Fury vs.....

And then Fury took him to school and put a boxing clinic on that bum... or thats what people tell me anyway

 

Will see how Fury will box in title fights when he will be 38.
Father time is undefeatable, always will be undisputed champion.
His name if Father Time. Always will be.

 

Logged on to say the same thing. Half of the posts seen to have erased the memory of Fury fighting Wlad, bizarrely. History doesn't lie and he beat him fairly, so I don't understand the comments or mindset regarding a potential match up between them

 

Foreman was slower in his 40`s than Wlad was v AJ.

 

Any version of Foreman knocks out Wladimir.

 

Most people pretend it didn't really happen because Wladimir was 39 and not in his prime (although that is debatable in itself).

It wasn't the Wladimir that beat legends like little Leapai, boring Brock, cruiserweight Mormeck, cruiserweight Haye, Pudding Pulev, mediocre Jennings, Peter, old Rahman, grandpa Thompson, Chambers etc...

I don't believe that these wins really show anything whatsoever as to how that Wladimir (which may have been the same, if not better, for all we know) would have fared against Fury.

People also erase the three stoppage defeats to Puritty, Sanders and Brewster from the memory.

Fury is a tough match up for any Wladimir. It was Vitali who had the warrior spirit, awkwardness and unpredictability to overcome Fury.

 

Thanks for the feedback. It was something I was considering. But actually, I was thinking arm-length would the most useful descriptor, but records of that are very patchy and would take forever to track down. Then again I should recognize "reach" is used as a standard, and is much easier to source.

At the same time, whilst reach is obviously important, people find it easier to guess at that from the height (though there were obviously stand-out disparities like with Liston), whilst the other thing Height gives an indication of when combined with Weight is advantages in the clinch.

This was kind of a passion project of mine over the weekend; it was something I had been wanting to do for ages. But it took me well over 10 hours just to get to the point where I was happy with the charts, and foolishly I was 4 hours in when I realised I should have gathered the reach data too just in case.

Thanks again for the feedback. I'll try to get on it after I finish off the 1920s fighters first.
(plus I have a research paper long overdue - procrastination is a killer! )

 

The fighters from the past (particularly heavyweights) are grossly overrated due to nostalgia. It was virtually the cruiserweight/light heavyweight national golden gloves with inferior nutrition and training methods. Guys like Chisora and Cunningham would have been undisputed champs back in the 60's. Beyond Lewis and the Klitschko's (the start of the modern super-heavyweight era) none of the past heavyweight champions even come close.

 

So the 90s doesn't exist ? Super heavyweights have been around for a while. Even in the late 80s actually, thats when they really started to appear in large amounts. You're saying Chisora is better than Buster Mathis and Cunningham is better than Jimmy Young ? LOL you're an clown.

Btw Lennox Lewis would blow Fury's back out. Ah yes ah well the great Tyson Fury. The greatest heavyweight of all time. Beat a gunshy Klitschko then avoided the contractually obligated rematch and beat the likes of Tom Schwartz and Francesco Panini instead of Dillian Whyte and Tony Bellew. Ah yes Fransesco Panini, a good man, an honest man, a Christian man, a top 10 heavyweight for sure. Ah yes Deontay Wilder, Furys second best opponent. 212lb in their first fight and 230lb in the rematch, SO BIG AM I RIGHT ?? limited boxing skills and poor ring iq. an absolutely MASSIVE super heavyweight yet he weighs less than Gerry Cooney did on average in his career. He'd definitely clean house in the 70s am i right

 

How many defeats did Jimmy Young have? Mathis and Young were both bums, like the Spinks bum who beat an out of shape Ali. Chisora and Cunningham have every modern advantage and are thus levels above them.

Reading comprehension: Lewis was a 90's heavyweight was he not? Even then he's a small guy compared to Fury but he was much better than the grossly overrated cruiserweights and light heavyweights of the 60's/70's.

 

And how many defeats does Chisora have ? And Cunningham weighed less that 200 most of his career, less than Ali so you make no sense. But you also have Lewis and Bowe and Grant and Tucker and Golota and other Super heavyweights not just Lewis. And lol thats funny that you mention Fury's size. Because regardless Lewis is the better inside fighter and Lewis weighed over 240lb in his prime. Even moreso than Anthony Joshua so even though Lewis was about 6'4¾ and Fury is 6'7½ the height and weight difference would not matter when Lewis walks him down. Lewis also has the better resume by FAR.

Give me your phone

 

Never mind nutrition, fundamentals are more important and modern fighters are inferior in that respect to previous decades, Holmes would have battered today`s heavyweights.

 

Chisora has fewer defeats than Jimmy Young and against far better quality opposition. Cunningham had 40 years of sports science advantages on the 60's era so as a top cruiser in his prime, he would have been easily mixing it with the likes of half-blind 5'11 cruiser Frazier and the guy who got beat by chinny cruiser Ken Norton 3 times. I could just as easily substitute the likes of modern champions and contenders like Cunningham and Chisora with the likes of Arreola and Helenius. Thinking the top heavyweights from the 60's (the national cruiserweight golden gloves era) could even compete with the top heavyweights of today is like thinking Charles Greene could beat Usain Bolt or any of the other top guys in the track.

I didn't mention every super-heavyweight from the 90's because Lewis was by far the best of the 90's bunch and thus sufficient. If you're going to talk about a bum like Michael Grant then we may as well talk about Primo Carnera or Jess Willard. The point is that big men in the past were poor athletes and unskilled, whereas modern super heavyweights starting with Lewis had elite level skills and athleticism as well as considerable size advantages.

Wlad had a far better resume than Fury, probably better than Lewis's and he was a bigger puncher but it didn't stop him from getting toyed with and virtually shut out at home. Even when Lennox Lewis is 90 years old in a retirement home you'll still be consoling yourself that he'd beat any of the 2060's genetically-engineered heavyweight crop of 7 foot+, 300 lbs+ men (surely a terrible era) or anyone before, except maybe Ali lmao. Jack Johnson claimed that all the best guys from his era could beat Joe Louis, in the 60's people complained it was a weak era, same thing in the 70's, the 80's and the 90's. Boxing fans are the most miserable nostalgists but in reality athletics is always gradually moving forward. So don't worry, Fury isn't going to be the best forever.

 

Because agit kabayel is world level right ? Most of Jimmy Youngs defeats came when he was past his prime. How thick are you ? What sports science advantages does Cunningham have over Jimmy Young ? You keep talking about these "advantages" what are they ? Cruiserweight Cunningham hasn't shown anything impressive except putting down Fury and that says more about Fury than it does Cunningham. This is what i find funny. You're not an actual boxing fan. You're just an idiot. An actual boxing fan knows the fundamentals now are the exact same as they were in the 70s. Foreman and Holmes prove your argument wrong by beats the likes of Moorer and Mercer when they're in their 40s. And that Usain bolt argument is bullcrap. Usain Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time. Fury is not the greatest boxer of all time.

And Michael Grant isn't as good as Fury but he's better than Primo Carnera and Jesse Willard. You're doing real good comoaring a 90s super heavyweight to an early 1900s super heayweight. If i remember correctly michael grant beat andrew golota. And its Funny how you saw unskilled but look at Fury's second best win. Wilder has no skill and just has power. Lol bur Wilder is a great modern heavyweight am i right ?

Who on Wlads resume is better than Vitali Klitschko and Evander Holyfield? You cant answer that because there isn't anyone on his resume that good thats the problem. Wlad got shut down because Wlad was to scared to drag Fury into a dogfight unill round 12. And when he did he was having success and was landing more powerpunches on Fury than the other rounds. Lewis would not be scared whatsoever to let his hands go. This is what i find funny about you. Imagine thinking a 39 year old Klitschko is as good as prime Lennox Lewis. And whos to say that 2060 will posess 7 foot athletic heavyweights. Heavyweights have been about the same size for 30 years. 6'6 plus, 240 plus athletic fighters. Yeah. And the likes of old Povetkin and Chisora and Ruiz making their way into top 10 pretty much disprove your narrative of giants controlling the division. David Price beats Ali am i right ???? I'll be laughing if Fury looses to Aj. I dont want to see you make any inactivity excuses because you really do think he's the greatest of all time

 

Half of Jimmy Young's defeats had come before he was even 30 and he lost against some very low level opposition but the excuse for his prolific loss record is "he was past his prime", just like Tyson was allegedly past his prime when he lost against Buster Douglas. Kabayel would also mix it in the 60's very well. Saying "fundamentals were the same in the 70's" is like saying "football formations were the same in the 70's" but even in 10 years in soccer the game moves on dramatically. The "experts", of which you are not one (American usually) like to keep the myth alive that the greats of the past would be competitive today, that's also the narrative that the vast majority of the casuals buy into. Old fighters usually like to perpetuate this myth as well because it reflects well on them but as Mike Tyson has noted, it isn't true. Improvements are similar in all sports: nutrition, conditioning, technique, game plan and ability to review decades of history in painstaking detail. It doesn't surprise me that the very best fighters of the 70's or 80's could beat contenders in the 90's in close fights. Foreman's style in particular aged very well, he had a 10 year hiatus in which he didn't sustain any wear and tear and was a power puncher fighting a glass-chinned former light heavy. I'm talking about the general trends, not individual fights. If sprinters were not timed, nostalgic fans would claim that the sprinters of the 60's were faster than the sprinters of today.

In fairness to Wilder, he punches a lot harder than anyone else in the division in the 60's/70's, even Foreman, and would have had a considerable height and reach advantage. He'd have been at least a top heavyweight in any past era. Imo Wlad's resume was better Lewis's because he won far more fights against quality opponents and boxed on to a more advanced age, had a higher proportion of KO's against big heavyweights and the best heavyweight win streak of all time. Prime Povetkin was better than Holyfield and the Klitschko fight was stopped against Vitali's will in a fight where he was up on the cards. In any case, even if Wlad didn't have a better resume than Lewis, it was still many times deeper than Fury's, yet Fury still schooled him so resume will not protect you head to head. With genetic engineering and scientific advances in drugs, heavyweights a generation or two down the road are likely to be a lot taller and heavier than the current crop. Obviously upsets happen but superheavyweights have been controlling the top places in the division since the 90's. If featherfisted light heavyweight Henry Cooper left a young Ali needing smelling salts and several minutes to recover with glove chicanery, a superheavyweight power puncher like Pricey would have a very good puncher's chance against a young Ali. Over the stretch my bet would be on Ali to tire Pricey out and win a decision though. Unlike many Fury fans I don't think AJ's a bum, I rate him as one of the top 5 or 10 best heavyweights of all time. Regardless, I believe he's a level above AJ but there will be no excuses if AJ wins by KO. Likewise, if Fury demolishes AJ he deserves credit as, at the very least, one of the top few heavyweights in history head to head.