Where would Fury rank if...

No disrespect, but why is Helenius listed and mentioned all of the sudden again?
There are at least 20 better guys right now

 

Fury is literally the next evolutionally step in fighters and people dont respect it. he is the first of his kind and what a kind it is.

For him to retire without getting a few more wins would be a shame

 

Helenius and Kiwi Joe (who will shortly be defeated by Painterly Joe) are superfluous.

 

Tbh only really Usyk on that list that might cause Fury problems and should they fight the winner will be acknowledged as the best of this era. As for ATG/H2H standings it’s all just fantasy and fans opinions,surely being regarded as the best of your era is the cherry on the cake. Fantasy match ups are just that, FANTASY .

 

If he did all that he'd probably end up about 7th of all time for me, in terms of heavyweights.

Like right in behind Lennox and just ahead of Mike Tyson and Foreman

 

Usyk, AJ and Joyce are probably enough to start considering he's one of the best ever tbh.

Add in Parker and the winner of Ruiz/Ortiz and I'd say he's a lock for top ten at that point.

As it is now he's probably along the same lines of a Riddick Bowe or a Vitali I'd say.

But getting that depth of names really makes his case.

If he has Wlad, Wilder, AJ, Usyk, Whyte, Chisora, Parker, Ruiz, Ortiz and Joyce he's cleared out a full era. Single handedly.

 

^ This

 

Fury ain't gonna fight that much lol. He's trying to set up an exhibition fight now with Thor so he will not go down as an all-time great. His resume is shite.

 

I'm not the greatest at these types of rankings (and I'm sure there will be agreement with that lol). I see Fury inside the top 20, maybe around 15 or so.

 

Becoming the third man to unify and the first undisputed in 20 years is a pretty big accomplishment on it's own. Add in a few defenses and he has a solid case for cracking the into the top 10.

 

Beating Joyce, Helenius and Parker are lesser wins than beating Wilder so those victories don't help at all. However, beating Usyk and Fury will mean he defeated the top three challengers the world had to offer during his reign. That's all a man can do. I believe 20 years down the road when people see Fury went undefeated against the four world champions he faced he will be considered as one of the better heavyweights of all time.

 

I think the lesser wins do count for something. It helps show consistency. Often when fighters lose it is to a guy that would have been a "lesser win". Had Tyson beaten Douglas it would be a lesser win. Had Lewis beaten Rahman, Had Holyfield beaten Bowe never had the trilogy, etc.

 

I don't consider anything other than opponents & performance, when rating fighters. 'Championships' mean just about squat to me nowadays. Being the first to unify something, or being the youngest to win a title, or beating belt holders early in their career, or coming back from adversities in life outside the ring (like a drug addiction, for example), or anything else, doesn't enter into it.

Based on this criteria, Fury comes in somewhere around 15ish ATG.