My take is Fury is one level bellow the best guys from previous era , but two levels above everybody from the post Lewis era. An exceptional boxer that would cut it in any era really. I reckon he beats any Wlad and Wlad was nowhere near a shell of himself. The Wlad who was scared to move in on Iggy? Gets beat by Fury. Wlad that refused to move in on Haye? Gets beat by Fury Wlad who went life and death with Peters? Gets beat by Fury. The Wlad who had just beaten the #1 and #2 in the division?? Got beaten by Fury.
Yes, I'd bet on Fury to win a trilogy. Had the Norton fights not actually happened, I'm sure Ali would be picked unanimously on this board to dominate and KO Ken, too.
I'm not suggesting it. That's too weak. I'm saying that, yes, Tyson Fury would beat Ali. No need to water it down.
We going to keep pretending like guys who aren't supposed to win don't? In boxing? And I'm the crazy one? At least you can say Duran didn't lose to someone worse than Linares (depending on how one rates Dejesus) if you want to play that game, but Ali and Foreman both lost to lesser fighters than Fury.
Ali and Young. And a slew of other young Foreman fights. Which big, fast, skilled, conditioned boxer did young George beat?
And yet you never pick Wlad to lose to past timers despite him losing to Fury who you predicted would be easily stopped. Your logic only goes one way.
I just like busting chops. Golota could've upset him. I knew Fury was dangerous. Foreman's the best bet of the old guys- wouldn't touch that fight with a 10 foot pole.
Ali was so many levels superior to Fury it's truly laughable. Never has a more amateurish fighter won the hwt championship.
How do you define fast? He never beat anyone with the hand speed of Ali, never. But Norton, Frazier and Moorer were all faster than Fury. I don't think you're trolling though so I'm ok with your opinion. He did struggle with fighters who fought him at range so Fury has the right style to trouble him. But does Fury have fast enough feet to keep away.