Usyk has legitimized Wilders legacy.

It’s true. So don’t engage any more.

 

So what's your issue with me believing numerous guys ranked below Wilder were in reality better fighters. Nothing you say contradicts that.

Sort of like Parker in 2023

 

Part of this is just applying common sense

Zhang wasn't rated until he was 40 years old. It defies logic and biology to believe he suddenly improved at age 40. More likely he wasn't rated earlier because he didn't have any opportunities to distinguish himself not because he suddenly improved in ability.

 

I didn't need to. You were going to make the same argument either way, no?

I disagree with your framing on a few levels.
First, I quite enjoyed the fight.
Second,
Wilder's plan to win was knocking fury out = he failed.
Fury's was to outbox Wilder = he succeeded.
It wasn't to "hurt" Fury.
It wasn't to "hurt" Wilder.
(That was their objective in Fight 3).

We can talk about the stats of the fight if you are going to be so insistent, though.

That is a very subjective definition of effective.
Effective = "successful in producing a desired or intended result"
Effective Aggression is the category for boxing.
We don't know what is in the minds of the boxer in any objective manner, so primarily we observe their aggression as punches thrown.
Aggression = punches thrown.
Effective = successful attempts.
Effective Aggression = successful attempts at punches thrown.
i.e. what percentage of punches thrown did you land in the round.
We have a stat for that!

Excluding 9 and 12, Fury had better punch accuracy in every round.
If you want to exclude jabs, things get even worse for Wilder.

So we agree Fury landed more punches round after round, and I've just established he had the more effective aggression, and you admit he had good defence and ring generalship.

Sounds very much like Fury won the boxing match.

 

Its an especially Wild claim given Wilder spent years avoiding Whyte, his WBC#1 contender.

 

Indeed...

And just that, in general, the levels of their opponents was wildly different - Joshua beat most of the best available at the time, you can criticise some of them being on the older side and that's perfectly reasonable... What you can't really do is criticise guys like Wlad and Povetkin for being old when he fought them and then suggest that Ortiz was an avoided monster and his age is irrelevant - that's having your cake and eating it (not yours, but, you know).

Ortiz is easily Wilder's best win... Would he make AJ's top 3?

Above Wlad? Lmfao no.
Above Povetkin? Nowhere near.
Above Parker? No, not close.

So no, not remotely close.

And we're supposed to think their resumes are equivalent even though one has 3 or 4 wins that are on a completely different level to the other? It's a complete nonsense.

 

You’re going round in circles. You can believe whatever you wish.
however, the official rankings of our sport are factual according to each official governing body.
you refuse to accept the system of professional boxing and the official bodies. maybe ZUFFA of misfits is more suited to you

 

I said let’s be transparent and honest, it’s a shame you are still refusing to do and play games.
When you’re ready to just have a mature conversation, let me know.

you have only established and twisted the facts to suit your agenda. Coming out with things like “we don’t know what’s in the minds of the fighters” is this really your honest opinion? Or are you just trying to be clever on an internet forum?

I honestly thought you was going to engage in a mature conversation with actual boxing knowledge, not doing gymnastics with wording to make fury sound aggressive and falsifying that we are in agreement about it lol.

like I say, if you want to play games, I’m not interested

quality punches-fury did not land these, wilder did.

Ring generalship-fury’s main positive in the fight, however wilder did end up getting to him.

defence-fury’s was better but he did nothing with it

Effective aggression-fury was not aggressive and was negative in the fight.



It was a good fight due to knockdowns and wilder forcing the action, fury was trying to do a Wlad job and snooze the fight.

judges don’t like this.

obviously you don’t know how to judge fights so you wouldn’t know

 

I don't disagree.

The reason I bring up Whyte is that for all the back and forth, if Wilder had just fought Whyte and won instead of Breazeale and Ortiz 2, and even Fury 1, it would have really strengthened his resume. They didn't want to risk it, though.

Lets say he KOs a prime, top 5, Whyte. It would have done his reputation a world of good. The excuses to avoid him made no sense to me really. Whyte would have sold the **** out of that fight. The money would have been there, yet he kept choosing to fight guys like Breazeale and Ortiz 2 instead.

And lets be honest, even though me and @ruffryders are having fun arguing about Wilder v Fury 1, we shouldn't forget Fury was brought in from the wilderness. His body was a mess. He was given next to no chance by the fans. "Somehow" he had a Ring ranking of #7, but TBRB even had Chisora ranked above him. He was only chosen because they thought it was a safe way to build Wilder's profile with an easy touch.
Even getting a draw was a failure.

Team Fury had their pants down across the three fights.

Chancing his hand in fight 1, he outboxes Wilder, making him look basic (embarrassingly so).
He gets in shape for fight 2, and dominates him.
Out of shape for fight 3, he gives him a prolonged and brutal beating.

Wilder tries to come back, and loses 12-0 to Parker, then gets badly stopped by Zhang.

That's it. That's the end of his story.

The notion of him fighting Usyk is exhibition level stuff, there's nothing left to legitimize.

 

Exactly - in some ways Fury's done him a favour by allowing two of the three to be competitive when they shouldn't have been (not that his condition in #1 was a choice)... But then equally when you can't beat an unfit and poorly prepared version in 3 it looks worse to those paying attention.

Indeed - losing that very, very wide doesn't legitimise anything.

He'd have always lost badly to Usyk.

It's just a levels thing - he's out of his depth and that's that... It's a waste of a fight for Usyk and an unnecessary beating for Wilder (not that I mind seeing a bit of poetic justice).

 

I thought we was trying to have an honest conversation.
You was trying to win an argument, hence your dishonesty because you don’t want to accept that “outboxing” someone isn’t landing 1 punch more a round, sticking your tongue out, only to get flattened.

so you now want to downplay fury’s condition for these fights without having a balanced view and mentioning wilders issues during these fights.

their intention in every fight is to hurt the other guy. Fury won 2/3 because he hurt wilder more than he got hurt.

 

True, those "autopsy (tests)" must have been harrowing to come back from

 

You bring up you feel one of the fighters is out of shape (which is your perception-he said he was fit and was only 4lb over his peak performing weight) to excuse him, but nothing about the other fighters visible evident changes.

no balance whatsoever in your comments

 

Peak performing weight… I’m glad to see we’re both having fun now.

The only thing imbalanced was Fury’s glucose levels. Did you actually see the state of him a year prior?

“He wasn’t just fat… he was down. He was a state. Horrible.” — Shane Fury

Peak performing. Give over, man.

 

I think I've enjoyed enough schadenfreude tbh. The KO off Zhang actually had me feeling a tinge of sympathy when he did that 360. Oof