Oleksandr Usyk vs Larry Holmes primes

You're shifting the goalposts. Your original point was that Fury never walked down a skilled fighter. Cunningham’s success at heavyweight is irrelevant because he was a skilled and successful cruiserweight. Unless you're suggesting that all his skill magically disappeared when he moved up to heavyweight, Fury has demonstrated that he can walk down skilled fighters, disproving your argument.

As for Norton, he didn’t stop fighters from coming forward because of his punches or power. Usyk stopped Fury from coming forward with his footwork and feints, tools that Norton hasn’t shown the same ability to utilize. Without those tools, there’s little evidence that Norton could prevent Fury from walking him down.

If Fury decided to box him, Norton might have some success, but I see no reason Fury wouldn’t just walk him down, given Norton’s history of struggling against fighters who applied pressure. Based on that, I believe Fury would finish Norton early, as others have done.

I disagree with your assessment that Norton is better simply because he "looked better" against Holmes. "Looking better" is highly subjective and depends heavily on the context of the fight. Norton matched up well stylistically against Holmes, a boxer-type, which is the style he historically excelled against. Meanwhile, Fury was facing a stylistic nightmare in Usyk, an elite mover and southpaw. Despite this, Fury was one of the only fighters to win consecutive rounds against Usyk and remained competitive throughout.

 

Of course it's relevant what ? If you're not historically a good Heavyweight then of course that matters are you for real ? What type of argument is that ? Cunningham wouldn't even be ranked in the top 100 Heavyweights of all time. And yet somehow you think Fury being floored and being behind on points vs an unremarkable Heavyweight in Cunningham is a good argument for Fury on how would match vs Norton ? Baffling.

Norton could wear down Fury with his underrated body punching and overhand right which has some wallop on it and Fury has been vulnerable to over hand rights he's been floored and caught a considerable amount of times with the same punch. Norton has way better cardio levels than Fury and showed considerably better than stamina than Fury in any of his fights vs Usyk hence its very possible Norton could come on late vs Fury and win a decision.

Fury is a boxer-type though what ? You just seem to disagree with everything to keep a discussion going......

Fury had massive size advantage over a 37 year old opponent and got outboxed and clearly beaten twice whilst being on the verge of being stopped in one of the fights.

Norton fought an equally sized ATG Heavyweight in his prime and fought on even terms with him.

Norton's performance against Holmes is considerably better than Fury's performance against Usyk especially taking into account Holmes was in his prime.

Nortons form was also considerably better than Fury's recent form who only has 1 notable win in 4 years over a shopworn Whyte and arguably lost to an MMA fighter.

So yes I do think Norton was a better fighter than Fury based on his recent form and their respected performances in their fights vs Usyk, Holmes.

Honestly I'm done with this conversation you honestly get on my nerves you just disagree with everything I say and find any little excuse to keep harping on you're so argumentative it's unreal. No wonder you clash with pretty everyone here and have so many long winded conversations that go nowhere in future don't bother interacting with me.

 

Cunningham’s lack of success at heavyweight doesn’t mean he wasn’t a skilled fighter. His cruiserweight accomplishments and technical ability didn’t just disappear when he moved up in weight. Fury walking Cunningham down shows that he can apply that approach against a skilled opponent, even if Cunningham wasn’t a top-tier heavyweight historically. I’m not arguing Cunningham is a great heavyweight just that his skill level was relevant to the discussion because it shows Fury can walk down a skilled smaller fighter not just someone like Wilder.

As for Norton wearing Fury down, I think that assumes Norton could deal with Fury’s size, strength, and durability. Fury’s vulnerability to overhand rights exists, but he’s always recovered, even against much bigger punchers than Norton. Meanwhile, Norton has struggled against physically imposing fighters who pressured him, which is exactly how Fury would approach the fight. You haven't really given any solid reasons for how Norton will magically be able to deal with someone who has a style that he has always struggled with and can impose on him.

Regarding Fury’s performance against Usyk, Usyk is a stylistic nightmare for any boxer due to his footwork and speed. Fury being competitive and taking multiple rounds is significant and Usyk himself said it was his hardest fight so i think that shows it was a good performance from Fury overall despite him losing. Comparing that to Norton’s fight with Holmes, where Holmes’s style played to Norton strengths, is apples to oranges.

Lastly, Fury’s résumé at heavyweight is deeper than you suggest. He has wins over Klitschko, Wilder (three times), Whyte, and Chisora, all of whom were ranked in their respective eras. Norton’s résumé is more limited, with much of his legacy tied to the trilogy with Ali and the Holmes fight. That doesn’t mean Norton wasn’t a good, but it does mean Fury’s proven himself against a wider range of styles and opponents.

I also want to address your claim that I’m being argumentative for the sake of it. Throughout this discussion, I’ve been debating in good faith and giving detailed, logical arguments to support why I hold my opinions. Disagreeing on subjective topics doesn’t mean someone is arguing just to argue especially when they give logical reasons for why they believe what they do. Claiming otherwise is disrespectful and dismissive, especially when I’ve taken the time to engage thoughtfully. If you feel this conversation has run its course, that’s fine, but I’d ask you not to resort to name-calling or assumptions about my intent.

Thanks for the discussion, and I’ll leave it there let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

I see Norton winning a close but clear decision over Fury (perhaps scoring a kd along the way).

I'm not entirely sure Ken was an overall better fighter than Fury, but he hit harder and was way more conscious of going to the body.