worse version of Frank Bruno, an over muscled body-builder with a weak chin and poor stamina. Watch his last fight with Dubois, and ask yourself why he hasn't fought in over a year, and doesn't even have a fight scheduled. . ask yourself why he keeps talking about fighting Jake Paul. . .AJ was a hype job and a complete fraud, and Dubois really exposed him.

 

Bowe would beat the life out of both AJ and Fury on the same night, at the same time.

 

Sarcasm.

 

Yeah, I agree with that. I was probably slightly unfair on Bowe.

 

Joshua i,d say no. Fury in terms of cv again i,d say no but in terms of overall ability i,d have to say yes. Just probably didnt do enough to carve out an all time great career. He does/did posess all time great ability tho imo.