In 5 years people will accept Usyk as the GOAT heavyweight

I mean, he was NOT undisputed. That is factually incorrect.

Saying that he didn't fight the best because he fought for money does not excuse it. He really didn't fight the best of his era.

 

You need to stop. Fury got his butt kicked by a MMA fighter and Joshua lost to the Pilsbury Dough boy. If you consider either of these dudes “great”, I question your definition of the word.

 

The term undisputed had different meanings throughout time. It didn't always mean "you have all the belts". You can find publication calling Holmes undisputed in the 80's. Just like Wlad had the undisputed status without the WBC belt.

He fought the best up until 1982. That was not an excuse, I just stated facts - he was after money from 1983 onwards and was ducking top competition.

 

And Dempsey lost to Willie Meehan...and Holmes lost to a LHW making his pro debute...and Louis lost to Schmeling, who was considered a disgrace and washed-up at the moment...

Fighter's careers are judged on the balance.

 

If Fury wins he still has only beaten 3 ranked opponents. That's not the sort of resume that makes one great.

Moreover Fury would have only been the best in the world for like 2 years. That's not a long enough period of dominance to classify him as great

By your logic Chris Byrd would be a recognized great based on having a similar resume to Fury and a win over Holyfield but that's not the case

 

No. He was not undisputed. I mean, we can put this to a poll if you like. He just was not undisputed. And all the magazines I had decried how he was disgracing the division in real time from the Ali-Frazier years.

 

Again, your Ring magazine bull****. It's a magazine. That is all.

 

As I saids, he was reffered to as the undisputed champion, meaning, there was no dispute that he was the champion. The term undisputed didn't mean "having all the belts" back then.

 

Ring Magazine's ranking are universally seen as the most prestigous ones in boxing.

 

But the fighters don't care about them. To get to a title they have to beat guys ranked by the organizations. To retain titles they have to beat guys in the top ten of the organizations. Ring magazine rankings are completely meaningless to any real-world process.

 

Referring to him as "undisputed" by some magazine or another does not make him undisputed. He wasn't. He simply wasn't.

It is a gross re-writing of history when Holmes not only did not unify, but contributed to title-proliferation by accepting the IBF belt form the gutter. Really calling him "undisputed" could not be further from the facts.

 

The fact that people are reduced to bringing up Wallin and Johnson on Furys resume is shocking.

If you are reduced to bringing up those sorts of names something is seriously awry. Tyson beat plenty of guys like that without receiving any credit whatsoever.

What's the last time a Tyson fan tried to hype up wins over Tillman, Savarese or even Marvis Frazier? It may have happened but I haven't noticed it.

 

Amen!

 

@catchwtboxing

WladKlit
Joshua
WilderX2
Whyte
Cunningham

These are the only names that are historically worth anything on Furys record, and Joshua hasn't beaten anyone of note in the past 6 years not to mention Dubois massacred him in 5 rounds, Wardley did better than aj. Joshua wasn't even a great in his prime and now he isn't top 10

As of this moment these are the only names that would be worth a damn on joshuas resume, but Povetkin and Wlad were 40 years old, they weren't anywhere near their peak and he hasn't beaten Fury

 

Povetkin was still proforming very well at 39 when he fought AJ

Closer to the end of his career than the beginning sure, but he fought to a mandatory position
It's still a good win