No drug testing at all and easy access to legal PEDs. No competition from the Eastern Europeans. The only real "competition" would be from the U.S., no serious contenders from other countries. Much smaller opposition. I can't think of a negative for Fury. The 70s should be great for Fury.
I think he is conditioning has been pretty consistent outside of a couple comeback fights. Not sure exactly what would be disallowed in his training, although he’d have an easier time getting away with steroids back then.
Frazier is too small to beat Fury. 70s Ali didn't quite have the same speed and reflexes, so I doubt he can ever beat Fury. Foreman was slow, Fury would outbox him with ease. Nobody else stands a chance, Fury beats them all.
The PEDs not being as fine tuned? Does that mean that they were just easier to detect? No testing in the 70s anyway! As long as the PEDs make the fighter stronger and leaner, make a fighter recover quicker, etc., the PEDs available should be good. I don't know a lot about PEDs, but I would think that increased testosterone is increased testosterone, if there is no "testing" to get around, the sky is the limit. Better access to PEDs, less competition globally, smaller fighters, everything would be in favor of Fury in the 70s.
I'm not an expert either,but I think there are potential problems at using them long-term. Fury already had problems outside the ring in his career, now you'd like him into cocaine era? That could be bad for him. Skill-wise, he would compete with the best. I don't see anything impressive with his last fight though, it was poor performance from Whyte and minimal effort from Fury.
Alzado’s cancer was never proven to be linked to steroids. The stuff Whyte tested positive for, dianabol, was around back then.
Mike Tyson is far superior to Frazier. And as great as a prime Tyson was, I don't know if he could beat Fury, given the huge disparity in size.
Very well stated, though I don't think George's defense was that poor mind you, and I have a hard time seeing Fury backing up Foreman. I simply have doubts as to what Fury would do when he's against the ropes, plus Foreman has a sledgehammer jab. Maybe it's because I keep see that overhand right from Cunningham that dropped Fury. If I had to give one reason why Fury could beat a young Foreman it'd be what Emanual Steward said, "Tyson Fury has a mental toughness."
Fury for me still hasn't beaten a very skilled Heavyweight, I'd like to see how he does against Usyk, before I have any say on these mythical match ups in the 70s
I mightily criticized Fury for getting dropped by Cunningham too. It was that performance that made me believe that any ranked heavyweight would have beaten him. Hindsight has proven me drastically wrong and looking back I think that was the result of a cocky prospect being complacent rather than any significant weakness
I don't think he does well at all in the 70's, just too much skill around in those days. I'll take the more skillful fighter over the larger one every day of the week!
I'm after one or two more performances to really nail him down as well. Usyk and Joshua would be utterly ideal but i'd settle for either if need be. I'm still not convinced on Wilder given his lack of quality wins over true contenders. A win for him too over Usyk or Joshua would go a long way toward defining him. One thing Fury did show against Wilder tho was the ability to take big punches and come right back and win. He also showed great adaptability in the way he completely changed tact in the second fight, went after Wilder and wiped the floor with him as if he were a journeyman. He's a superb heavyweight, no if's and buts. That one extra bout would really dial him in i think. I mean if he outboxes Usyk to a comfortable decision win that's a real legacy boost. Having a relatively easy time with Joshua would also be impressive.