If counting cruiserweight as heavyweight. who has better resume: Usyk or Holmes?

Explain how Furys failure to fight virtually every top fighter of his era suddenly becomes a non issue when assessing how good he was. How can anyone beat him if he won't fight them to begin with?
Your being ridiculous.

What would someone have to do to suggest they were better than Fury given he won't fight them? Outperform him against common opponents? People have already done that. Joshua beat Wallin and Ngannou more decisively than Fury and was then bombed out by Dubois.

There's an excellent argument for Dubois being better than the faded 2024 version of Fury and I'm far from alone in believing it.

 

Sure but I think you can judge a fighter based on how they looked in the fight rather then looking at their form after and assuming that it was the same fighter like I think both Fury and Joshua proved they were strong opponents in their fights against Usyk

 

Retrospective analysis only goes so far. For example, MikeTyson made a lot of opponents look horrible and then they had layoffs and fizzled out after because there weren’t a lot of fights for them to take for good money.

Another one is Andy Ruiz. He was at the same level as Parker, but ruined his career by being a fat slob and having long layoffs after Joshua whereas Parker regrouped and is still a top contender. And the funny part is that Ruiz made more money by being a fat slob until Parker got on the good side of Turki.

 

So, I've been critical of Fury's choices for a long time, but "failure yo fight virtually every top fighter of his era" is really going off the deep end.

To start with, he has fought the two fighters that will go down as the greatest during his time as a pro: Wlad and Usyk. As for top fighters he missed during these years, we're pretty much down to Joshua and Povetkin and he did sign to fight Joshua, but the court ruling in favour of Wilder regarding a rubber came in the way.

You could argue that Parker also belong in the conversation of top fighters but between losing to Joshua in 2017 and beating Wilder in 2023, he wasn't regarded as much of a threat. Certainly not after being bulldozed by Joyce.

So I would absolutely liked to see Fury against better opp and am frustrated by how little risk he was prepared to take if there wasn't a title on the line (Chisora remains his best opponent in a non-title fight) and even then he would take the path of least resistance, choosing Wilder instead of Joshua in 2018 and avoiding undisputed with Usyk for two years.

But let's not rewrite history. Wlad was the top fighter when Fury fought him and aside from Joshua there wasn't anyone clearly better than Wilder and Whyte 2018-2023. You could always argue Povetkin, but he was on his way out when Fury returned in 2018. Did sleep Whyte and could still have been better than Wilder tbf, but in the end he was the rapidly ageing left over from Joshua.

The value of the Fury wins will probably never be a closed debate, though. On the one hand, Fury sleepwalked through easily defeating Whyte and Chisora in 2022, but his only fight in the 18 months pre Usyk 1 was a close win over a friggin MMA fighter. That's a fact we can't get away from.

I lean towards thinking that was a freak occurrence, and aside from aesthetics the Fury of the Usyk fights looked good to me. But you can't get away from the fact that he hadn't looked useful for quite a while going into the Usyk fights.

 

Joshua wasn’t clearly better than Wilder.

 

Neither were an out of shape Ruiz or a badly faded Pulev though. How did he looked regressed vs Wallin and Ngannou relative to those fights?

Fighters can regress after a loss but with AJ he didn't seem to lose his confidence, he didn't turn to drugs and he didn't get badly out of shape. He was also still relatively young and seemingly in his physical prime so in this instance I think the evidence points to them being similar versions. But I'll try to keep an open mind.

 

They were better fighters then Wallin and Ngannou

He didn't but both of these fighters didn't challenge him they pretty much just let him do his usual thing without any opposition, the one fighter who did somewhat challenge him during that time period was Franklin and he looked awful against him

 

A-I'm not going to treat it that way because theres no evidence to support that. I told you I'd treat Usyks CW feats with relevance if those guys proved themselves at HW like prior gens of LHWs did and later generations didn't. Thats not an agenda and even if I don't like tweeners and have an agenda I'm being fair. I consider CW to be a B league of HW and Usyks competition haven't proven me wrong. In the historical conversation CW wasn't a weight class for most of boxing history and this is thus deeply relevant to comps.

While the division might be nominally based on weight guys who can compete at HW don't go to CW unless they are confident they can be the champ and theres only going to be one or two of those guys. Gassiev was ranked 10th at HW once and he was never a contender(someone who fought for title). I'm giving Usyk credit for beating him that the win is worth. You want to give Usyk the credit for beating someone ranked like 2nd in the HW B leagues which in past times would just be a decent HW win. In an ATG conversation the fact CW used to be HW is deeply relevant. I didn't say Gassiev and co are bums or even irelevant HWs they aren't what they are presented as at HW any more than a BW would be.

B-Chisora is a EBU and Commonwealth champion who loses most of his fights at the international level. Dunn is a EBU and Commonwealth champion who loses most of his fights at the international level. Chisora had 9 losses when Usyk fought him. Dunn had 9 losses when Ali fought him. Its an amazing comparison. The main difference is Chisora gets more oppurtunitys. Hes fighting in a lighter era while Dunn was fighting in the 70s this makes sense. Chisora didn't deserve the Fury title shot.

The US dominated boxing in a way the British aren't now even if they are the best boxing nation. The US had almost every champ for like 60 years. If all the top fighters were all British this wouldn't matter. They aren't. Also Ali and Holmes fought 9 and 4 non Americans for the title. They gave the best fighters from the Commonwealth countrys and Europe their shot.

C-Shavers was fighting in the 70s and has wins over Norton, Jimmy Young, Bugner and Jimmy Ellis. Chisoras best win of his career was his recent win over Wallin. Before that his top wins were Pulev, Takam and undefeated Malik Scott. Shavers was on a higher level in a better era. Maybe he is overrated. Doesn't really matter Chisoras not in that sort of air or he shouldn't be.

Chisoras arguably Vitalis best title opponents from his 2nd reign but that was a terrible reign. "He fought Vitali Klitschko for the title". So did Kevin Johnson. That reign was awful.

Norton, Evangelista, Ocasio, Weaver, Shavers,Zanon, Leroy Jones, Ali, Berbick, Leon Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Lucien Rodriguez, Witherspoon, Frazier, Bonecrusher, Bey, Carl Williams. Thats 18, Spinks would bring it to 20 as would the guys I left out who you could argue are better than Chisora. Scott Frank for all you poop on him was undefeated. LeDoux drew Norton and lost a split decision to Lyle. Cobb almost beat Norton too. Those are just debatable.

Given the history of the era Fury and Joshua being the best HWs is unclear especially in the 20s. Fury sat out 3 years and the best guys he fought from this era were Wilder, Wallin and Whyte. AJ mainly fought guys from the past era except Parker and Ruiz who he lost to when he was in shape. Now he got destroyed by Dubois. You know Kabayel didn't come out of nowhere right hes been waiting since 2016? Zhang was there the whole time. Whose to say Hrgovic hasn't been better? Whose to say Frank Sanchez couldn't beat them? They haven't proven it. Most champs who are around as long as those guys have done a better job proving it. If champs do not prove they are the best in a certain time period thats on them.

Tbf Holmes in the final years of his reign might not have been the best HW either but he was at least fighting new undefeated contenders even if he didn't get to everyone and in hindsight didn't get to the best ones at the end. Fury/AJ/Usyk weren't fighting from among the top contenders and picking the wrong ones they were fighting old guys from Wlads era, doing rematches and fighting common opponents. A champs job is to filter through the division like Wlad did most recently. This generation made an utter mockery of that duty. To an extent Usyk inherited that situation but he has not departed from that.

D-He lost as many rounds as Usyk did in a much larger period of time fighting more rounds. He was not losing rounds at close to the clip Usyk was no. Holmes had 4 closhish fights in 21 title fights before Spinks. Snipes he lost 3 of 15 rounds in a 5th contest. Usyk has dropped 4+ rounds in all his fights against HW contenders except Dubois where he had the foul. I am not being inconsistant because these two things are not the same. Ali in the 70s its close but he was fighting 15 rounds and it was the 70s. And Ali took out his easier opponents easy the whole way through its just close through a certain stretch.

The Dubois thing is complicated because of the foul and Dubois being younger. Like I said it has the potential to age well and to an extent already has. But thats actually both Usyks most controversial and best win. The jury is out on the whole thing to a degree.

In terms of AJ I and Fury II the cards have him losing 4 in both of those. While Fury I wasn't controversial if Usyk hadn't scored an uncharacteristic knockdown on a huge opponent he might have lost. Fury also took some rounds off. I and many expected Usyk to almost shut Fury out. People were not expecting Fury to manhandle Usyk because of his size they expected him to get embarassed.

 

I would classify what you just did in the post I'm quoting as retrospective as well. You're factoring in the entire historical context before and after; not just what people thought before the fights.

 

Fine, but I’ve also been following boxing long enough to know that guys who get picked to beat the hated fighter are commonly turned into shot, weightdrained, or otherwise limited fighters after losing.

 

That's true. So don't do that, and your retrospective analysis should be fine.

It might even put things into better perspective. For example, retrospective analysis suggests that your bête noire, Foreman, was never the best fighter in the world...

 

A. Your whole take’s idiotic—judging CW fighters by HW success is unheard of in boxing. You don’t rate light heavyweights by how they do at HW, or middleweights at light heavy—that’s brain-dead logic. Weight classes exist for a reason: to evaluate fighters where they compete, not where they don’t. Usyk was king of the deepest CW division ever—unified it at 200 lbs against Gassiev (undefeated champ), Briedis (HW winner over Perez), Glowacki (prime titlist). These guys weren’t “B league” scrubs; they were elite at CW, and Usyk smoked them all. Your “prove it at HW” rule’s a made-up hurdle—P4P counts mastery where they fight, and Usyk’s two-division run (CW + Fury, Joshua at HW) buries Holmes’ HW-only run. Historically, CW wasn’t separate? Cool, old HWs were 180 lbs—Usyk’s CW gauntlet was bigger and tougher than that. Quit with the HW-or-bust cope—it’s legitimately one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on these fourms.

B. Chisora’s a world-class contender—gave Fury, Klitschko, Parker, Whyte tough fights, arguably robbed in a few (Pulev, Whyte 1, Helenius), and still competes at 40 with insane wear. Dunn? A journeyman at best—dominated by every decent fighter he faced, like. Saying they’re the same because of EBU belts and 9 losses is laughable—Chisora’s fought the division’s best; Dunn was a 1970s punching bag. Two dumb takes in a row—your credibility’s tanking. Usyk’s beating the era’s top dogs (Fury, Joshua, Dubois), just like Ali and Holmes did—singling him out for Brits while Ali and Holmes mostly fought Americans is hypocritical nonsense. Its also ignoring Usyk’s CW run where he beat Gassiev (Russia), Briedis (Latvia), Glowacki (Poland)—all in their backyards, something Holmes never dared. Nationality whining’s a bust

C: Shavers only KO’d old, washed-up guys—Norton (past prime, glass chin), Young (faded), Bugner (done), Ellis (shot)—and got smoked by any decent fighter he faced, like Holmes and Quarry. Limited as hell, just a big puncher with no depth. Chisora? Actual skill—footwork, grit, combos—competitive with prime fighters like Fury, Klitschko, Parker. Your problem’s obvious: you skim wikis and records instead of watching fights, and that’s why your takes are idiotic. Chisora’s shown more versatility and heart than Shavers ever dreamed of—watch his actual fights not just his loss column. Without a doubt a better fighter, period. Your 18+ list? Norton, Weaver, Cooney—sure, solid. But Leroy Jones (who?), Evangelista (journeyman), Parkinson’s Ali (seriously?)—half those guys were bums with no high-level success. Chisora’s got a stronger resume then most of those. Another idiotic take, how many we at now, three?

Criticizing Usyk for fighting the champs instead of random unproven at the time guys like Kabayel or Zhang, just because you rank them now, is another idiotic take. Pure revisionist history—no one back then said he should skip the champs they all wanted to see him be undisputed and now that he is clowns like you make excuses after the fact to discredit him. How many dumb takes we at now, four?

D: Here’s the difference, Usyk’s not padding rounds against bums; every win’s against top fighters. When you’re always facing the best, you drop more rounds than a guy mixing in scrubs. Holmes lost plenty to elites: 6-7 to Norton, 5-6 to Witherspoon, 6-7 to Williams, 8-9 each to Spinks (both losses), plus Cooney took 4-5 before gassing. He got rocked too, KD’d by Weaver, Snipes, Shavers. Usyk? 3 max vs. Chisora, 3 max vs. Joshua 1, 4-5 vs. Joshua 2, zero vs. Dubois, 4-5 vs. Fury 1, 3-4 vs. Fury 2—never KD’d once. Run the math: Usyk’s losing fewer rounds per fight against tougher comp. Usyk’s 6 HW fights are all killers. If anything, Usyk wins more against the best. And Fury 1? “Supposed to shut him out” is delusional—most saw it 50/50, plenty picked Fury’s size to win. Usyk overcoming that proves his greatness—framing him as the favorite’s revisionist BS, another idiotic take. What’s that, five now? You might have set the record for amount of idiotic takes in a single post.

 

If Holyfield's cruiserweight fights were included along with his heavyweight as one class I wonder were people would rate him by the same logic.

 

Cruiserweight wasn't a good division in the 80s. The first win over Qawi is his only really good win there. De Leon is okay.

The division also had a 190 pound limit back then and a lot of the heavyweights he fought were the size of current cruiserweights after rehydrating.

 

I agree it was better and a more developed division when Uysk was at cruiserweight.