Why does Tyson Fury not get credit for beating an ATG heavyweight?

He does get credit from most.

 

He's white.

He's tall.

He's a "boring boxer" rather than a KO-artist - the public only wants blood.

 

Because of racism.

 

It's not just who you beat. It's what version you beat, when you beat them, and how you beat them too. Miguel Cotto shouldn't get full credit for beating a one legged Sergio Martinez and Floyd Mayweather doesn't get full credit for beating a one armed Manny Pacquiao. Besides being forty years old when they fought Wlad Klitschko was definitely not his old self, and Tyson won more due to Wlad not doing anything than for anything Tyson Fury did do.

It's never just the name on the resume. It's always how you did it. Ray Robinson beat Henry Armstrong, but Henry Armstrong was so much older and so much smaller that it doesn't deserve to be called a contest. Same goes for Oscar De La Hoya beating Julio Cesar Chavez. Rocky Marciano beat Archie Moore, Joe Louis, and Jersey Joe Walcott but their average age was like 39 when he beat them. It's not the same thing as beating them in their primes. Brian Nielsen holds victories over Larry Holmes and Tim Witherspoon in the late 90s! Do you think Enzo Maccarinelli deserves more credit for knocking out Roy Jones Jr last year?

 

Fury gets the credit he deserves. He beats a past prime, old Wlad in a boring points-win snoozefest without any highlight reel action.

 

Well considering Canelo's limitations against slick boxers...

 

Are there supposed to endless threads? I had him almost pitching a shutout but neither man did anything. It was like they both showed too much respect to one another. If I'm being frank, I had Fury winning because Wlad did less. Credit to him for winning though.

 

You got that he'd beat Canelo from him beating John Thompson.......
atschatsch

 

Fury should get credit like anyone who has the stones to get in the ring.

Fury should get credit for beating a reigning almost unified champ.

Wlad has been jab jab holding small HW for too long and comes up against someone his own size and looks lost, not Fury fault but Wlad was terrible. The fight was not a war.

Fury's resume before the Wlad fight.

Fury took a note out of Mayweather book on how to win without engaging but Mayweather actually lands power shots. Fury landed the jab and a few left hooks.

The performance was such that a lot of people think Wlad wins the rematch even with such a dominant victory that tells you something, If Wlad actually lands a few shots people think the outcome will be different.

 

Schooling him? :rofl

He threw 8 punches a round. That isn't 'schooling' someone. A schooling is what Calzaghe did to Lacy. I think the manner in which he won by not engaging and throwing so few punches put a lot of people off. It was an awful fight but many Brits on here are trying to make it out like it was Hagler-Hearns :rofl

 

Fury doesn't get the full credit in part because he's a champion of circumstance rather than merit. He won a closish, dreadful decision against a 40 yr old Klitschko that wasn't taking him seriously. There are still a lot of doubts about Fury which still have to be answered. Many ppl including myself see Fury getting knocked out in a rematch by a refocused and motivated Wlad.

 

Some have given him little credit for a great performance. He put on a clinic.

 

He gets plenty of credit for beating for beating Wlad. He's clearly recognised by everyone as the best heavyweight on the planet right now.

But you don't become an ATG based off of one win, he needs to back that up and so far he's been inactive and been getting more headlines for scandals rather than actual boxing.

 

You're getting way ahead of yourself. When he cleans out the current crop of hw's then you can say he's the best on the planet. I personally think he has a tough night with at least 5 hw's and some have nowhere near his yrs as a professional.

 

There was nothing close about the decision Fury clearly won