Not really what I was getting at, It was masterful in a scientific manner, but it was a poor showing by Klit and it was Furys "best" he did well but it did not show he could really "Fight" if that makes sense, while he did win it was really at what cost? He proved nothing, he clinched and strutted, feinted and threw barley anything It is just one of those things. like say a Byrd vs Young scenario could you really credit either if all they did was feint the entire fight?
Could not compete? He would dominate CW with ease and if he chose to invade HW I have him beating the entire cast.
Fury x2, Ortiz x2 and Stiverne x2 do not count as two opponents each to me; this is fighting the same guy twice and in the case of Ortiz and Stiverne, worse versions of the same guy. It also suggests very cautious matchmaking as there was no demand to see Wilder recycling guys he'd already blasted out. The list doesn't contradict my point either: most of Wilder's opponents, even on your list (Breazeale, past it Stiverne, Washington, Arreola, Szpilka, Duhaupas and I'd add Molina) are or were decent journeymen. Wilder has had 9 unique career opponents who were not complete cans (Harrison and Scott don't count) with his first decent opponent being fought more than 6 years into his pro career, which is even harder to excuse considering his amateur pedigree. I don't see what the point of listing AJ's last 10 opponents is. I don't rate his resume all that highly and it took another hit the other day but it's clearly better than Wilder's.
That's why a small light heavyweight equivalent was schooling prime Louis, taking his punches with ease and had him on jelly legs in the 12th round. The idea that ancient "heavyweights" could compete today, even at cruiserweight, is a fantasy peddled by the resentful nostalgia merchants of the U.S. boxing media.
Fury is going to be out of boxing sooner than many think. Even with the best of dedication and commitment no HW champion has ever gotten appreciably better after age 33. Factor in all the combined years of inactivity and the way he's abused his body and that window is probably even shorter.
I think he'll be controversial for the rest of boxing history. A lot depends on the Joshua fight, as I doubt he'll have many more big fights. I think he'll get a lot of critisism for being carefully managed. I don't think the WIlder win will age well. I think Joshua has a much better chance of being top 10.
Whatever he does his legacy will always have to deal with the fact that he wasted almost 3 years of his absolute prime. His comeback has been incredible really, considering how out of shape he was, physically and mentally. I just hope he fights again soon.
People are bound to have him in their Top-10 lists. I'll suggest that he could make the Top-20, for now (subject to him beating Joshua and maybe Usyk, to boot). After that and when he hangs them up, we can look forward to some interesting and varied discussions on the matter.
Indeed, unparalleled in the history of heavyweight boxing to take 3 years out, not just completely inactive but abusing one's body with alcohol, drugs, junk food and partying, balloon up to 30 stone, suffer from depression and suicidal ideation, then get yourself back into condition and come back to dominate the division in your 30's, beating the best champions of the era who have been staying active and living an athlete's lifestyle the whole time and take no losses in the process. If Fury accomplishes this feat then it suggests that he is head-and-shoulders above any heavyweight we've seen thus far in ability.
FURY is a Live Example of my argument 'against' Achievement based grading & rankings... Fury will recieve a High alltime grading, which in times to come will look impressive, untill you see him (and his comp), on film, or you re old enough, then, to have seen him live all those years back. but the truth is Fury, though Much Improved, his last few fights, IS a 2cd Rate fighter, and he was 3rd rate before his last few fights... you could pick out 2 or 3 Era's/Periods in boxing's past where, the Fringe Contenders and Journeymen, were better or at least as good as Fury and much of his contemporaries. this is not a slant against Fury, it is merely pointing too the Decline in Boxing and this mental means of Ratings, where sub par fighters are on the lists of real greats, Ability wise. I mean look at the Tribute Video of Hagler from last week, Hagler's Opponents were leaps ahead of Fury, nevermind the Marvelous One himself! see what I mean.
And I've previously quoted plenty of it. Some of the most embarrassing posts and predictions to grace any forum, ever.
Yet another one of your delusional posts, designed to bash modern boxers! Fury a 2nd rate fighter - no better than fringe conteders and journeymen from past eras? Jesus...
yes Sir, just watch his fights, bar the last few and not just Fury, but hundreds of others too. and I shouldn't have to remind you many a commentator, writer and critic have also expressed this opinion about modern boxing. You believe in modern fighters that's fine, I will not malign you for that, likewise, I believe, along with many others, about MOST Era's before the 90s. so why try and malign me. Boxing is well documented about this last few decades as been less the skilled sport than it ever was.
Where would you rate Fury against the likes of Bugner, Bruno, Lewis, Haye, etc. ? (British heavyweights of the last 50 years)
