Fury vs.....

If you're born into a nation with a world-class national team you can be a good but unexceptional player filling one of the weaker positions or even spend most of the time on the bench and still win the world cup, possibly even multiple times. Brazil in 2002 had the likes of Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho but lesser players like Kleberson or Anderson Polga won the same trophy at the end of the tournament. World-class players like Samuel Eto'o, Michael Essien or Didier Drogba on the other hand were never going to win silverware in non-African tournaments because they didn't have enough top players around them. But on the club level they starred for top teams which allowed them to become highly decorated players. Messi and Ronaldo have taken this to another level by being virtually the exclusive top two players of the year for over a decade and have dominated the champions league since the late 2000's.

 

I couldn't pick Fury over the great heavyweight champs. His top wins, though impressive, were against opponent's who weren't/aren't well-rounded. Wlad was gunshy. Wilder was clueless.

Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield and Lewis all had layers to them. On their best nights they were brilliant. A boxer like Holmes seems to be up against it, but then how would Fury deal with someone quicker of hand, happy to slug and likely has better stamina? You thought round 12 of Fury-Wilder I was exciting? Go watch rounds 14-15 of Holmes-Norton. Different level of grit.

There are drawbacks to Fury's size. For one he's a huge target. Secondly his punching technique, especially mid-range, is lacking. The 31-year-old Hoylfield who outpointed Bowe would wreak havoc inside, make Fury work when he doesn't want it, thump his way out of clinches.

Now with his size and ability, Fury's going to be a problem for most, but causing trouble and winning are two very different things.

Most of the affirmative voices are focused on a size advantage and perfect record.

That's not an analysis.

 

Comparing a borderline bum from the 70's with 18 losses to a modern champion and the most dominant heavyweight champion of all time at that is ludicrous to me. Yes Wlad improved a lot but half of Young's defeats were before he was 30, the other half were after. A highly complex and lucrative sport like boxing will improve more than something far more simple and less lucrative than the 100M. There isn't any rational reason why this sport would be static atrophy when others are advancing. If training methods were inferior to the past, the information is already there to remedy it and there would be an enormous financial incentive to do so. The more likely hypothesis is that over time, all sports see gradual improvement. Styles make fights and fighters can have performances ranging from terrible to a career best on a given night, as can their opponents. This makes it ridiculous to compare generations on the basis of two fights. Holyfield had a tough fight with bum Burt Cooper but it doesn't necessarily make Holyfield worse than Ali or Holmes, even if they'd hypothetically have beaten Cooper comfortably in their late 30's. Both Holmes and Foreman were careful with their matchmaking late on and still got beaten by several more modern contenders and champions. The best men from a previous era in their late 30's or even early 40's can still beat many contenders and this is more true today than it was in the past. We saw how many problems a 41 year old Wlad gave a 27 year old AJ after coming back from defeat, 18 months inactivity and fighting away from home. When there is a gulf in ability, these things can happen very easily. And in the heavyweight division especially, there is more often than not a puncher's chance at any age. As for whether GGG beats SRL? A much smaller Roberto Duran did, so I'd expect a modern ATG like Gennady would do so much more often than not. I regard the improvement over the generations as a gradual but uneven process. It is possible for the champion of the previous era to be better than the champion of the following era. But when you go two, three, four generations down the road, it starts to become practically impossible.

Earnie Shaver's KO ratio vs 215 lbs opponents: 47.8% (if you remove bums and guys who'd been KO'd before, his record becomes pitiful)
Wladimir Klitschko: 87.5%
Lennox Lewis: 75%
Mike Tyson: 73.6%
Larry Holmes: 45.9%
Evander Holyfield: 34.4%
Mohammed Ali 33.3%
[url]http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2318/earnie-shavers-power-puncher-or-overrated-featherfist[/url]

Tyson Fury: 65.4%

This metric is also excessively favourable to older fighters as the average weight of Wlad's opponents was 233 lbs, while fighters from the 60's fought hardly any opponents this big and men that size tended to be completely unathletic in those days. Cooney's victims were primarily cruisers and under 215 pounds so his power is questionable. Foreman was the hardest-hitting of the old school fighters but he wouldn't be an exceptional puncher by today's standards. There's also the question of whether you're a one punch KO artist like Wlad and Wilder or an accumulation puncher like Vitali or Fury.

As a pro, Povetkin has beaten: Byrd, Chambers, Chagaev, Huck, Charr, Perez, Takam, Wach, Duhaupas, Hammer, Price, H. Fury and Whyte and knocked most of them out, while drawing with a much younger Hunter and losing only to Wlad and AJ. This is a better resume than either Tyson or Holyfield. Holmes was considered to fight in a weak era because he was fighting in the shadow of superstar Ali and like Wlad, he dominated. For some reason you're considered greater if you lose a bunch of fights to Norton, Frazier, Young and Spinks. Holmes and Wlad were victims of their own success. Wlad was also a victim of being Eastern European while blasting out all of the best American heavyweights. If Americans don't dominate the heavyweight division it has to be a "weak era" by definition according to the Western boxing media, so every era since the 90's is likely to be considered weak as Americans aren't likely to dominate again. As we saw the other day, Terrance Crawford was claiming ludicrously that Canelo has been avoiding black fighters. AJ said that Eddie Chambers was a disgrace to "the superior black race". Wilder's famous last words were that Tyson Fury was going to be the answer to a black history month trivia question. Along with fanboyism of retired fighters and nostalgia for the "good ole days", racial and nationalistic bias is a huge reason why people cannot think objectively about sports, particularly boxing.

 

Generally agree w/ OP.

Fury vs Lewis - leaning Lewis, again a tough bout
Fury vs Vitali - leaning Vitali, tough bout
Fury vs Wladimir - toss up
Fury vs Tyson - likely Fury, if Douglas, Holy, etc. could
Fury vs Holyfield - Fury, see below
Fury vs Holmes - likely Fury, too big for Holmes
Fury vs Foreman - Fury
Fury vs Morrison - Fury
Fury vs Tua - Fury
Fury vs Ibeabuchi - likely Fury
Fury vs Byrd - Fury
Fury vs Rahman - Fury
Fury vs Ruiz - Fury

 

Hunter failed his test against Usyk with flying colours.

 

Maybe.

 

I agree with overall result but he had showed heart and balls and was not that bad.
This was prime Usyk, after Briedis and Gassiev this was not prime Usyk anymore.
Albeit I think Hunter had get gifted draw vs Povetkin, he was for me very respectable.

Prime Usyk had fought real prime Briedis and Gassiev before they had impact from injuries.
Briedis from WBSS2 season is old boxer.
Prime Briedis hit not less harder than prime Povetkin ( I agree that Povetkin does have another level amateur credentials and heritage level things but stuff is what it is. Briedis had achieved stuff even Povetkin did not had achieved on Charr and bear in mind that he had been used by Klit brothers and considered as very durable and gave them very tough and hard work in sparrings ).

Only one thing had helped Usyk to become Undisputed in fight vs Briedis was that he WAS real world level amateur superstar.
Only cos this he barely won Briedis and acutally by normal ppl this had been considered as razor close win.
15 round fight Usyk had lost.

CW Hunter was more mobile than HW Hunter.
When fans are talking from castle to peasants about amateur boxing, some from them might consider that without this Usyk NEVER had any belt, not alone to become UNDISPUTED vs guys in their REAL prime.

 

I think definitely.
Both, Ortiz and Wilder should had fights outside from U.S and fights with well known in serious fans circles boxers outside of U.S.

 

Reading comprehension is key. Just as I've already said I just compared him to Wlad in the sense that both of them improved. Wlad got destroyed by a unknown bum named Ross Purity and sparked out by a couple others but he improved from there. Jimmy Young also lost some early fights but improved to the point where he beat Foreman and Lyle and gave Ali a competitive fight. I never once stated he was as good as Klitschko so again you're still pulling this stuff out of nowhere. Quote me when i did, wait u can't, because i never said he was as good as Wlad. Young lost motivation after his fight with Ken Norton and underwent poor training and poor conditioning, which is why over half his losses came after that. Its well documented. Young was not a bum in his prime. Just because he was in his early 30s when he lost multiple times doesn't mean he was in his prime. As I've stated before prime refers to a boxer at his most skilled and his best. Mike Tyson was in his prime in 1988, not after he came out of prison, even though he was still a young man and in his physical prime when he was released. You're getting the boxing definition of prime confused. And the fact of the matter is boxing isn't a one dimensional sport where you need to be in your best shape or be fit to succeed. Obviously it helps but look at Tyson Fury, he himself claims he does he does old school training and Fury isn't the fittest on the planet either. You're argument is based on "new boxers have access to superior nutrition and training" but that becomes irrelevant when you take into account the fact that a multitude of past boxers were faster and had better stamina than modern boxers and they were also in excellent shape, which is what modern training and nutrition is trying to accomplish. Errol Spence or Terrance Crawford for example is not faster than Sugar Ray Leonard or Thomas Hearns nor do they have better footwork or better stamina or better head movement or better ring iq therfore the modern advantages become negligible if they hypothetically stepped in the ring together, because boxing is possibly the most complex sport out there besides MMA or Muay Thai. Also that's a terrible point because Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard fought at 147, not 160. If you want Sugar Ray Leonard at 160 use the one that fought Marvin Hagler. The problem is you actually don't even know what you're talking about.

Earnie Shavera KO ratio is actually 78% and KO ratio is deceptive because Shavers wasn't a good boxer, he didn't have an elite delivery system but when he did connect everybody who faced him claimed he was the hardest puncher they've ever faced. Larry Holmes fought Mike Tyson, Ray Mercer, Earnie Shavers Oliver Mccall, Gerry Cooney, and claimed Shavers hit the hardest. Multiple people who fought both Shavers and Foreman claimed Shavers hit harder. David Tua hit harder than Lennox Lewis despite the fact that Lewis was significantly larger. Size matters but only to an extent. If you take a look at the comments beneath the thread you can clearly see multiple people debunk his nonsense. You dont need to be a super heavyweight to have devastating power. Everybody is different. As I've mentioned how come Holyfield dropped Mercer but Lewis didn't?

Lets see here Povetkin beat a shot Chris Byrd (someone who Ike Ibeabuchi knocked out quicker in the 90s) he went life and death against Marco Huck who has done nothing at heavyweight. Chambers is a good win but not as good as Holyfields win over Ray Mercer or Mike Tyson. Chagaev who won a split decision against a shot John Ruiz (who Tua destroyed in seconds in his prime). Charr who's best win at heavyweight is Kevin Johnson and Ustinov LMAO. Wach's best win is Hammer. Duhaupas has beaten nobody of note. Price is a glass chin lumbering oaf who doesn't even have a resume as good as michael grant. Takam is a decent win but he still got blasted out by Chisora. Hughie Fury has beaten nobody and Whyte is a decent win. 3 notable wins. Holyfield obviously has the better resume.

Buster Douglas, Alex Stewart, Riddick Bowe, Ray Mercer, Mike Tyson, old but still skilled George Foreman and old but still skilled Larry Holmes

Larry Holmes is not better than Ali. Ali past his prime gave Ken Norton just as competitive of a fight as Holmes did in his prime. And keep race out of this please. I am objective but I'll call out bullcrap when i see it. You're clearly being biased

 

Yeah. Do not seek in english language forums real sense when talks are about EE fighters.
-----------------

 

For sure size does not matters.
Place Buterelo horsemeat champ vs Dorticos and you will see how size does not matters.
Buterelo will not survive till his hometown Vegas cards.

 

He get win on cards cos his promoter was don.
Norton beated him up.

 

Maradona '86

 

Holmes would outjab Fury silly. The size difference wouldn't mean anything.

I am dubious about whether Fury could take that overhand right for 15 rounds, too. I doubt it. Even Holmes, though nowhere near the puncher Wilder was, was a far better finisher.

 

lewis KO fury
Fury UD wlad
Fury UD vitali
Fury UD Tyson
Fury SD Holmes
Fury UD holy

fury hammers the rest 9/10