Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Jacques81, Jul 15, 2022.
Beat the Usyk/Joshua winner and then get another 3-4 top 10 level wins after that.
Not enough meat on the bone. 2 opponents, one 40 years old and the other was very limited. In my book, doesn't make top 10 on any ATG list. H2H Fury ranks much higher.
Fury only needs the Usyk v Joshua winner wether this win would add to his ATG standing is debatable but would certainly cement him as the best of his era.Fury gains nothing from fighting the loser. If as expected the loser is Joshua then all he gains from fighting him is a huge purse from an all British showdown.
I think he'd have to beat Joshua, Usyk and some other current 10 guys. His resume is way too shallow
Let's imagine a parallel universe where Lennox Lewis beat Bowe, Vitali and fought a trilogy with prime Tyson, 4/5 times fighting on the road, 3/5 times as the B-side and underdog, winning four of those fights conclusively and beating five other solid opponents on top of that (Mercer x2, Donald, Byrd, Rahman) without suffering a single career defeat.
Would those ten fights give Lewis a stronger record than he actually has?
I would argue that what I've described equates to a stronger record than having half as many top wins, a lot more 2nd/3rd tier wins and being KO'd twice.
I'm a big believer in appreciating the era in which a fighter is active, so my top 10 heavies list isn't filled with mostly pre-war guys like some guys. For me, Fury just needs to convincingly beat the Usyk-AJ 2 winner (preferably Usyk due to styles) and maybe bag himself a solid win over a up-and-comer to break into my all-time top 10
Fury's resume is far too thin. He hasn't even fought half the top guys in his own era.
You're not measured on what you could do hypothetically it's what you actually do.
I think beating Usyk and Joshua would cement him in this era and H2H is a different consideration altogether although for me Fury is still relatively untested even in assessing and calculating that.
Fighting Wilder three times and an older Vlad isn't a good gauge for me compared to the best all time.
Also the he's 'bigger' fallacy doesn't hold water to me as I think some of the smaller faster guys like Usyk would make Fury look uncoordinated. Remembering that Cunningham caused a lot of issues before getting stopped. nobody is unbeatable if you actually fight everybody for long enough.....and Fury hasn't remotely done that in his career not at all.
Nothing, we can already put it around the 8-10 place.
He lacks the longevity of Ali, Holmes, Louis, Lewis, W Klitschko etc... to climb higher but given his age and form he will never have it. He must therefore bet on a big fight against the winner of August 20 to gain more places.
Is this his Henry Cooper?
Wlad was well past his prime.
And Wilder may be a massive puncher but that does not mean he was one of the best of all time all together. Wilder's only decent win was Ortiz.
40 year old Wlad and Wilder are not in any way shape or form the sorts of wins that make you an ATG at all. They're good wins, but don't prove that sort of status.
He could be considered an ATG if he beats the Usyk/Joshua winner, but top maybe top 20.
He would have to have won WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO HW titles
Have to have won British, Commonwealth and European titles
Have to have traveled to face a long reigning champion and win maybe even do that twice
Beats usyk? He has a strong case
Yes the resume is quite padded, but some of the wins are very big
Only a few months ago many on here stated that Whyte will push him and even beat him. He never landed a glove
Fury is obviously overrated by casuals, like anyone popular, but he is underrated on this forum
Whether some guys here like it or not, allowing for the addition of victories over Joshua and Usyk to his ledger, the consensus in decades to come will absolutely rate Fury in the Top 10 all-time heavies.
Respect to Fury but he is no ATG.
If he beats Joshua, Usyk and some other top 5 Hws in the next 2-3 years, displaying sharp skills, then we can talk ATG, the work will be solid enough.