Kone

If you're just hurling insults now, I think we've reached the end.

 

And Walcott was much easier to beat. He lost 20 times.

 

What insults? Wilder looked better against Breazeale because he was much worse than Fury. Nothing more or nothing less.

 

At least he was active, Fury came off 3 years break from pro boxing.

 

I guess that Ali is also easier to beat than Fury, right?

 

If you think Tyson Fury - who was nine inches taller, 60 pounds heavier, has a foot in reach, was eight years younger and is arguably faster and more slick than Walcott -- is easier to beat than Jersey Joe Walcott (who lost 20 times) ... then we have nothing to talk about.

Not only do I think you have ZERO argument, I totally dismiss it.

There is nothing you can say to convince me Tyson Fury is easier to beat than Walcott was. Walcott lost A LOT (to bad fighters, average fighters, great fighters) up and down his career.

I'll argue a lot of things and a lot of topics, but Fury being easier to beat than Walcott isn't worth the time or effort.

Fury is not easier to beat than Walcott.

Have a good day.

 

Ali was considered a great fighter throughout his entire career as a pro.

Walcott wasn't considered a great fighter at any point in his pro career. Ever. I'm not being mean. He wasn't.

He was the Buster Douglas of his era. Walcott scored a one-punch, once-in-a-lifetime KO win to take the title from Charles. Most thought he lost the other three fights with Charles.

Revisionists viewed Walcott in a better light after Marciano went undefeated. If Tyson had finished stronger, Buster might get more love, too.

And since you went from insults to just being stupid, I'm done talking to you.

 

I actually agree that Fury can be tougher to beat than Walcott, but Fury wasn't at his best against Wilder and Wilder didn't actually beat him.

Completely irrelevant, but Walcott was definitely more slick than Fury.

 

Show me insults I wrote. It's you who called me stupid, not the other way around.

 

Walcott beat quite many contenders though and he definitely beat Charles two times.

 

6 of his losses were to champions

10 were in or before 1940.

He wasn't a full time boxer for much of a career, he had to take fights on short notice and fight through injuries. He had to work other jobs. His record in the years prior to fighting Rocky was that of a World class fighter.

Also, by the numbers McFarland is better than Pacman, and there's not even an argument. Agree with the implication?

 

I agree. But Ortiz is more of a Cleveland Williams of his era. The only top guy that was willing to fight Williams was Liston. Wilder was the only champion willing to fight Ortiz (even tho he didn't have to). Wilder was willing to fight Povetkin. Povetkin pissed green. Ortiz doesn't have a great resume but he's been one of the best HWs for the last 5 years. And he has only lost once. Ortiz destroyed Jennings and Thompson. And he gave Wilder a tough tough fight. You have to be an elite fighter to do that. Eddie Machen has some quality wins but he also lost most of his fights against elite opposition. Machen couldn't beat Folley and Williams. He lost to the LHW Harold Johnson. He was KO'd in the first round by Ingo. He also lost to Liston and Patterson (the best HWs of that era). He was a great contender and so is Ortiz. I'm talking about skillset here. Ortiz's resume isn't as good as Machen's.

 

Then we agree, I'm actually quite high on Ortis and I hope he'll beat Wilder im rematch (though with his age it's unlikely).

My point is that Ortis is his far and away best win. ATG fighters have plenty of wins like that. Wilder doesn't, maybe he will but I can't assume that today.

 

Yeah and that's the point of this debate. His legacy is very weak so far, but he can improve it. Winning Ortis and Fury would make him look much better, but why should we assume that he'll win all of them?