Tyson Furys Career: In Depth Breakdown

Arguments for:
- Weirdly quick for his height, weird long arms and awkward jerky style. Great IQ for his size
- Brilliant win against Klitschko
- Brilliant win in Wilder 2
- Amazing comeback win (draw robbery) from mental health & weight problems + dramatic off the canvas moment in Wilder 1
- Weirdly amazing powers of recovery (Wilder I & Usyk I)
- Possibly the only fighter who has genuinely made Usyk look uncomfortable & out of control of a fight (Usyk I)

Arguments against:
- Not enough defences
- Two of his best five wins are against Chisora & Whyte
- Barely fought any of his contemporaries: AJ, Parker, Haye, Povetkin, Ruiz, Zhang, Dubois, plus other top 10 guys
- Fought a lot of dross while he was at his height: Seferi, Pianeta, Schwarz, Wallin, late career Chisora, Ngannou
- Arguably drew or lost to Ngannou, a novice, after getting knocked down
- Weirdly ducking AJ when AJ is gunning for the fight and there is no reason not to make it
- Cries about his two losses when they were clear as day and no one disagrees
- Has never fought an athletic big man who had a half decent boxing IQ - I believe that would show him up in a style match up

Verdict:
I always say judge a win by how the fighter is perceived at the time. Too many people try to downplay the Wilder win for my liking. At the time he was viewed as a killer, and that beat down in the 2nd and 3rd fights took a lot out of Wilder. Wilder 2 is the best version of Fury in my opinion, very impressive win in my eyes. That being said aside from that one and the Klitschko win there's really not much to his resume, and he's avoided far too many fights for my liking, particularly anyone who is an awkward style for him. I can't honestly say he's the 2nd best of his generation behind Usyk because he hasn't fought enough people - shocking considering how long he has been on the scene for. Good to potentially very good fighter with a very thin resume with a couple of big highlights.

 

Ubnification was something that was done by every champ for generations before with the NBA and New York State versions, and every generation after. There is no exemption from it, and it astonishes me that we actually have a generation crying about it now that Usyk is doing it with four belts. The constant defense of Holmes and attacks on Usyk have shown that generations have grown up with this alphabet madness, and think it is how things should be.

 

Usyk status with or without the IBF belt would be the same. Just as Holmes' was.

 

Most people that understand boxing knew Wilder couldn’t box way before Fury almost got his neck broke by him.

 

Wilder wins are really underrated.

That being said, I’d sum his career as “disappointing”. He could have done so much more with an ounce of discipline.

 

We have no idea how good Wilder is due to his poor resume. In terms of accomplishments he doesn't rate highly. So why would we rate the win beyond what Wilder accomplished in real life?

How do you suggest rating a win over a guy whose best win is Ortiz and Stiverne?

 

This is incorrect. Usyk's status would be the same BECAUSE HE UNIFIED.

Holmes splintered by accepting the IBF belt.

 

There are heavyweight contenders from every era from the 1920s up to the 21st century, some long forgotten, some most fans have never heard of, who have much better resumes that Tyson Fury.
He doesn't have much of a resume.
People saying "he might be top 20 all time" can't be looking at it the situation a resume-led criteria.

 

Holmes didn't need to unify as he already beat Weaver and beat returning lineal champion Ali. He was undisputed without unifying.

 

He didn't beat Dokes, Coetzee, Tate, Page, Tubbs, Thomas, and Ali was a zombie.

 

Relative to their eras those guys aren't any better than the guys Usyk has missed

Dokes isn't better than Kabayel
Coetzee isn't better than Parker
Page isn't better than Hrgovic
Etc

Holding a belt doesn't suddenly give Coetzee a better resume than Parker

 

IT ISN'T THE PONT.

Kabeyal, Parker, and Hrgovic did not have belts. Usyk did what he had to do to unify the division, as did Charles, Marciano, Frazier, Ali, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, etc.

Holmes did not.

That is all.

 

Realistically, the only ones from this list he could have fought was Page and Thomas. King wouldn't let him fight Dokes, he signed to fight Coetzee but the funding fell through, Tate didn't want to fight Holmes in a short stretch when he had the WBA belt, and Tubbs wasn't even relevant until 1985. At the end of the day, he also beat guys who beat Coetzee, Tate, Page and Tubbs and a guy who should have won against Dokes.

Belts aren't end of be all. WBA belt was worthless while Weaver had it, as everyone and their momma knew Holmes already beat him and was better. He had a lineage of this belt twice over. Beating Weaver again just for the belt wouldn't prove anything.

 

If these guys are better fighters than the belt holders Usyk beat that argument becomes totally hollow though.

Fighting the best opponents should always trump beating belt holders.

Holmes beat far more ranked contenders than Marciano did which to me is more impressive

 

A) They are not better. They aren't even as good.
B) No, the argument is not hollow. They weren't the best of the era....they weren't good enough to get belts. That is obvious.