"Fury edges Lewis in new rankings"

As controversial as the Vitali fight was it has to be Lewis's best win. Tua was never a champ and is among the stubbiest HW's of all time: he wouldn't even be a big lightweight in terms of height and arm length and was leaden footed. Dangerous to many yes but he didn't KO a number of mid-low level journeymen (some of whom lost very close decisions) he lost officially three times (including to a self-described blown up super-middleweight with very little power) and both of the results against Rahman were highly controversial. Tua would pose near zero threat to Fury and is far more comparable to the likes of Andy Ruiz, Chisora and Stiverne than to a 6'7, 83 inch reach Wilder with great speed, GOAT punching power, extreme unconventionality, a lot of physical and mental toughness, an Olympic bronze on less than 3 years boxing experience and 10 consecutive title defences (more than Tyson, Lewis or Vitali) with losses only to Fury in 45 fights (not the likes of Douglas, McCall, Rahman, Sanders or Brewster).

You neglect to factor in that Lewis got one-punch KO'd by Rahman over this period while Fury hasn't lost to any fringe contenders, Lewis has to lose a lot of points for that. Fury's "draw" with Wilder away from home coming back from 2.5 years of inactivity, coke binging and morbid obesity also warrants a mention, though so does Lewis's "draw" with post-prime Holyfield. The fact that Fury beat Wilder x2 and Wlad away from home, with Chisora and Wallin neutral (though I'd substitute Cunningham away with Chisora as he was a top 10 ATG cruiser) is more impressive in terms of home/A-side advantage than beating Tua and Vitali neutral and about to lose to John Ruiz Holyfield, Rahman and shot Tyson away. Fury's top three wins, two of which were against current long reigning champions, were very dominant while the contender Vitali win and to a lesser extent the old Holyfield 2 win were not. There is also a strong bias in boxing toward past champions that should be factored in: the likes of Holmes, Holyfield and Lewis were slated at the time and have grown reputationally the further we have drifted from their retirements. In 20 years time people will hold the fighters of the present in higher esteem. The fact that Fury won the public poll is very impressive tbh.

 

John Fury pressed the buzzer a million times.

 

Do you factor that today's HW division is 'Junior Varsity' at best, to Lewis's 'Varsity' era? this is a prefect example of a 'one sided analysis'....

 

I can see a very good case for Vitali being Lewis's best win.

I can also see a case for Wilder wins being more impressive than Tua. However, you are selling Tua short a little. Yes, he was short and yes, he would likely lose to Fury.

However, Tua, unlike Wilder, was extremely durable and was never ko'd as a pro. He was every bit as tough as Wilder and with a better chin. Tua may not be able to beat Fury but he would have a very good chance of beating Wilder. And while Wilder had several title defenses, Tua's best wins are better. Tua's best wins over Maskaev, Ruiz and Rahman are better than Wilders best wins/

Again, i have no issue with rating Fury's win over Wilder higher than Lewis's win over Tua. I don't see a major difference here.

 

At the time Lewis was regarded as one of the chinniest HW champs in history as no HW champ of any repute had been one-punch KO'd not once but twice. Now people pretend it doesn't matter because he beat the fringe contenders in the rematches, one of whom was a drug addict recently out of rehab.

I don't think contender Vitali in America is as good as longest reigning HW champ Wlad in Germany but it's up to interpretation. What I'm sure about though is that Lewis never fought a good sniper (Wilder x3) a good southpaw (Wallin neutral) or a good slick mover (Cunningham away). He beat a Holyfield who was about to lose to John Ruiz and short plodders like Tua and Mercer (really a draw) but the latter two are very comparable to the short plodders of this era.

I'd make Fury a big favourite over anyone Lewis fought while if Lewis had fought Fury's competition he would have been bombed out at least a couple of times by now as he was bombed out twice despite turning pro 3 years later than Fury. If Fury beats slick southpaw mover Usyk coming off two wins over elite SHW A-side AJ, at least one of which was in AJ's backyard, then his body of work will be far and away better than Lewis's.

 

As a contender, Wilder fought a very tough, big punching plodder in champion Stiverne who had 4 inches of height and 7 inches of reach on Tua: Wilder dropped him and won virtually every round. Tua's win over Rahman was imo a gift stoppage; Rahman was slipping shots and was furious when it was stopped, he was also well ahead on the cards and certainly could have won the fight. The Rahman rematch was a gift draw, Tua lost that for sure and Rahman isn't close to Wilder in chin or ability. Losing to Byrd is also a bad look, along the with the losses to Ike and Lewis (more understandable) plus various close/controversial decisions against very iffy journeymen. Ortiz x2 are better wins than whoever Tua's best wins are on ability as well. In terms of overall ability Wilder is a strong champion and in terms of danger he would have a good chance against virtually any HW in history (especially in his backyard) but Tua isn't nearly that dangerous. He's a significantly shorter, stubbier and lighter Andy Ruiz with slower hands but a considerably harder punch and a slightly better chin.

 

Only heavyweights. I rate above Lennox are Ali, Holmes, Louis and Foreman.

Fury is not even top 20.

 

Fury's resume needs some final filling out, but he's going to rank well in time I think. Think of it from a H2H perspective. Who is Fury an easy night for? He'd a rough night for anyone.

 

Plenty of things are huge factors for how long a X fighter will be in his prime, as his lifestyle, training regime, how hard his matches are, camps, how many matches he have(amateur as well), genetics, injuries and so on and so on.

May point was totally different.


Lewis also relied heavily on his physical attributes, but he obviously preserve his body way better.


But still, I can excuse a fighter for being out of prime due to age, and keep fighting and this loses won't hurt him that much, but it's another thing when you are out of shape/prime, because of other factors, not injury related, but life related, not motivated enough or all that ....


Facts still stands Klitschko was 3 months off his 40 birthday, Fury was 27 at his all time best.
Facts still stand that Lewis was older than Mike.
Facts still stands, that until Fury manage to beat(won't happen, cause i'm 500% sure he will lose to both AJ and Usyk), Whyte(his next fight probably), Usyk and AJ, he can't be compared to Lewis.
If he managed to beat both AJ and Usyk, yeah everyone can make a case for him being in front of Lewis, and not only.

 

What Brit has fought before 80,000+ drunks in Wembley? There is your answer.

Otherwise, it's Joe Calzaghe and I don't know what the argument against that opinion could possibly be.

 

You list me 20 men better than Fury all time and I'll suck you off.

Careful people are going to laugh at your list.

 

joke's on you, Kishnabe is knowledgeable about boxing and gay. best invest in some knee pads.

 

In resume that would be pretty easy and I'm a big fan of Fury and followed him from the start.

 

If Fury was HALF as godlike as you believed, he'd have cleaned up the HW division already, not just beat a one trick pony in Wilder.

 

Lewis has a significantly better resume than Fury