Wladimir Klitschko vs Tyson Fury All time

Klitschko, but Fury beats him 7/10 times.

 

Klitschko and it isn't close. The Ukrainian had 19 or so title defenses and was champ for more than a decade over his two reigns. Fury has been a champ for less than seven years (including a three year layoff) and has just two defenses.

From an all-time point of view, Klitschko is multiple levels above The Gypsy King.

 

Fury wouldn't have got past a prime Wlad

 

I know this is debatable and this is why I am asking. Is it true that Tyson Fury fought more quality opposition that Wladimir Klitschko or other way around? Let me know cuz that's something I am still thinking about it.

Best Wins (preferably ranked)
Fury- Klitschko, Wilder, Whyte (all top 5 and 2/3 were top 3; also 1 is a HOFer (Klitschko))
Klitschko- Povetkin, Pulev, Chageav, Byrd, Haye, Chambers (top 5 and 5/6 were top 3); McCline, Peter, Brock, Brewster, Ibragimov, Thompson, Jennings

 

Definitely Klitschko.... And, this is coming from someone who didn't care at all for Wlad.

 

Yeah that figures. Many of the people who were saying that Wlad's opposition consisted of "cans" in "the worst HW era ever" have done a 180 because there's always a desire to bash the current crop.

 

On four occasions Fury has fought men who are better than anyone Wlad ever beat (Wlad, Wilder x3) and Fury did it on the road, in Wilder 1 making one of the greatest comebacks in boxing history. Fury wasn't beaten in any of these fights (or any of his 29 others) whereas Wlad was beaten by a journeyman, two fringe contenders, Fury and Joshua. Fury's victories over Wlad and Wilder 2 are two of the great HW performances and the Wilder trilogy contained one of the best rounds/moments in HW championship history and one of the best fights in HW championship history.

Aside from longevity and coming back from the Sanders and Brewster debacles, there wasn't that much which was "great" about Wlad's reign. He dominated a long list of Chagaev's and Brock's and Pulev's and Leapai's, usually with A-side advantage. His top opponents that he beat legitimately were probably Byrd 1, Peter 1 and Haye (who wouldn't even fight Fury for fear of getting pulverised and humiliated). There's a lot more "greatness" in Fury than Wlad.

 

Who could have Wladimir fought during his 10year unbeaten run, other than his brother?

 

Yep, didn't much enjoy watching Wlad fight myself, but he definitely has the superior resume. I also think he beats Fury & Usyk at his best.

 

Klitchko.

 

If I were to summarize Fury and Klitschko's careers:
- Fury: Quality over quantity (super short career at the elite level but did a lot tho)
-Klitschko: Quantity over quality (but there's still some quality in his resume but none of opposition is HOF worthy)

 

It's not even a debate.
At this point in time Fury is in the conversation with the likes of Bowe, and has that * hanging over his career.
And going by Fury's best win and the way that fight went, I can't see Fury beat a prime Wlad. Wlad was even the favorite going into the rematch, which Fury wiggled out off citing an injury.

 

If Fury was better than Klitschko, he wouldn't duck him twice for the rematch.

Fury is not a true champion. I never heard him challenging another champion to claim his belts.