Do you consider Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua to be all time greats ?

Nah probably not. Top fighters yes. Guys who could beat ATGs on their night, certainly. But longevity wise, no, and you need longevity.

ALTHOUGH you could make an argument based H2H and based on the paper thin resumes of other boxers considered ATGs like Liston.

 

Can someone define all time great to me?

I think Fury's story was pretty inpiring with him being depressed and blowing up in weight and coming back after such a long layoff to win against wilder (yes win).

These stories make up an important part of boxing. And he has also been a great talker and entertainer and had an entertaining career.

Personally, I would definitely put him in the top 20 all time heavies and I only see ali ticking those boxes off better. I even laughed more at fury's slanderous jokes for his opponents ("came here to do demolition jobs on cruiserweights" vs "gorilla in manila"/"foreman the zombie")

So if the fighters story factors in - he is an all time great

 

No, I made about 8 points all pertaining to the 1st fight. Wlad was desperate to beat Fury (who Steward had told him was the heir apparent) but wasn't so bothered about losing to "little bro" Joshua.

When Fury hasn't felt a threat he's often performed poorly. When he's taken things seriously he's shown far better defence than Joshua. The version who fought Wlad wasn't the version who fought McDermott, Pajkic, Ngannou etc., and not much more than the Usyk who fought Fury and Joshua was the one who fought Shawn Porter.

 

@Redbeard7 dishing out some lessons in this thread. Impressive. The usual suspects fall flat.

 

Wlad wasn't motivated for the Fury fight. He admitted it himself. Plus people from his camp confirmed that he half assed the camp, which was unlike him, but understandable looking at his personal issues at the time.

Well, that's Fury's fault he's inconsistent. He even got lit up by Usyk, when he was supposed to be highly motivated for the first time in years. And when we're on the subject, Fury beat probably the worst version of Klitschko ever, so it goes both ways.

 

In short no.

I don't think either did anything so remarkable that it makes me think they deserve that label.

It's possible for there to be more than one ATG in one era, but it usually means you did enough to beat one of the other greats in their prime or did something truly outstanding. Evander beat Tyson and Bowe, Lewis beat Tyson, Holyfield and made Bowe run away. Frazier beat Ali, Foreman beat Frazier and made one of the greatest comebacks of all time.

Fury and Joshua beat an old Wlad. Neither of them were good enough to earn a win over Usyk and never faced each other and neither ever became undisputed.

 

Wlad never half-arsed a camp, he was always in great shape even against the no-hope journeymen he fought like Leapai, Mormeck, Pianeta. He was afraid of Fury, annoyed at the ****-taking and had never been more motivated, regardless of his pathetic excuses like "I chose to lose."

Worse, non-champion versions of Wlad got stopped by Puritty and Joshua, probably Sanders and Brewster too. Fury made Wlad look bad because Wlad had no answers for his attributes. There were elements of this in his fights against Williamson and Thompson 1. Fighting a load of relatively static short opponents who he could jump and lean on flattered him.

Fury was motivated for Usyk, I'd never make such a lame excuse. Wlad was the most motivated champion ever or close to it so it's particularly bizarre.

 

I mean its Wlad’s fault that he was demotivated as well, it goes both ways.

 

"neither ever became undisputed."

This was easier when there were fewer belts. Many undisputed champs in a one or even three belt era wouldn't be in a four belt era. You have to win more fights to unify all of the belts, if you can even get them and that can be beyond your control.

When Fury dethroned Wlad, Wlad was without question the No.1 HW, unified and Ring champion. Bermane Stiverne had the WBC belt purely due to boxing politics, had the WBC told Wlad "make the fight" he would have and he'd have almost certainly been undisputed. Fury was unambiguously the man and he'd have been undisputed for that in prior eras.

Fury, still undefeated, later collected the only belt he hadn't won when he dethroned a future HoF heavyweight in America, which is, like it or not, the best win over an American heavyweight since the 20th century. If Joshua had done that instead of losing to Ruiz many on the forum would have crowned him the GOAT on the spot.

You mention Foreman's comeback but Fury's return to the pinnacle is without question up there among the great boxing comebacks. How many have made it back from blowing up 10 stone or whatever (in proportional terms), drug use, severe depression etc. to reclaim the Ring title and enter the P4P list?

There's a lot of subjectivity here. For instance, why does Frazier, who was 1-4 against post-comeback Ali and Foreman in a one belt era get in but Bowe who was 2-1 against Holyfield, never got KO'd or lost to anyone else and held all of the belts doesn't?

 

Fury's comeback consists of beating Wilder and little else. If one doesn't rate Wilder highly based on his poor resume how would it qualify as a great comeback?

 

Well, he did half ass the Fury camp due to his personal issues at the time. That's why Fury ducked the rematch, being afraid of motivated Wlad.

Of course. That's why it doesn't matter that much historically. But the guy is making one sided excuses as it fits his narrative.

 

"One sided excuses"

Claiming that Wlad; possibly the most obsessively motivated, anally-retentive champ ever with many documented indications of high motivation going into that fight, was "unmotivated" for Fury, is among the most pathetic, desperate excuses that one can make. It's clear evidence of deranged fanboyism.

 

I'm not the one making excuses. Fury's win counts despite Wlad being unmotivated, which was proven many times over. If anything, you're the fanboy with the below excuses:

If Fury who fought McDermott, Pajkic, Ngannou was not the same version of Fury that fought Wlad and Usyk, then it's obvious Wlad who fight Fury wasn't the same version as Wlad who fought Byrd, Chagaev, Haye, Pulev. Wlad himself stated he was more motivated for the rematch (and then for the AJ fight) than he was for the first fight. Fury knew it, so he ducked Wlad.

 

I voted yes because even though I don't believe they are, AJ is like a evil step daddy to Markus

 

Him losing subsequently to Joshua in his very next fight and retiring is a bad look for Fury. Unless he massively declined between fights it suggests beating him wasn't such a big feat especially given Joshua's subsequent losses to Dubois and Ruiz