Tyson Fury, a note of caution from history

When Fury got his eye badly cut and took 12 rounds to beat no name Wallin, everyone was calling him a bum.

 

Undoubtedly a h2h monster.

As for his all time ranking in the sense of how dominant was he in his era versus the all time greats, he certainly has a chance if he fights and beats Joshua w/o anything going wrong, even with a thin resume of top ten fighters. Beating the best available would be considered more noteworthy than beating a raft of pretty good men.

Where would a fighter rate historically who only beat two "rated" (if they had had ratings then) heavyweights in the 1903-1910 era, but those two heavyweights were Jeffries and Johnson, while also managing never to lose to any lesser light?

Or in the twenties if the only two name fighters he beat were Dempsey and Tunney while going undefeated?

The pivot fight for all time historical rating will be Joshua. If he bags Joshua, his legacy will be secured.

If I were made the emperor of boxing and could demand match ups, I would now have Wilder fight Joshua and Fury fight Ruiz, with the winners meeting. I see no particular reason to have a third Fury-Wilder fight w/o Wilder proving himself first against another top man.

Failing that, just match Fury with Joshua.

 

I slightly disagree with the sentiment here I think. To be honest, whilst there are undoubted chapters of the Fury legacy left to write, I think it’s pretty easy to forecast how he will be perceived historically now.

He is always likely to have a wafer thin resume in terms of depth. He hasn’t and isn’t likely now to fight a number of 5-10 ranked HW’s like AJ has. It isn’t style and he would probably have motivation issues in those fights.

On the flip side his top level wins are very good. 3 against top 3 ranked fighters away from home coming off extensive win streaks. That’s set in stone.

He’s someone who will split fans for years to come because of these 2 factors. H2H he’ll be ranked higher than ATG no doubt. Likely to be divisive!!

 

Of course it does. If they are ranked it means they beat other good fighters. I understand some discrepancies here and there but how does one prove their chin, skills, defense, endurance, footwork, etc against what is considered to be poor competition? Maybe wilder has had a mediocre chin his whole career but because he was protected no one knew? That’s why you judge fighters how they do against the best. FYI tiny fighters like Archie Moore beat plenty of shws with great amateur records. Amateurs is nice and all but doesn’t mean much in the big leagues.
I’m sure smarter posters then I (Mcvey Janitor etc) can tell you why fighters fighting ranked opponents is important especially for greatness within ones own era let alone historically better then I can