No way. He is really big compared to the greats of the past, many of whom would have fought as cruiseweights in our era.
The RedCafe Boxing Thread
- Thread starter CLK_FPC
- Start date
He's a monster of a man, brilliant boxer, is deceptively quick and has excellent stamina. He would fit in in any era IMO - not necessarily the best of all time but he'd fit in for sure. To be able to move like he can at 6 ft. 9 is seriously dangerous.
Wallin is such a dangerous fight - caused Fury himself all sorts of headaches. I love Dillian, has no qualms stepping in with absolutely anyone. Honestly though, he's had such a rough ride - never an easy fight. Nothing against Wallin, but hope Dillian wins so he can get his well deserved shot at a title
Yeah, he's said he knows he can rely on his powers of recovery if the worst comes to the worst, and he's really proven that as he's gotten up and been totally cognizant inside 30 seconds a few times now. There's nobody active in the heavies who comes close to those powers of recovery and they have to factor their own endurance into the risk-reward of going to war.
Wilder showed ridiculous grit to stay upright, but he was clearly compromised and dazed (as well as gassed, it's fair to say) despite taking the punches. Fury is a total outlier in being back to how he was before the knockdown, let alone in how quickly he does so, and that's taking Wilder's punches, not the lighter hands of literally everyone else.
Fury would get destroyed by Lennox, Tyson, Vitali, Ali, Foreman, Bowe. etc.
Maybe he’s big and can box a bit but those guys were real superstars if Cunningham can put Fury on his back I dread to think what a prime Tyson or Lewis would do to him.
Maybe he’s big and can box a bit but those guys were real superstars if Cunningham can put Fury on his back I dread to think what a prime Tyson or Lewis would do to him.
Fury is now an eclectic boxer who can fight in pretty much any way he chooses now that he is a threat on the inside. He was brawling on Saturday because he wanted to; he could easily school Wilder from distance and dance around the ring all night as he did in the first contest, but he wanted a knockout and to prove that no matter what style he adopts, he can beat, and take, Wilder on.
Whilst I am not questioning your first paragraph, don't you think it's absolutely pointless to mention Fury of the distant past and not the belt holder version(s)?
If you're going to use nadir, or compromised points, not a single boxer in your opener comes out smelling of roses. We use the best, most peak of all fighters for these discussions for a reason as that's the true reflection of the boxer being discussed. I mean, when you're talking Tyson, I'd immediately assume the Cus version, and not the spiralled shadow he became; same with Lewis: not the guy getting dropped by fighters who have no business doing that to him, but rather the lazer focused 'second time round' version that was a completely different animal in rematches.
You’d have to say a prime Fury was against Wlad and that was 2015, Cunningham knocked down Fury in 2013 so not much between them.
2 years, mental health and not focused. Your reasoning would reflect badly on the fighters you mentioned if extrapolated. Lewis losing and dropping way below his recognised level (for the losses to be recognised as upsets) and coming back inside less than 2 years with a vengeance being one of a plethora of examples.
When did Fury have mental health problems in 2013? He was on the trail of a world title shot I’m sure he was focused. If you’re going down that train of thought then everyone ever has a out to as why they were beaten or under performed.
You're not answering the crux of the question; even if you took the mental health aspect out of the way, the point would still stand - even if you took all the 'excuses' out, the same would apply in that using a nadir/low point isn't a reflection of the fighter as all are assessed on their best form not worst and all the fighters you listed would be highly fallible, if not moreso than Fury, using your own logic.
No I’m not, I’m saying a prime Fury 2015 or 2021 would not beat any of those fighters at the peak of their powers I think that goes without saying and two years between a hungry contender and prime world champion isn’t a massive yard stick to judge one on.
https://www.boxingscene.com/amp/tys...er-trilogy-fight-compubox-punch-stats--161138
shows how completely outclassed Wilder was
shows how completely outclassed Wilder was
Wilder took a hell of a beating so he did.
Lewis lost in two to McCall in what is considered one of the greatest upsets in heavyweight history; Lewis was absolutely embarrassed in a loss to fodder Rahman. If those losses were used to define one of the greatest heavyweights of the 90's and how he'd fare in a fantasy matchup against other great h/w's it would be complete redundant as an argument.
Ali, considered the greatest of all-time in the heavyweight division, got dropped by no-marks in relative terms and fighters who were cruiserweights; we don't use those are markers of his punch resistance seeing as he went on to withstand the worst punishment imaginable to utilise the rope a dope.
The list goes on and in and makes no sense to use as a marker because they are not representative of the boxer's apex.
Fury 2015 is not the same as Fury 2021 who has now added a whole new arsenal and style to what he had back then. If you are saying Fury loses outright, that's different to what you initially said, and what I contested.
Last edited:
“A lumbering target.” I’m trying to be constructive here, but do you actually watch much boxing? He’s movement and footwork is of a very high standard compared to most heavyweights.
Not much recently but he looks like some fat journeyman that Lewis, Hollyfield or Tyson at their peak would have dispatched with ease.
Because Lewis, Holllyfield [sic] and Tyson all cleaned up against journeymen…
Well that’s true.
For what it is worth, this is how BoxRec ranks heavyweights using a data-driven approach based on their all-time record:
If boxing was determined by physique, Fury would not even be an amateur and Ken Norton would be the best boxer who ever stepped inside the ring with Bruno not far behind.
For what it is worth, this is how BoxRec ranks heavyweights using a data-driven approach based on their all-time record:
Anthony Joshua ahead of Mike Tyson.No George Foreman or Larry Holmes in there must be going of loses.For what it is worth, this is how BoxRec ranks heavyweights using a data-driven approach based on their all-time record:
Has that moron who asked Fury if he thinks he'll get depressed again had any kickback?
I'm sure if Fury hadn't long come out of a draining contest, he could have slaughtered that guy there and then and used that same platform as an opportunity to educate an audience.
I sincerely hope that comment is not swept under the rug. It was disgusting thing to ask and to do so so flippantly also highlighted serious disregard, ignorance or both.
I'm sure if Fury hadn't long come out of a draining contest, he could have slaughtered that guy there and then and used that same platform as an opportunity to educate an audience.
I sincerely hope that comment is not swept under the rug. It was disgusting thing to ask and to do so so flippantly also highlighted serious disregard, ignorance or both.
I never actually heard the interview but it was a real stupid and inconsiderate thing to say to anyone.
Lewis' position is impressive given the relatively few fights on his record. That said - that might be the reason he's number one - their model probably weights fights identically. Which would explain why Tyson is so low and Wlad so high.For what it is worth, this is how BoxRec ranks heavyweights using a data-driven approach based on their all-time record:
He threw it out so flippantly it caught Fury off guard and he stumbled over his reply with a hushed 'hope not' had he been in his right mind, I'm sure he'd have taken the guy to task.
What's worse is what kind of answer was the idiot expecting to get? What could possibly be achieved by asking a question like that?
Journalists can be ignorant cnuts that's for sure.
I think Lewis has a really impressive record, was beat twice with hammer blows out of nowhere but rectified them both and beat a hell of a lot of top heavyweights on his way.
I recognise the voice and know he's the floppy, dark-haired one with the glasses with a high profile in the UK at least - he's been on BT Sports talking about boxing and the history of the sport a fair bit, but I don't know his name.
It's seriously concerning that someone with such a high profile, no doubt with staff under him, can use one of the biggest post-fight platforms this century to say something so offensively ignorant. He really should be called out on it.
Lewis looked second best against Bruno till the lucky punch, also he struggled against Tony Tucker who was well past his prime. I think Fury takes Lewis.
It's quite complicated here, https://ringsideboxingnews.com/the-infamous-boxrec-ranking-systems-formula-explained-in-detail/
Well Mike Tyson lost to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. That will obviously tank your record.
Dunno, it's so hard to call: Lewis' jab is the great equaliser in almost any contest and he has composure and know-how once he knows his opponent, but he never fought anyone as fleet-footed as Fury or as massive and odd, so it distorts things a lot.
Outside of Ali pre-ban, and Cus Tyson, nearly all the fantasy contests are right in the middle of the ring with exchanges and wits over ridiculous movement and beguiling footwork and someone as massive as Fury presents problems in that regard these guys didn't deal with in their legendary battles with each other.
I don't think these contests are washes, though, well, outside of the ones where one style is custom-made to take out another.
There's no way a reporter asked that question without being briefed to do so by an editor.
Explanation from the reporter, Gareth Davies (Telegraph), included in the video below - skip to 13 mins in. I've listened to him a fair bit over the years and I do believe him in that it wasn't meant maliciously but he acknowledges it didn't come across well. Tbh I rarely see journos owning their mistakes so fair play to him.
I can see why he said it being a journalist, just trying to get the mental health thing shoe horned in somewhere but put his foot in it.
His reasoning doesn't quite add up and he should have padded out and prepped the question far better if he meant well by asking it.
Throwing something like that out into the public domain is sensitive at the best of times and the ways he asked must have gotten him a lot of flack, and rightly so. He says he knows the Fury family well etc. so it most likely wasn't asked maliciously, but it was bone-headed and he should have to answer to that and at least right the wrongs of putting a comment like that out in such a lackadaisical manner.
Fury should’ve banged him out, what a clown.
Those damn hands at 62 years old.
Gareth A Davies, or the GAD as he's known as in boxing circles. He's known for being a tit.