Heavyweight top ten looking something like this now?

His ranking of Cunningham is laughable. That is worse than him having Fury #2

 

It's debatable between Wilder and Fury.

Deontay Wilder:

def. Stiverne in 2015 (

This content is protected

, WBC titlist)
def. Scott in 2014 (outside top 20, still

This content is protected

)
def. Liakovich in 2013 (not rated, not so valuable win)

Tyson Fury:

def. Chisora II in 2014 (

This content is protected

, European title)
def. Cunningham in 2013 (former CW titlist, not top 10, but still still top 20, arguably

This content is protected

)
def. Johnson in 2013 (solid

This content is protected

)
def. Chisora in 2011 (fellow

This content is protected

)

Since Wilder's victories mainly consist of Stiverne, Fury probably did beat better names overall, but it's important to point out that he defeated Chisora for the first time in 2011, which was 4 years ago. Wilder also has the WBC belt, which is a part of his resume as well. I'd say it's very close, but give the advantage to Wilder.

However, if Fury beats Hammer, he'd have a good argument of being rated ahead of Wilder.

 

Cunningham was in the argument for a spot inside ten at heavy when he fought Tyson Fury? That is what's relevant here, if we're going by objective principles and leaving out subjective ana|ysis, not whether he since has aged into top-10 HW material.

His record as of then, I repeat, was 1-1. The victory over Jason Gavern of all people. You can say he was robbed against Goral, sure (I'd agree) - but then we aren't really adhering to objective principles of "achievement on paper" over subjective ana|ysis, right? So a loss is a loss and he lost. And beat Gavern. And is top-10 for that? :huh

Alright. Most significance, I should've said. Scott and Johnson are indeed better than his Euro level (Pala, Gerber) and domestic (Williams, ***ton) wins, and on the outer fringes of the level Vitali, Haye, and to a lesser extent Helenius were on when they were all in the mix. Still, in between Fury I and Fury II, Chisora lost in his three biggest steps up in class, and that is only offset by two wins over opposition that is inferior to the three losses and oughtn't really have Chisora rated all that highly heading into Fury II. That can't be argued.

Why were either so highly ranked for their rematch, though? Coming off their runs of Johnson/Cunningham/Abell and Avila/Scott/Gerber/Pala respectively going back a couple of years? Are those seven wins combined enough to say the winner of their rematch is poised to be #2? Even in a very thinly populated heavyweight division? :think

That's quite a demotion, perhaps unfair, considering pretty much everybody (with the exception of Povetkin) that steps in with him is destructively and one-sidedly destroyed by Wladimir.

Pulev's best few wins (Thompson, Oloukun, Ustinov, Walker) are better than Fury's best few (Chisora II, Cunningham, Chisora I, Johnson) - and best single win (Thompson) is just flat-out better than Fury's best single win (Chisora II). By quite some comfortable separation. Not really any debate there, I'd hope? A loss - however one-sided - against the division's champion oughtn't have all that much bearing when that much separation exists.

If you're asking do I think Fury deserves a crack at Wlad more than Pulev deserves a rematch? No.. not at all.

...and I don't think Pulev deserves a rematch.

I just think Fury is miles away from ever deserving a crack at Wlad.

Like, he needs to cross the Serengeti. Twice.

I wasn't so much arguing for Hammer/Charr/Chisora (obviously) above Fury -just pointing out that beating Johnson on points is nothing all that special and anybody even halfway good at Euro level lately has been doing exactly that. For that to be Fury's 4th best win and 3rd best name beaten... and he's #2 at heavyweight? Granted, there isn't much around, understood, but still...

Yeah, I wasn't singling out TBRB, lots of folks seem to have Fury that high. I just don't get why. I remain unconvinced. His wins are just nothing all that special. Even using objective criteria of deeds on paper (ignoring circumstances and h2h perception) and acknowledging that it really is a shallow division where it's easy to be mediocre and ranked very highly - I don't get how Fury comes to be #2 on all these lists. It just makes no sense to me. Chisora x2, Cunningham, and Johnson. Surely that isn't the 2nd best resume in the division after Wlad's? There's just no way that can be true.

 

Champion: Klitschko

1. Povetkin
2. Wilder
3. Fury
4. Pulev
5. Jennings
6. Glazkov
7. Stiverne
8. Takam
9. Chagaev
10. Cunningham

 

On that much we agree. Never was Arreola really a top contender, though he kept getting chances (and fans somehow kept spouting this "if he comes in shape, no, trust us, really, he's quite good, he deserves his ranking" apologist nonsense)

Beating him twice never impressed me about Stiverne. Especially since Arreola managed to pretty coolly outbox him through several rounds in their rematch.

Fair enough, in h2h value Chisora and Stiverne are about the same - but I thought we weren't doing it that way? I thought it was about objective facts on paper. And what's more objective and flat-out undeniable than "Stiverne held the green belt; Chisora has never won a world title belt"?

Right? The standards are consistent, or they aren't.

And I'm okay with the other way around, mainly because a) Stiverene was a paper champ and b) take away Stiverne and Scott and Wilder's resume is actually even worse than Fury's (even minus both Chisora wins, to even it out fairly).

But Wilder isn't so much who I meant by "several guys" should be ahead of Fury. I meant Povetkin with a bullet, Pulev, Jennings...

Fury-Wilder to me is a toss-up, with the edge determined by the fact of Stiverne holding that belt - which, joke or not, makes for an objective grounding point. As much as something can.

For the reasons stated about Pulev, you mean? Povetkin being demoted for his own loss to Wlad? Because in terms of win column, Povetkin's is almost unreachably beyond Fury's at the moment. Like, as much as Wlad's is out of reach for Povetkin to match in his lifetime.

Jennings' last three wins > Fury's career best three.

Perez >>>> Chisora II (even with the latter being a whitewash and the former close - remember, we're just going by what got accomplished on paper? ...and even if not, squeaking by a game unbeaten top-5 h2h type in Perez is still more impressive to me than a pot shot clinic against the least inspired version of Chisora ever seen in a ring)

Kayoing prime 24 year old 223lb full-fledged heavyweight Szpilka >>> kayoing 37 year old 210lb blown-up cruiser USS Cunningham. (even if Cunningham > Szpilka in p4p or overall career legacy terms as things stand)

Beating top-15ish h2h Fedosov (which Jennings was on his way to doing on points, we'll not stretch and call it a "stoppage" when it was a retirement on cuts) is better than Fury's (green) Chisora I or (already in permanent sparring partner/zombie mode) Johnson decision wins, whichever you want to call his third best.

Then or now? A bit goalpost-shifty, innit?

In what universe is Cunningham a top-10 heavyweight for having beaten Jason Gavern and lost to Adamek, while Malik Scott when he lost to Wilder isn't? :huh

Which is the controversial victory over a #10? The Scott KO? Because some thought it looked fishy?

I honestly consider Fury's over Cunningham the more controversial win.

Nobody but the parties involved know whether or not Wilder vs. Scott was on the level. Fury clearly beat Cunningham with allowed fouls (rabbit punches) - it's there on film. There is nothing ambiguous or speculative about it.

Not to mention, as I said, Cunningham was a non-entity at heavyweight when he fought Fury. He'd beaten Gavern, and that is literally all. Scott had drawn with Glazkov and beaten Tupou. Not much, but more than beating Jason Gavern.

 

Going off topic, I was told last month that today's HW's would have beaten the absolute SH*T out of Joe Frazier, Michael Spinks and Ken Norton.

I just can't envisage it.

 

I agree with everyone else that it's hard to tell whether Wilder or Furry should be the #2 contender at heavyweight.

Wilder is more proven now than he was before. Maybe if we take full account of how dominant Wilder's been as a pro, and how many close calls Fury has had, then Wilder comes out on top. But if we judge the issue according to meaningful fights--Fury gets the edge. He made it through a war with Chisora in Chisora I and scored a more dominant victory in Chisora II than Wilder got over Stiverne.

Anyway both of these guys should rate higher than Jennings, who was fortunate to get past Perez.

If Fury defeats Hammer without issues, then that should settle the issue in his favor.

Champ Wlad
1. Povetkin
2. Fury
3. Wilder
4. Pulev
5. Jennings

 

Spinks would do well if he followed the arc of what happened in his career- much success at 175, a few fights at Heavyweight. Could be a deserving contender but wouldn't beat Wlad.

Norton would probably reach contender status, but his Achilles' heel happens to be the one thing most of today's heavyweights can do, and that's punch. He reacted so poorly to punchers - freezing, giving up his movement, going back on the ropes- that he'd get beat by guys he had more textbook skill than. He's fortunate fights with Joe and Lyle never materialized in his own era.

Frazier would primarily be a Cruiserweight. Too small to last as a career heavyweight fighting an attrition style (only lasted 37 fights fighting a majority of Cruiserweight-sized fighters as it is. 21 out of his 37 fights, the opponent weighed 205 or less). His best career arc would be to make a living at Cruiserweight, then moving up for a few Heavyweight fights at the end.

 

All of those fighters would be more than a handful for today's guys.

Spinks may not have been able to have beaten Wlad. But how many of today's HW's would have beaten the absolute sh*t out of him? Even if Wlad won, it would be close.

Norton would also present problems. Wlad aside, the HW division is not a strong division.

Frazier would still be a HW today. He'd just give up a lot up in size. But again, how many off of that list would have beaten him easy? It was a gross exaggeration by the guy I was debating with. Frazier would have brought a style that these guys have never seen. Far too much emphasis is put on size today.

 

Klitschko vs Spinks would be close? :roll:

 

I can respect your stance aside from Wlad -Spinks being close. As for Frazier and Norton, as the old saying goes, styles make fights.

Taking the best of Frazier and putting him straight to the top is fantasy; having an entire heavyweight career as an undersized swarmer who ground people down led to him having a limited number of fights in his own era where 60% of his career was against fighters who would also be Cruiserweights today.

People can say size doesn't matter, but bigger fighters take a better shot, are stronger, and will hit harder. There's individual exceptions, but the sample size an entire career gives validates that, which is why weight classes exist.

Today, he'd be boiled down to Cruiserweight because that style isn't bred for longevity. Particularly not if he's the smaller man every fight.

 

As for Norton, he matches up well with guys like Pulev, Chambers, and the other lighter punching guys. Povetkin would knock him out late.