Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by reznick, May 6, 2021.
Question should be where does he rank compared to Frank Bruno?
Someone's gonna take this as an opportunity to make a Fury vs Bruno thread now.
I don't think he'll ever make top ten. I'm not trying to be a cynic, but after he fights Joshua twice, does anyone actually think Fury's gonna beat a load of other contenders? That he's gonna go on a slaughtering of Ring's top ten? I certainly don't. Moreover, if he manages to beat another three ranked fighters after Joshua, I'll be incredibly surprised. And it's not the given this place would have you believe that he beats Joshua.
Take the bottom three of my top ten heavyweights; Marciano, Frazier, and Tyson. Is a win over an Anthony Joshua, Deontay Wilder and old Klitschko better than Tyson's résumé? No, is it ****. Rudduck was better than Wilder, Old Homes > Old Wlad and Tyson's over bunch of top wins is better than one or two wins over Joshua.
The good ol' time nostalgists of the U.S. boxing media are always going to have the likes of Louis at #1 or #2 even though modern high level heavyweight journeymen would take him apart. A prime Louis back in 41' got schooled for 13 rounds and was put on jelly legs by what is in modern terms a middle or super-middleweight (and a featherfisted one at that) who made his career debut at lightweight.
you ****ing clown
I disagree on a Louis fight, but I do think that Fury is lacking that base résumé to underline his top wins. Most fighters nowadays are actually, it's rare you see guys like Wlad, Canelo, Floyd and Pac who consistently win (or 'win' in Nelo's case) fights vs good opposition in-between the mega fights vs the other top guys. If that makes sense.
Very fluid right now I would say.
It's the truth. Ancient heavyweights (or rather light heavies/cruisers) like Louis aren't any good by todays standards. But they were great in their time, albeit a time where sports science was in the dark ages, the world population was far smaller and half the world wasn't allowed to compete professionally.
I might rate him as the number 1 British all time HW if he wins a few more fights and doesn't lose to any bums.
If he loses to Joshua he goes in the dustbin.
It's not going to happen though so you don't have to bring that scenario up
It is possible for somebody to lose, and both fighters reputations to benefit.
Lets say that it is a classic, and perhaps even ends in a split trilogy.
Losing to a guy who Andy Ruiz bashed up on his first attempt would set Fury back a lot, in my opinion.
We're in an era where the skills of Deontay ****in Wilder are good enough to make ten title defences. Louis would annihilate any journeyman from this or any other era.
If you're pretending Louis was a bum, you're either dim, a troll or both.
I would argue that Louis is one of the first really 'modern' looking fighters, fighting from behind a jab with balanced footwork and an all round skillset. I think technically he'd be good in any era. What he'd lack for today's heavyweight division is obviously the size. He beat some big guys but I'd argue that Fury and Joshua would be streets ahead of the big men of that era and that's the difference. I'd say that the average boxer is closer to doing the sorts of things Louis can do today, than the average boxer was in his day. In that sense you are right and it shouldn't be surprising because lots of guys look back at the standouts throught history - like Louis - and seek to emulate them.