Tyson Fury > Lennox Lewis

Overall yes, I can agree Wlad was a better win, but in terms of who was better at the time the fights took place, I go with Vitali over Wlad. The post I was responding to also said Wilder was a better win than Holyfield. So, I'm guessing the poster was also meaning at the time the fights took place. Nobody that has any knowledge of boxing would ever say Wilder was better than Holyfield.

 

obvious bait is obvious. you listed every relevant adjective you could imagine and couldn't defend half of these 'advantages' Fury supposedly possesses.

 

fury did not beat best men of his era. Wlad isn’t from his era and wilder isn’t the best.
AJ has better resume and is better than wilder, skill wise and resume wise.
Usyk is still undefeated. There were other guys Fury could have faced but he didn’t and he was dropped like 7-8 times fighting bums, pulled out from ustinov fight, ducked rematch with Wlad and is a proven drug cheat.
You should start another thread and try harder to hype wilder , that would boost fury’s resume .

 

Beter at beating a better level of opposition. Yes, if Wildr beats those guys you mention, it would raise his stock, but at this very moment, during this discussion, Wilder has not come close to accomplishing as much as Holyfield. How can you discredit most of Lennox Lewis's wins and praise Wilder? Yeah, he has an impressive KO ratio, but against who? Fury's resume is weak too.

 

Man please! Lewis absorbed more punches against Vitali than Fury did against Wilder because Vitali was a more rounded fighter. Once you take away Wilder's right hand, what do you have standing in front of you? What about Lewis's win over M. Tyson? Let me guess, Tyson was done, but Wlad was solid. Even though Wlad was going through personal issues and so on. By your logic, Buster Douglas should be a heavyweight ATG. He beat a prime, undefeated M. Tyson. In fact, that win is better than anything aFury has done, so Douglas actually ranks higher than Fury on the ATG list. And before you come back with Tyson had issues, so did Wlad when he fought Fury. You did say the quality of the win matters more, right?

 

You're literally using his worst performance. Watch him against Golota and Akinwande round 1. His jab, movement, and agression was superb.

Using Furys bad performances, Cunningham, Wallin, Wilder 3, he looks like sloppy crap.

Your hate for Lewis holds no boundaries. You will do everything in your power to discredit him, while bragging about how a 41 year old lethargic Wladimir who retired right after is a better win than Lewis's top scalps. It's crazy

 

Sounds like he pays Fury per inch.

Lennox's resume shits all over Fury's.

 

It's pretty simple Mercer fell out of the spotlight and only fought 4 times in 5 years, and Lewis went on to bigger and better things. Mercer got a gift decision himself over an old Witherspoon, then did nothing of note and wasn't even actively fighting.

Were in a agreement then i have nothing to add to this.

As i said to you before at that point in Lewis's career he was looking for big money fights, he was on the verge of retirement and Byrd was a non fan favourite. Lewis was fighting Kirk Johnson who was highly rated i might add, and Mike Tyson was supposed to be on the undercard vs Oleg Maskaev, so they could set up a rematch vs Mike Tyson. I think there's a difference between Lewis not fighting Byrd and Lewis ducking Byrd.

Finally it's not like Byrd set the world alight in any of his title defences, he arguably could lost all 4 vs McCline, Williamson, Golota, Oquendo.

But then by that same notion Lewis also shouldn't get discredited for not fighting Ibeabuchi, Bowe. When there was no realistic chance of those fights happening. My argument is Lewis never ducked anyone which i don't believe he did, his resume for the most part is pretty solid. And he fought pretty much most of the known Heavyweights in the 90s.