Is Tyson Fury a dirty fighter?

I'm not defending Fury. He is obviously one with the green light to fight as dirty as he wants. Every pro sport is rigged through officiating, i.e. what they let one side get away with. Now that organized crime/gambling is the biggest advertiser and owns a lot of the broadcasting networks in North America, it should be even more obvious.

 

"Under 34" = young, ok

So the Whyte win doesn't count even though he'd just turned 34, was 5th ranked (higher than everyone you mentioned besides Usyk and equal to Joyce now, who are both 35+ and thus not "young contenders") and had beaten Parker (who won't fight Fury because they are friends and Parker knows he'd have zero chance).

Wilder was ranked as the best or 2nd best heavyweight aside from Fury in all of their three fights in America, he's also the biggest puncher in the division and the longest reigning champion since Wlad. Those fights add vastly more to legacy than relative nonentities like Ruiz, Hrgovic and Sanchez, as well as being far more lucrative.

The Klitschko's regularly fought opponents who were either no better or worse than a washed up Chisora and neither Klitschko ever had a win as good as Fury-Wilder 2. Provided Chisora is a stay busy fight for Usyk next no one will care about this soft defence.

 

you are arguing with a complete clowns alt.

 

"The Klitschko's regularly fought opponents who were either no better or worse than a washed up Chisora"

You need to learn to read. I never said that the Klitschko's didn't beat anyone better than washed up Chisora, I said they regularly fought opponents who were either no better or even worse. Leapai, Mormeck, Pianeta, Sosnowski, Peter 2, Thompson 2, Briggs, Mercer, Rahman, Wach, Botha, Shufford, Jefferson, Williams, Charr, Solis, Austin, Ke Johnson, Ki Johnson etc.

Why "besides Wilder"? Three fights away against a long-reigning 6'7 KO artist champion are not equivalent to one fight with Wilder or three fights against lesser opponents like Ruiz, Sanchez and Hrgovic. Why is "under 34" relevant in an era where all of the best 4 heavyweights (Fury, Usyk, Wilder, Joyce) are 34+, if not 37+? Another completely arbitrary and irrelevant line. Whereas if I ask you "how many tall, athletic heavyweights did the Klitschko's fight?" you're only going to be listing guys who beat them.

 

Is the grass green? Is the sky blue? Is outer space dark?

 

Redbeard, Mendoza, you're both right about a few things.

Fury is a dirty fighter. That much is clear to anyone with a pair of eyes. Is he the most egregious or worst? Not even close. It is also a valid observation that sometimes he is either retaliating or simply operating in grey areas/doing whatever the ref overlooks (not that it makes it ok, but plenty of well loved fighters do that).

*On paper*, Wladmir, Wilder, and Whyte were good wins. I say on paper because Wladmir was a very dominant champion with a long reign, Wilder was a tall dangerous athletic puncher with several defenses, and Whyte was the #1 contender and a somewhat dangerous and game fighter. All 3 of course had numerous glaring flaws if you know the context. Wladmir looked awful in his fight with Fury and was pushing 40. Wilder didn't bring much to the table besides raw power and a few unorthodox tricks. Whyte was basically the shiniest turd in a fairly mediocre division and had to rematch an old, post illness Povetkin after Povetkin brutally KOd him in order to maintain his #1 ranking.

Mendoza is 100% right in pointing out there are numerous contenders/champions Fury somehow has missed for several years now. Joyce, Parker, Ruiz, Hrgovic, Anderson, Ortiz, Povetkin, Joshua, etc. The most glaring miss is obviously Usyk. Historians will not be kind to Fury if he doesn't face at least a few of these names. Fury acts as if he's already a living legend when his current resume honestly isn't much better than someone like Riddick Bowe or Max Baer.

Redbeard is right in pointing out Whyte isn't that old at 34 in the current era given that most of the top guys are in their mid to late 30's nowadays. It's a different time.

Wladmir has definitely beat opponents better than and old Chisora. That's a pretty funny take. Even some of the biggest Klitschko detractors would admit wins over Byrd, Haye, Povetkin, etc are higher than freaking Chisora.

Redbeard is 100% right in pointing out both Klitschkos are not innocent angels when it comes to rough tactics or doping accusations. It would be incredibly naive or hypocritical to gloss over Vitali's confirmed doping in kickboxing and then pretend as if it's ludicrous to suggest he might have been on something as a boxer. Both brothers maintained incredible physiques well into their 40's and while this isn't proof, it does raise eye brows. Wladmir has done plenty of egregious things within the ring having been deducted points for excessive holding, shoving guys to the canvas, etc.


I suggest getting back to the topic at hand because it's clear you're not going to budge on some of these points. But you're both right and wrong about some of them.