I don't rate as a rule, because in truth it is near impossible to be 100% accurate, as I and others have stated many times. I would also NOT rate Fury with ANY HW, because Fury IS a S-HW and they all should be rated with and against each other. as to the names you mention, for Skill Lewis and Bugner are far better than the Fury's of the world. I suggest people to make an Historical S-HW list of ALL Fighter over 6' 5" - Tyson will sit high among them, but compared to proper HW's Historically, once you see the great names listed, so too will the Skill Levels be quite clear.
I don't "believe in" modern fighters, any more than I "believe in" the old-timers. I don't know, how many times I've expressed the opinion, that I don't really see that boxing has evolved to another level over the past 80 years. From 100+ years ago, yes... but not since the late 30s/early 40s. If you think boxing peaked in the 1920s, that's fine. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But when you make outlandish claims, like what you say about Fury, you must expect someone to object to such opinions. Also, you must also expect someone to question your sincerity when you say, you have examined the records of 50 recent champions/top boxers, and found that: The average total combined record for opponents before a title is 457 Wins and 927 Losses.: The Decline of Boxing | Page 5 | Boxing News 24 Forum (boxingforum24.com) (post #69) This is obviously not true - but when I ask you to provide us with some proof of this, you clam up. Why do you feel it's necessary to blatantly lie like this, in order to get your point across?
I’m sort of surprised that people are this bearish of Fury. Liston is in my top 10, and I think Fury’s resume stacks pretty well against Sonny’s. Fury is undefeated, and had a legendary performance against Wilder in their rematch. If he beats Joshua, which I think he will, he will have a pretty damn good resume imo. He will have a decisive victory of Klitschko (albeit old, but gave AJ a good scrap), two memorable performances against Wilder, and a victory over Joshua, all while remaining undefeated. I think he can retire there and be a top 10 lock.
Did Lewis, Dempsey, Holmes, Liston, or Wlad have a better win than Fury vs Wilder II? I understand that a single win is but one factor, but it stands for something. Add in a potential W against AJ, his W against Wlad, and the fact that he’s undefeated, and you have yourself an impeccable resume relative to his peers. I’m sorry but that’s easy top 10 material. Consistency and quality.
I think the fact that he is unbeaten is in his favour. People will say "but he hasn't fought enough good names" ..... maybe. But how many really good 'live' heavyweights of champions did Lennox Lewis beat before registering a loss against McCall ? How many tough young heavyweights did Evander Holyfield defeat before losing to Bowe ? And George Foreman, I won't even hold the loss to Ali against him, but how many top fighters did he beat before losing to Jimmy Young ? He does need to beat Joshua for us to really have this discussion though. If he loses to Joshua, he's a non-starter for now.
Yeah, if he loses to AJ, he’ll have to make up for it in order to crawl into the top 10. But even then, the argument will be made. And it wouldn’t be a terrible one.
Dempsey, I don't think so. Lewis ? No, I think his best wins are the two decisions against a quite worn-out Holyfield. We can argue that version of Holyfield is still superior to Wilder, but it's debatable, and Fury's win against Wilder was more dominant anyway, so I wouldn't call Lewis's win "a better win". Holmes ? Maybe the Norton win is better. It's debatable probably. Liston ? KO of Patterson could be considered better. Wlad ? I don't think so.
It shouldn't be debatable, Lewis's win over Holyfield was better than Fury's domination of Wilder because Holyfield is a level, possibly even 2 levels above Wilder. But if you want a dominant performance then we can just use Lewis's dominant performance against Ruddock. Thats easily better than Fury's win over Wilder imo Holmes win over Norton and Cooney is better than Fury's win over Wilder and 42 year old Holmes schooling Ray Mercer is EASILY Better than Fury's win over Wilder. Wilder is overrated tbh.
Yeah, all of them did. Lewis: Rudduck, for one. Holmes: Mercer, for one. Wlad: Povetkin, for one. Dempsey: Sharkey, close though. Liston: Patterson for definite, probably others.
Sure, but Holyfield was past it. He struggled with Ruiz in his very next fight. In the fight before facing Lewis, he looked average against the ordinary Vaughn Bean. What exact level does that put him at for the Lewis fights ? Ruddock was a good win but i don't consider Ruddock any better than Wilder. And Tyson had already smashed him up twice. Cooney was rubbish, worse than Wilder. And Fury beat Wilder quicker and easier than Holmes beat Cooney. Mercer is a bit overrated too, and Holmes didn't bash him up as bad as Fury did Wilder. He often is. But Ruddock, Cooney and Mercer are overrated too, tbh.
I'm not even sure why "Mercer" comes up at a huge name on Holmes's resume in many people's minds. Sure, it was a good win for an OLD man, it was an upset. But Ray Mercer is probably not even among Holmes's top ten wins. I guess he gets overrated because the hype of the 1990s heavyweights exceeds the hype of the 1980s, and because Lennox Lewis didn't do so great with Mercer.
Holyfield looked average against a lot of opponents. In the run up to the Mike Tyson fight he lost to Michael Moorer, got stopped by Riddick Bowe and looked like ass again Bobby Czyz. Before and After the Lewis fight he didn't look good but he did beat Rahman and was controlling the fight before the horrible headbutt stoppage. At least in the run up fight to Lewis he dismantled Michael Moorer. Sure you can consider Ruddock and Wilder the same level thats logical but even then Lewis's performace against Ruddock was way more dominant. Cooney wasn't elite i agree but he destroyed an old Norton, old Lyle and a past it young back to back and 2 of those fights ended in 1 round. Wilder just has old Ortiz under his resume. Holmes didn't beat Mercer up that badly because Mercer is fundamentally better than Wilder and had an iron chin. But Holmes WELL past his prime schooled Mercer, that was my whole point
Bukkake - I think your mistaking, I can't even remember that info, I can only imagine it came from Boxrec or some other Post - possibly Stats from Mike Silver's book the Decline of Boxing... the things I draw on are - years on Forums, where this very discussion is had often, - Commentary peices like Tracy Callis wrote about Era's, - similar reports in Ring Magazine throughout the years, - Mike Silver's Book on the very subject, that's my resources... and my one time own Collection covering 100 years of Boxing - sold onto the Hatton's all such Writings, Opinions and Books have been drawn on numerous times throughout the years and dicussed by many, so why do you like having a go at me... this info is not only Cited by Posters on these Forums, but many, many people also own these very resourses and rely on them... So, we agree to disagree, I think Boxing has Declined since the 70s, with pockets here and there since - the SUPER - Heavyweights, are Not One of them pockets and never will be, from what I've seen.
Ok, so you don't remember, but this is what YOU posted some years back (link in post #77) "below are some 'regretfully' startling stats... this should give you scope of just how far boxing has declined in both talent & 'real' comp! a sample of 50 of today’s best fighters. They were all current World title holders or recent champions considered to be world cl***. Here were my findings: • 74% won a world title in their first attempt • 64% were undefeated going in to their first world title fight • 79% of those undefeated fighters did not take part in a competitive bout before they fought for a championship • 27-4 is the average professional record of the best opponent fought prior to a world title fight • The average total combined record for opponents before a title is 457 Wins and 927 Losses • 28% face a former or future World Champion before they fight for a world title • 14% face a top 10 ranked fighter before they fight for a world title • 46% face a top 25 ranked fighter before their first world title fight" Now you say, this is not your own findings, but something you have taken from other historians. Fair enough. But when quoting (for example) Mike Silver, should we not take his EXTREMELY biased opinions with a pinch of salt? After all, there's no greater hater of modern boxing... so why blindly go along with what he says, without a critical mind? Case in point: The 457 wins and 927 losses thing - you don't have to be a "historian", to see that this is completely made up!
I hear you, but don't take for granted that 'anybody' is Blindly going along with anything, Boxing, Politics, Life, Love or anything... but yes I hear you. it seems you don't like to accept, freely, others opinions based on Experience, Other Persons and Resourses... how can such be written off, or rather 'disregarded' like these people Don't Have the Material, Reports or Valid Opinions. that seems very closed to me. I mean MOST People on theses sites (and other Internet Discussion or Learning Sites), discuss freely and happily, we can't always agree with everyone or everything, thats perfectly 'acceptable & understandable'... but to dismiss people, or worse Actuall Recorded Documents & Writen History, as inadmissabe for these people, well that is quite concerning and not at all fair. MOST People don't even dream of doing that, but there are always a handfull of bullies or know it alls that just plough right over people as if they & their resources don't count, or worse exist even. anyway, I'm not saying you're one of those people, But I am merely pointing out, that very few people venture into things they're really interested in without at least some valid understanding, thats all. I personally think there are many great modern fighters, but again using that recent Hagler Video Tribute... Man his opponents, never mind Hagler himself, would tie up a lot of these Top Middles in recent years. is that not both, visably clear and a 'Valid' point of reference, for someone to adhere too? Respectfully, thistle.
