Has Usky just demolished the myth of the modern superheavyweight?

Yes. Tried to make that simple point earlier. Wilder has the benefit of being hyped by two sets of fans - his own and Fury's. But in reality two tough wins over 39-40 year old Ortiz are his best ones.

But then comes the cooking of the books - Ortiz wasn't past it, but the younger Whyte was when he faced Fury and Wilder at 38 was shot when he lost badly to Parker, whom Whyte beat. Because he had been KO'd twice, but that doesn't mean the 39-year old Wlad with 3 KO's on his resume was shot because that was different.

It's mythology to rival the ones Duran fans make up.

In the end Whyte has the best win resume of any Fury opponent next to Wlad and he was at a decent age and hadn't suffered more KO's than Wlad. And Fury barely broke a sweat beating him.

 

Pretty sure you’re the one cooking the books.

 

No better way to know one is right than see you disagreeing.

And that's the amount of words I'm going to waste on you.

 

This is extremely untrue.

 

If you’re trying to say that Whyte was better than Ortiz and Wilder, you should probably start watching boxing.

If you reached that conclusion after watching them fight, you should probably stop watching boxing.

 

He objectively does have better wins than Wilder though and of course he beat Chisora. At the very least this has to be one of Furys better wins.

A lot of Wilders rating seems to be based on giving Fury problems which seems like circular logic.

 

It does. And by that logic Ngannou would be Fury's best opponent. And then the excuse for his struggles is that he was in poor shape, which he was, but which he also was for Wilder 3. So the next step in the chain of excuses is that Wilder 3 took something crucial out of him, so that means that the Whyte win has to be explained away....

Just going by Occam's razor of the explanation which requires the least amount of assumptions is most often the true one, the reason why he easily beat Whyte is that he still was very, very good. Was that the best version of Fury? No. Had he passed his absolute peak? He might have done that already by the time he came back. But he was still very, very good. As he was on Saturday.

 

Whyte went to great lengths to not fight Luis Ortiz and had been knocked cold by a geriatric Povetkin before he fought Fury. Chisora for the Fury rematch was at a better point in his career.

 

And there’s things I want to say in reply to show I know exactly the “things” you’re thinking of..but also can’t.

 

We will never cross it because we are not in a horrible, horrible era where those sorts of specimens find greased rails to a title try.

 

Even if this^ were true (and it's doubtful), it doesn't matter.

It is not essential for Wilder to have a better ledger than Whyte to be considered Fury's most dangerous opponent. Nor do their respective ledgers have any bearing on Whyte under-performing, for whatever reason, and offering no challenge to Fury.

To say otherwise invites one to ignore the actual events, their point in the timeline and their context. A bit like the lazy application of Occam's Razor whereby relevant 'factors' are thrown out with the assumptions (if the assumptions were ever identified in the first place). To do so is flawed and often leads to the generation of revisionist history.

It's behind the Wlad, Wilder I, II & III wins and I would have it behind Chisora II, as well. So, not bad, but not great either, and part of a sequence of descent in class, with Chisora III next (more than 8 years after their last meeting) and then Ngannou after that, before stepping up steeply to meet Usyk.

 

Parker being better than anyone Wilder beat isn't really up for debate and on top of everything Parker easily beat Wilder himself . Wilder offered no challenge to Fury in fight 2 so how is Whyte losing in one sided fashion some big mark against Whyte but not Wilder? If your suggesting the ease of Fury's win proves Whyte was nothing special and not a big win how do you account for the one-sidedness of Wilder-Fury 2? Does Fury not get credit there either?

 

Of course it is, but it's not important, for the reasons already given.

We have the benefit of a Trilogy between Fury and Wilder, during which Fury was put on the canvas four times - twice, either side of their second meeting, which is widely regarded as the best comeback Fury there has been.

How often did Dillian Whyte look even remotely dangerous? He didn't at all, at any point. In fact, it was a dire performance in which neither boxer got out of second gear. Whyte looked like a paycheck collector. Plodding around until he could get KTFO and get paid.

Yes, Fury does get credit, as mentioned above - It's widely regarded as the best version of Fury, post-Wlad - because Wilder posed a genuine threat going in and Fury applied a strategy that rapidly neutralized that threat to gain the upper-hand.

It was a completely different type of fight with a completely different threat-level and dynamic, and with Wilder the slight odds-on favorite.

Just watch the fights.