Fury's wins over Wlad and Wilder eclipse any single wins on Lennox's resume

Or, Fury only has two good wins. Discuss...

But to answer that same question but in the way you have framed it: Klitschko, Tua, Holyfield, Golota, Briggs, Morrison, Ruddock, Mercer, Rahman are all better wins than Fury's vs Wilder, and all those plus many more are better than Fury's third best win. Lewis' win against a prime Vitali is better than Fury's win against his past-prime brother (he'd looked faded against Jennings in his previous fight), but only marginally. I'd be happy to flip those and not argue the point.

 

Morrison and Golota are better wins than Wilder?

**** off

 

Just the kind of response I would expect from an alt account set up by a Fury hater

 

You have only just included the criteria of 'long reigning'. Not sure how that elevates a boxer unless during that reign they have good, even merely solid names on their record during the time they were champs.

I mean the whole premise of this thread is the quality of wins, or the lack of. Are we to disbar this criteria when looking at Wilder?

 

At this point have to go with Lennox. But Fury’s wins see more ‘special’ somehow. If fury beats Joshua then it would be Tyson.

 

Yes. The win over Vitali is better than both. The win over Holyfield is on par with the win over Wlad. The win over Tua is better than the win over Wilder.

I answered your question.

If Tua demolishes Wilder (which he absolutely would imo) and has beaten the better fighters (which he has), why does Wilder being WBC champ matter?

He beat Vitali by 6th round stoppage. That's all there is to it. It's a fair, clear win.

Wlad was coming off 20 fight title reign (or more specifically, 20 hard training camps), was looking like dogshite vs Jennings and had been a pro since like 1996. He was just as shop worn as Holy.

 

I believe the Wilder win is way superior to the Tua win.

 

It is

These guys watch Tua vs Ruiz and think that somehow translates to Tua being better than Wilder.

Tua couldn't even collect one of the many loose trinkets laying around in the 90s and it was for good reason, he struggled to beat anyone who didn't plant their feet and stick their chin in the air in front of him.

Wilder would beat prime Tua btw similar to the first stiverne fight.

 

There was no 'masterclass'. Masterclass is something like this:

This content is protected

Fury barely landed more than 1 clean punch every round on Wlad, if even that. That's not the definition of 'masterclass'. Far from it! Otherwise, your standards are evidently hilariously low for what constitutes a 'masterclass'.

And Wladimir Klitschko was shot to pieces by the time he fought Bryant Jennings, much less Fury. Still, the fact that Fury could barely land sufficient number of clean and effective punches, exposes Fury as lacking proper offensive boxing skills and talent.

Slipping and dodging and feinting and moving doesn't impress me one bit, if there aren't sufficient clean and effective punches at the end of those things.

What James Toney did to Holyfield is the proper definition of 'schooling ' and 'masterclass'.

You people have hyped up this overrated win as more impressive and dominant than it really was!

 

Um, no.

Playing tag against a past-prime Wlad and beating Wilder, whose best win is an ancient Ortiz don't compare to Lewis's wins over Holyfield or Vitali.

Lewis effectively cleaned out the HW division.

 

Rubbishing Furys win over 39 Wlad while at the same time praising Toneys win over a much more faded 41 year old Holyfield?? You fool.

Wlad was still very energetic and nimble on his feet which is why Fury was unable to connect with a lot of punches. Shot to pieces fighters don't move and avoid punches for 12 rounds like Wlad did.
Its simply an excuse to deny Fury any credit for the win.

The same fanboys also say Wlad figured out Fury in the 12th , but that contradicts the shot the bits excuse , cos when your shot your shot , you don't suddenly become unshot in the 12th round.
The same goes for the rematch. Wlad was shot to bits , but he would have turned it up in the rematch. Its just excuse after excuse cos you can't cope with the fact the Fury schooled the guy you think is the #1 HW of all time.

Regarding Jennings . it was fighting in the US for the first time in years , with a ref that refused to allow Wlad illegally hold , coupled with an athletic opponent who used the ring that exposed Wlads flaws that had always been there.
If Wlad really looked shot against Jennings , everybody would have put their money on Fury , but that never happened. Wlad was expected to win by 95% of fans and media.

 

Wilder is one of the most protected champions of all time. Being "long-reigning" doesn't mean **** when you're fighting guys like ancient Ortiz and part-time fighters like Molina.