An unbiased look at Fury's top 10 opponents

There's too much sense and logic in this post for most of the forum sheep who are limited by their pitiful capacity of only being able to concentrate long enough to be able to read two sentences (if that) of the familiar soundbites.

Nobody wants to go into why Joshua has an apparently deep record (because they can't) or why Fury has a comparatively weak record (because they can't).

 

Clown post.

Wallin is early in his career and Breazeale is cited by the Joshua fanboys for being a "top 10 win".

Wallin could easily have bigger wins than Martin, Breazeale, Molina, Takam, Parker, Pulev and Povetkin by the end of his career, and you would have egg all over that clown face of yours.

A concession, if I've ever seen one.

 

Povetkin's best wins are Chambers, Chagaev, and Whyte which are comparable to Wilder's best wins if not better. Povetkin not stopping various opponents is irrelevant because the goal in boxing is to win which Povetkin always did in his prime with the exception of a guy who Wilder never fought.

Given who Duhaupas and Ortiz fought prior to Wilder being the first the stop them can hardly be held up as an impressive achievement.

 

Success

As of yet Wallin hasn't done anything of note as a professional. We can't rate the win on what he could theoretically do but hasn't done in the real world.

To put things in perspective, Lennox Lewis beat around 5 times as many top 10 heavyweights as Fury and Fury has been a pro nearly as long as Lewis

 

Povetkin is light years ahead of Wilder it's not even up for discussion.

Your mental gymnastics is impressive that being said Wilder and Fury have poor resumes.

No amount of you boosting the worth of the trilogy of Wilder and Fury can change that.

Fury schooled Wilder in the first fight and easily won the second. So the third should really have been more decisive but it wasn't Fury came in looking like crap and scraped through.

Fury's best win is Vlad where he only just did enough his punch output was poor.

Wilders resume is even weaker as Ortiz like Wilder is untested against the best in the division.

It's all smoke and mirrors. To gauge people you need context and that means people fighting each other without that it's just a load of bollocks.

 

1) It's called foresight. Some of us can see that Wallin is a decent operator - at least on par with the criteria propounded by Joshua fanboys which make the likes of Molina, Breazeale and Takam "top 10 contenders".
2) The priority given to the arbitrary concept of "top 10 opponent" is a poor criterion on which to evaluate a record. The same posters who moan about how weak the division is outside of the top 4 or 5 boxers (Klitschko included) also prioritise "top 10" to fit the Joshua fanboy agenda. They are too thick in the head to recognise their own inconsistency, though. In other words, it's about fighting the best. Fury has had 4 top level bouts and has won all of them, Joshua has had 2 and has lost one. His win is also the weakest in quality (at home against Fury's sloppy seconds, about to retire and laden with inactivity) and least convincing on record.

 

Fury's resume is a bit lacking but that could change pretty fast. Him beating the usyk/aj winner, plus a few Whyte/Ruiz level guys for some depth and it starts to look pretty good.

 

The 5ft 10inch blind 205lb from 50 years ago would wreck Wilder. He would get folded like a deck chair.

 

No one said different. Hence the phrase "it is what it is."

 

You may be correct about most of these things, & know more than me about the details for contenders today.
However it is a logical flaw to believe that being even strongly favored in itself implies anything about the state of competition there.
Like what produces a KO, when other factors besides raw power have a great deal to do with it-work rate, accuracy, combinations, speed so blows are not braced for or rolled with, general skill to even get to deliver a KO (endurance & chin too)....

Someone could be strongly favored due to betting reasons.
Because their are biased, emotional or otherwise, against fighters.
And of course it could be that the fighter in question is just so good, superior in real life, that the odds are more than justified.

 

No concession here I'm afraid.
The mental gymnastics displayed by your good self and NEETzschean is mind boggling.
To even pretend that Wilder's resume is great whilst slagging off Joshua's is funny however factually wrong.

 

Fury's top ten scalps:

1. Klitschko
2. Wilder
3. Cunningham
4. Chisora
5. Wallin (could rise significantly)
6. Johnson
7. Hammer
8. Pianeta
9. Rogan
10. McDermott

Fury's Top Ten Wins

1. Klitschko
2. Wilder II
3. Wilder III
4. Cunningham
5. Chisora I
6. Wallin
7. Chisora II
8. Johnson
9. Hammer
10. Pianeta

I know some will rate Chisora II higher...frankly I found it a pointless waste of time.

My big observation...all else being equal, how much better would Fury's resume look if the Haye fight had come off?

 

Not true.

It's funny that he is comparing Povetkin and Wilder, and brings up Duhaupas, and how Wilder has dropped or KO'd everyone he has faced.
Not actually true...
Wilder didn't actually drop Duhaupas in his TKO victory, and it wasn't a KO. Duhaupas ate all of Wilder's biggest shots. The referee eventually waved it off in the 11th with Wilder hopping through the air toward Duhaupas as he throws his shots
In contrast Povetkin actually flat-lined Duhaupas in 6 rounds.
Time stamped both below

This content is protected

This content is protected

Compare...or we can all just read boxrec and make up narratives using triangle theory. Both is fine I guess.