Fury recently announced he is near the end of his career, if this is really the end, his resume is quite similar to a Riddick Bowe/Ken Norton resume imo, who's is better? Fury: Chisora x2, Cunningham, Wlad, Wilder x2, Whyte. Norton: Clark, Ali, Kirkman, Quarry, Bobick, Young. Also this is not who is exactly greater its more of whos resume is respectable/better.
Norton's signature win dwarfs any of Fury's scalps. Adding the likes of Young and Quarry spiced by Bobick, Kirkman, Garcia, Middleton, and Cobbs is too much. You could argue Norton's loses against Shavers and Cooney were an unnecessary addition to an otherwise great career.
The only one of Fury's scalps that is in my top 10 is Wlad ... and that was an old Wlad. Norton did not beat an old Ali. I've never much rated Wilder and Whyte to begin with so they don't impress me that much. Fury has a solid resume but it is below Norton's imho.
W.Klitschko long reigning champion, and had not been beaten in 11 years but was old. And Deontay Wilder also long reigning champion. But it depends on how highly you rate Wilder, i never really rated him that highly outside of his right hand. The thing is correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't there only 2 titles in Ali's era ? so even though guys like Quarry, Young, never won world titles. I'd rate them alot better than some of the modern guys who held versions of the world titles, just because Ali's era was the strongest ever in Heavyweight history, it was alot harder to win the title back then as you normally had to beat the cream of the crop. Because there was less titles so you couldn't beat a weak champion. I'd rate Norton's win over Ali better than any win on Fury's resume, and this debate comes down to how highly you rate Wilder.
Fury's resume is thin, but better overall because he's lineal champion and hasn't lost. Norton had a better win than Fury's best.
There is no comparison. Norton's resume is filled with greats, but he was in that era which he was fortunate for.
Ken Norton, he beat an obviously ill-prepared Ali in an unexpected upset, fair. He lost the second one, also fair in my books. Then he might've beat a shot Ali, then it get's very, very thin. Quarry whom was done, Bobick? Then...? Fury beat an aging Wlad but one who hadn't been beaten for near a decade? About that. He beat Wilder the 3rd-4th best HW around 3x fairly coming off being a fat addict and he effortlessly beat Whyte. Then he has a similar level of filler-ish sorts like Cunningham, Chisora etc. I'd say Fury by a little bit.
I never understood how people don't hold losses against fighters when comparing resumes. Imagine if Fury got iced by Wilder, AJ and some random nobody.
If resume means just wins, because you only put good things on a resume, then Norton based solely on the All win, although even that is a lot closer than people are saying, because it was the post 30, 1970s, more stationary Ali. Norton by a hair. If resume means everything that you see on boxrec, then Fury by a country mile and a half. Norton has some very embarrassing losses. Both good fighters and if Fury does hang them up they will cluster together along with guys like Patterson, Walcott, Vitklit, Witherspoon... with Fury at the top of the cluster.
Im not a big Fury fan but I think his resume is better than Norton's. Norton has the better single win (Ali) but Fury's depth of resume is better. I mean honestly, look at the names on Norton's resume in context, not just the names: Clark (nothing special at all), Ali (great win), Kirkman (Good club fighter not really anything more, similar to Clark), Quarry (Quarry was totally shot and had been partying on booze and Cocaine in Hawaii when he got this fight and it showed, years earlier Norton ducked a fight with Quarry after Quarry knocked him out at the Main St gym in sparring), Bobick (ridiculously overrated at the time due to his pigmentation and padded record never amounted to anything), Young (Norton lost this fight in my opinion). Norton's win resume besides Ali is ridiculously weak. He remains the only "HW champion" and I use that term very lightly when applied to him to never win a championship fight. He was literally given his belt after what I consider a robbery over Young and then lost it. He fought during the deepest the HW division has ever been and yet his resume is pretty devoid of a lot of the top names at the time.
Fury beat a lineal champ who hadn't been beaten in 10 or more years and had been dominant. He had to waste a bit of time, more time than he should have really, sorting Wilder out and the jury is still partially out on the strength of those wins really as Wilder had beaten a scant minimum of true contenders. But he's never lost and that "draw" was yet another black eye for boxing and it's "scoring". If he stopped today i have him ahead of Norton.
