Is Fury top 10 heavyweight atg if he beats Usyk in december

You said below

So I asked
If you would say Douglas surpassed Mike Tyson historically as he beat Tyson
You asked if I was comparing Fury to Douglas which I am not
I am asking a straight question which you seem to be ducking like many other times I ask you questions
It's a straight question
As for odd comparisons. May be, may not.
Both defeated a unified champion. Douglas lost in his first defence and Fury didn't defend.
So back to the question
Would you say Douglas surpassed Mike Tyson historically as he beat Tyson?
Straight yes or no and then we can look into how you feel Fury has surpassed Wladimir.
I'm not looking to pick you apart, just trying to understand your thought process, which is not a criticism

 

The answer is no. Tyson Fury didn't proceed to lose until a few months ago and was lineal champion up until that point. Buster Douglas lost his next fight.

That's why it's an odd comparison and why I asked you if you thought Buster Douglas was somehow equal to Tyson Fury. It's not ducking the question.

 

As I said Wilder has a losing record against ranked fighters he also has limited boxing ability and fought mostly poor opposition. So its not logical to think Wilder runs through that list of opposition when they're better than pretty much 98 percent of Wilders resume.

I'm not saying Douglas is better than Fury but their best wins are certainly comparable are names like Chisora, Whyte, better than the likes of Page ? Berbick ?

Is beating a past it Wladimir and beating Wilder really better names than Tyson and McCall ? McCall has a better resume than Wilder.

 

So you agree it's debatable in your first sentence, then proceed to say it's not.

Rather than splitting hairs I think we'll leave it there.

 

It's heavyweight. You don't need to be a technical genius to land a power shot which is why up until his last two opponents Wilder has successfully knocked down or out every opponent he has ever faced, including his best opponent.

And again, you can't compare these eras with certainty. It's all subjective. Yes Wilder may have struggled back then, or he could have ran through 90% of the division in his prime. It's pointless speculation as you can only fight people in your era.

 

He didn't lose until recently, but he was out for 2.5 years and pulled out of the Klitschko rematch, where he wasn't a clear favorite. Buster fought the number 1 rated contender his next fight, where he was an underdog.

 

And Fury came back from retirement to win the WBC, retained the lineal championship and only lost for the first time in May. What's your point?

 

Your point was flawed. And still, since you yourself confirm that if someone win the belts off the other guy alone doesn't put the former above the latter in all time rankings, there's still no argument for Fury being ranked above Wlad.

 

So you're suggesting Wilder could 1 shot names like Tyson, Holmes, Tucker, Witherspoon, when his best wins are Stirverne and Ortiz who was an old man and when Wilder has a losing record against ranked opponents ? It seems like to me you're being intellectually dishonest to make Wilder look better because you're a Fury fan that's poor form from you quite honestly.

You know damn well Wilder beat very limited opposition for the most part and all of those names I mentioned would be significantly better than 98 percent of Wilders resume.

So again you have no rebuttal in regards to Whyte, Chisora, old Wladimir, Wilder, not being better names than Page, Berbick, McCall, Tyson, good to know.

 

Wilder would not of fought the likes of Page, Berbick, McCall, Tucker, in a such short space of time Wilder would not beat Tyson and he certainly wouldn't of beaten Holyfield in 1990.

Fury went on a 3 year hiatus after beating Wladimir and didn't have to fight a prime Holyfield.

 

I'm not claiming any would beat any. Stop trying to force your arguments on me. I'm pointing out the redundancy of fantasy match ups from different eras. Wilder wouldn't have fought those fighters because he wasn't even boxing in their era, and they wouldn't fight him in his era because they're either retired or dead.

Now to avoid further confusion my stance on whether Fury can become an ATG is yes. But he has more work to do first.

 

Now your switching goalposts. I was replying to your mention of Buster Douglas pointing out he didn't proceed to do anything of note after pulling off one upset.

Fury won the lineal championship, all of Wlads belts and took Wilders belt while remaining undefeated up until facing Usyk who will potentially be an ATG himself. If you can't understand the difference we can leave it here. It's also worth noting Fury has more time to potentially become undisputed as well.

 

Wilder did very little in his own era. Why are we speculating on how he does in other eras when he didn't beat the talent available in his own era? Look who he beat relative to who was available

 

Its easier to stay undefeated when you avoid most of your biggest potential threats

 

I don't disagree. With the exception of the tail end of his career and Fury he didn't really get his toes wet. I still think comparing how X fighter would do in Y era is still a waste of time though.

True. Sadly that's not exclusive to the heavyweight division or even this era. I blame the sanctioning bodies and promoters egos for the most part.