Heavyweight top ten looking something like this now?

Aye, he wouldn't be the worst by a sight (that race is led by Leapai, the "French Tyson", and the splintered mossy old Rock) but nobody ever called Leapai, Mormeck, or Rahman the #2 in the division when Doc SH fought them.

Leapai, for instance, was a guy who everybody universally recognized (with a reluctant groan) as having technically earned the shot the conventional way, beating the guy that was ranked to be in line, in Boytsov. Even after that upset, though, nobody thought Leapai was a top forty heavyweight - just a guy from the outer reaches that lucked out with the right win at the right time.

While I maintain that Pulev and Jennings at the least (and maybe Wilder, unless we are to completely throw out all deference to ABC titles whatsoever as you seemed earlier to be suggesting) ought to rate ahead of him on resume and certainly, along with a few less decorated others, h2h ability (excluding Wilder from that, however - I'd see Wilder vs. Fury as being a 50-50 countdown to either getting KTFO, with maybe an edge to Fury just on more pertinent experience) - the convincing arguments you've made to support why some have Fury up that high, making it sound remotely feasible - just leaves one inclined to abandon hope entirely for heavyweight. If the cream rises, and he's the cream, then hell with it. HW ceases to be worth even a glance, and Klitschko ought to disappear from p4p lists if there is nobody (even a tenth as good as the next best pair to him in Povetkin and Pulev, who already fell) out there new for him to beat and the drop-off in talent is that big. If things are that dire, it does him little good trudging on and risking something hinky occurring, as he'll deserve scant credit for beating anyone from here out if that is the depths we're plumbing, in quality, with Fury even conceivably at #2.

Absolutely fifteen, and with a nod to how bad the division is, well inside ten, and upper half rather than bottom, I'd say. I only took exception (and still do, but with less resolution after you've made your case, and made it well) to him being way up at 2, when to my eyes Jennings and Pulev at least head to head both have the licking of him and nicer scalps hung round their saddle, with some others having cases for either/or (ie Wilder the slightly better resume if-and-only-if you give traditional deference to a major world title belt but not h2h; and conversely Takam h2h but not based on resume)

If he beats Wilder you say it makes him unquestionably deserve a crack at Wlad, but you did also make clear you have no regard for the belt (which IMO gives Wilder 100% of his going value) - so how's that?

...but yeah, if he does beat Wilder, he'll not be unprecedentedly ridiculous challenging Klitshcko. He will be more "deserving" in accumulation than Leapai was, for certain. (even though no single W of his will be as good as that Boytsov upset)

I'd pose it to you a different way:

You're stuck on "top five" being arbitrarily indicative of "near the upper echelon". In most divisions, at most times, indeed that is true. Right now, at heavyweight, it very much isn't.

There is 1, 2, 3 (or 1, if we are going with the "Fury is #2" paradigm...my aforementioned 2 and 3 were meant to be Povetkin and Pulev) and then a loooooooooooooooooooooooong chasm, and then all the rest.

Usually the distribution is smoother. Even if if you have a dominant #1, there won't be too much separating him from #2, and then not a lot between 2 and 3, and then 4, and 5 and so forth.

Here, you have Klitschko rating on most p4p lists somewhere, and then you have guys like Wilder and Fury who, be they in a HW top five or no - shouldn't be in any top 150 or even 200 reckoning p4p. I'm not even kidding.

The flaw in perception is assuming that being top 5 at heavyweight means you're worth a damn, in a time when #1 and #5 are further apart than #5 and #50.

The fight has no meaning as the winner is still just a pretender, whose "closeness" in rank to Klitschko in no way accurately depicts the gulf in class.

That's just it, though. Relative to what there is at HW, even if they are top 5, a meeting between them shouldn't function as it would normally in a real, live (or hell, even averagely functioning) division. The winner of Wilder vs. Fury is still nearly as far removed from belonging in the ring with Klitschko as will be the winner between Danny Williams and Frans Botha.



I realize "there can only be what there is" and the system of highest ranked guys having box-offs producing the presumably best claimant for the king's throne is really all we have - but when strict adherence to it leads to situations like this, such a system might need to be discarded - the same way you're so quick to discard the ABC belts, which serve the same function of "this is the long-running least-worst manner of figuring it out :conf", and discarding them for pretty much the exact same reason.

Wilder and Fury duking it out for any version of "the heavyweight title" and the winner being in line to unify, that just makes a farce of the sport and devalues every man to have ever been called heavyweight champion, throughout history.

 

No because hopkins fully unified and Cotto has his lineage. Cotto is the only world champion today.

 

If the WBC are to be believed this could soon become a reality!

 

You are day-dreaming,but I like your dream.
Stiverne vs Pulev-the winner fights Povetkin,and the victor of that bout gets a shot at Wlad.Sounds truly good to my ears.
Anyway! I cant really see any fighter out there who poses a big threat to Wlad.Povetkin is probably the best of the bunch out there.He may be able to make it closer in a rematch,but I cant still see him beating Wlad.
I am not sold on Wilders at all,and neither am I sold on Fury.Both are no matches for Wlad.

 

I think, given the circumstances, nobody could be too upset with Povetkin getting a rematch. Without jumping through any hoops. Like, at this very moment. What have the others done like kayoing Charr & Takam? He is more than "stabilized" from his fall by now (a fall that really shouldn't have been all that precipitous anyway, taking everything into account)

Hell, everybody seemed to murmur assent when Thompson got a rematch that yes, technically, he made his way back to front of line and deserved the undesirable second crack more than just about everyone, despite the rematch having no intrigue whatsoever and going pretty much exactly how you would expect it to go based on the first go-round.

...whereas, Povetkin, on the other hand, "with a different ref"... :conf

Tenfold better than a Pulev rematch, which in turn is better than Klitschko vs. anybody left besides P1/P2.

 

Best case for the division would be Povetkin knocking him out in a rematch, setting up a trilogy before Klitschko retires, with either of two very favorable scenarios:

1. Klitschko with a clear and decisive victory in the rubber match, tilts it 2-1 his way in the rivalry and goes out smiling, legacy secure and leaving a lasting impression to stifle the cloud of doubt in the 1st encounter and even the stain of loss in the rematch. Then after he retires, Povetkin is still in the clearest position to inherit "The Manhood", with that Klitschko II victory the previous time.
2. Povetkin with a clear and decisive victory, meaning Klitschko is getting out while the getting is gettable without too much tarnish. Ideal for Povetkin, a trilogy win and two in a row over the previous "Man", pretty much locks him down as the automatic successor without needing do a thing else.

Klitschko versus anybody besides Povetkin is a waste of both theirs and the division's time.

 

Well spoken,mate! A better ref,1 victory more over a fighter who plays in Takam's dimension,and Povetkin vs Wlad will be the most intruiging fight at the big boys'league out there-at least for us true fight aficionados.

 

If organisations push for unifications that can only be a good thing.

 

My only thing, Mac, is that if you're going to call my viewpoint on Fury's h2h ability "extreme" you have to also realize that saying Klitschko vs. Povetkin was a "one-sided" fight or that Povetkin got "thrashed" (which brush you used to paint both him and Pulev...to me Pulev got thrashed, in a real fight. He was given every change, and failed outright. Povetkin, however, was given the octopus treatment and shaken around by a much larger man with a very forgiving referee, in what never really became a "real fight" the way Klitschko vs. Pulev was, by the champ's design and with the complicity of the officiating. The points disparity and the # of times Povetkin hit the canvas tell a different story on paper than what actually transpired, or what could have and was hinted at transpiring in those few moments Povetkin was able to get off bursts of work at mid-range without being caught on the end of Klitschko's push-jabs or rag-dolled on the inside...) is on the extreme side of things as well.

I'm not alone in my views on Fury (and I don't just mean the nationalistic jingo fools on this side, there are plenty of Brits who are very low on him and cringe at him being the country's top heavyweight for the mere technicality of Haye's absence) nor in my sense that Povetkin really did put a scare in Wlad and make him resort to utter negativity, because in a real fight, conducted fairly, it might have all gone to **** for Wlad. If that is even a minority viewpoint (and I'm not sure it even is) then a large minority. Calling it a one-sided thrashing is quite extreme.

 

If Valeuv fought Haye the way Wlad fought Povetkin , Haye would have lost every round. In fact he probably would have been stopped due to extreme exhaustion.
But we all saw what happened when Valeuv fought a clean fight where Haye wasn't restricted from boxing.

Wlad didn't box in that fight. He jumped on Povetkin with all his size till the clock ran out.
The fight should have been s****ped mid way through and an immediate rematch scheduled with a proper ref.
That fight would not have been allowed continue for longer than 3 rounds anywhere outside of Europe. It was a bogus result.