I don't feel Fury has beaten enough quality opposition to think he'd do anything but get run over by prime Tyson, Foreman. And I don't see him getting past Liston, Holmes, Ali, Holyfield either. Frazier would chop him down...being that Fury isn't exactly a great puncher, I could even see Norton SD him. He has a good chance of beating guys like pre-Steward Lewis, post-Holy I Bowe, Witherspoon, Weaver, Patterson, Johnson...maybe Dempsey (not positive on that one). I'm positive both prime Wlad and Vitali would give him a lot of trouble. But that's just me.
Here is the deal with Fury: His opposition going into his title fight with Wlad, was very weak. I totally failed to see him coming, and did not expect him to beat Wlad. Historians might note, that the Jennings fight, suggested that Wlad was ripe for the taking. I consider Fury to have won the first fight with Wilder, in all but name, and I can't argue about the second. How good Wilder will look on Boxrec in 100 years, is hard to say?
I keep thinking of prime Foreman with the overhand right, plus Spinks-era Tyson. I'm not sure Fury would last 3 against those guys. If he got knocked nearly unconscious by Deontay, George and Iron Mike (far better finishers)....
Many people point to the Baer fight, as the one where Louis looked his absolute best. The Schmeling fight was his 26th, 3 fights after he crushed Baer... so how was he not in his prime by then? As you very well know, we can't compare fighters the way you do here (at the same stage, time-wise, of their respective careers). As we all know, Louis rocketed to the top of the heavyweight division in record time, and therefore reached his peak unusually early. Lomachenko probably reached his scintillating best already after 5-6 pro bouts, but if we want to compare him to featherweight greats from the past, we look at their prime versions - not how good they were after a handful of fights. And that clip where Fury punches himself in the face - do you really think that is representative of his ability?
What other fighter in history was, at that stage of there career? Name one? Obviously not Fury, or even his namesake really! Either way, Tyson Fury was not even at British level at this stage!
I agree, Louis was prime in Schmeling fight. Not at his absolute best, but clearly prime. It doesn't change anything though, because Fury looked far from amazing in some of his prime fights.
What has Fury's career got to do with when Louis was prime? If Louis had crushed Schmeling like he had Baer and Carnera earlier, you would probably say, that Louis' prime stretched from the Baer fight to WW2. But because Louis lost to the German, he was suddenly not prime after all - after having looked his best ever against Baer 9 months before! Doesn't make much sense to me.
Louis crushes fury. Fury struggled in the first Wilder fight to repeatedly capitalize on Wilder's miscues because he wasnt very good at turning his defense into offense. Could of been ring rust. In second bout he attacked and really exposed Wilder as a fraud. He has a dull 12 round win over Wlad. Very good win, but not great Wlad was 39 and Fury didn't even give rematch. That's simply not enough to pick over Louis. He destroyed too many men and Fury has looked too beatable against guys like Wallin, and Cunningham.
This what makes Fury (and for that matter Canelo) so hard to evaluate exactly how good of a boxer he is h2h. Before the wilder fights, everyone insisted wilder was a 1 trick pony no skill having slugger who was overly reliant on his right hand. That he had a weak chin and would lose when be stepped up. Well, ironically, Fury did expose his complete lack of ring IQ and while he may not be glass jawed, he certainly isnt the most durable guy getting stopped by Fury who has zero elite KO wins. Now all of a sudden people are back peddling and saying Wilder is a great win while continuing to try and have it both ways and call him a 1 dimensional fighter. Similarly, a lot of people wrote Fury off before the Klitschko fight. Fury won, but just barely in one of the most boring title fights in history. Klitschko was a gunshy 40 year old man who had been brutally stopped multiple times and Fury couldn't put a dent in him. But since Fury beat him and Klitschko managed to go out on his shield against Joshua in a thrilling war, all of a sudden thr Fury vs Klitschko bout has "aged well" even though in reality it wasn't much different from Patterson taking out an aging Moore, Marciano beating Louis, Tyson beating an aging old Holmes, etc. Changing of the guard/New generation type of fight without much resistance. So other than the 1 dimensional Wilder who has a resume that's 90% bums and a gunshy 40 year old man, Fury has a very thin resume with not much else other than Chisora, Wallin, Cunningham etc who are all mostly European/C level fighters if we're being completely honest. Yes Fury has impressive dimensions and athleticism for his size, but part of being able to tell how good a fighter truly is would be looking at their actual fights and the quality of the people they beat. We don't truly know how goodd Fury is and outside of being dropped badly by Wilder, he hasn't truly been tested. How he'd do with someone people consider a top 5 ATG is mystery until he faces more people in his own era. I think Janitor made a good point about the Anthony Joshua hype train getting derailed by Gabriel Iglesias, I mean, Andy Ruiz. Until a fighter's career is over or nearly over we shouldn't be quick to label them as h2h monsters. For all we know, Pulev could brutally knockout Joshua or Wilder gets his revenge and demolishes Fury in the 1st round. Both scenarios aren't the likeliest to happen but they are far from unrealistic or impossible. It's just like when a new star athlete shows up in basketall or football and people pick a 19 year old prospect with zero conference final wins, let alone finals wins to beat hall of fame teams. By old school standards Fury's resume is so thin he'd still be considered a prospect.
It was asked how Fury would have done against certain Louis opponents, and I think that you have to factor in the circumstances of the fights, when making that assessment. If Louis had crushed Schmeling, then there would be nothing to suggest that he was not in his prime, apart from the fact that he had turned professional less than two years ago. While Louis might have been in his physical prime when he beat Max Baer, it is inescapable that he gained a lot of ring experience after that. He did make some technical improvements, such as shortening his punchers. Louis himself thought that he peaked in his mid twenties, for whatever that is worth.