I can see him beating these 2 by UD because lack of head movement what do yall think ? The
-
-
Tyson Fury barely got by Otto Walin. -
Holy-Fury would've been awesome. Similar to the Bowe fights. Could have gone either way on any given night. Holy struggled with the bigger heavyweights as he had a size disadvantage. But he made it work. Probably my all-time favorite due to his heart.
Foreman KO's Fury prime for prime. Foreman was an animal.
WillieWild114
likes this.
Comment
-
Ah, the relative merit of athletes from different eras. Always a subject best left to the historians; rather than to fighters, news writers, trainers, announcers, bloggers, promoters and fans.Originally posted by WillieWild114 View Post
Otto Wallin, Steve Cunningham, John McDermott, even the hopeless MMA champ Francis Ngannou were all "off nights" for Tyson Fury; and while fans look for any chance to be critical, historians know that you can't tell too awful much from those lapses in concentration.
Foreman had a couple of those too, and Holyfield had a bunch of them.
What sets Fury apart is that he has NEVER lost. At least, not yet.
I feel that the 1972-76 version of George Foreman would land enough on a prime Fury to stop him. In his era, the 6'4" destroyer seldom came across decent fighters who were taller, but his battles against taller folks like Jack O'Halloran, Gerry Cooney, Mike Jameson, Dave Jaco, Ollie Wilson and Bob Hazleton demonstrated his love for reaching taller guys like Fury with pinpoint shots that would close the show.
Fury is x10 better than any of them, of course; but it only takes one big one to knock today's champ onto ***** street, and Foreman would finish the job.
Holyfield, as accomplished and dog determined as he was, I see getting outpointed. What worked against Bowe for the real deal would not be as effective against Fury.
He is a champion who's reputation is largely based on an unprecedented ability to box (when he's serious and motivated), at 6'9", and his thrilling trilogy with Wilder and comprehensive outboxing of Klitschko.
He is fast running out of time to ever be a champion whose resume is packed full of great opponents, but the aforementioned accolades that DO make him special also make him quite hard to beat. For anyone.
Over the years that I've been attending the fights, writing, consulting, managing and becoming pretty in the know, I rank em' thusly:
50 years of Heavyweights. 1974 - 2024
(Note: Those highlighted are Active Today)
1. Larry Holmes
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Mike Tyson
5. George Foreman
6. Wladimir Klitschko
7. Tyson Fury
8. Ken Norton
9. Joe Frazier
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Oleksandr Usyk
8. Anthony Joshua
9. Deontay Wilder
10.Ron Lyle
11.Vitali Klitschko
12.Rid**** Bowe
13. Gerry Cooney
14. Earnie Shavers
15.Jimmy Young
16.Ike Ibeabuchi
17.Tim Witherspoon
18.Gerrie Coetzee
19.Andrew Golota
20.Michael Dokes
21.Joseph Parker
22.David Tua
23.Alexander Povetkin
24.Mike Weaver
25.Frank Bruno
26.Tommy Morrison
27.Andy Ruiz Jr.
28.Zeili Zhang
29.Joe Bugner
30.Donovan Razor Ruddock
31.Trevor Berbick
32.Tony Tucker
33.Chris Byrd
34.Ray Mercer
35.Pinklon Thomas
36.Oliver McCall
37.Luis Ortiz
38.Michael Spinks
39.Shannon Briggs
40.James Buster Douglas
41.Hassim Rahman
42.Michael Moorer
43.Tony Tubbs
44.James Bonecusher Smith
45.Filip Hrgovic
46.Carl The Truth Williams
47.Dillian Whyte
48.Joe Joyce
49.Oscar Bonavena
50.David Haye
Comment
-
**** no, Real Deal ****s Fury up all day. Y'all been exaggerating Fury's ability to move since he taught Wlad the point of learning how to pivot.
Just because Wlad was able to reign for a long time over overweight, short, old, and/or undersized HWs whose boxing acumen was so low he never needed to learn more than very basic ins and outs to beat them does not mean what Wlad did during his era translates well to any other era.
The only other times in boxing history the HW division was so crippled was the 30s.
Has Tyson shown us a talent Wlad didn't show us or did Tyson peak in terms of displaying abilities during the Wlad fight?
Since his Wlad fight he's displayed his movement and added to hit his ability to lay his **** on his opponent's head until they tire. Well buds, Wlad too was a master of laying his **** on heads. He's shown he does have KO power. Wlad's displayed a little more TBH.
I don't think Wlad was that good compared to other eras therefor I do not think Tyson is very good given he's just a little better than Wlad.
He could beat up the 30s champions. Maybe the 1900s Corbett and ****. Corbie might **** him up though.
No consideration, just hands down for sure would do well, only now and the 30s.
That's me saying not just Evander, don't even need a Holy level HW champ to demolish everything Tyson, or Wlad, have ever shown us. Spinks would beat them both pretty easy.
Everything people have to say as to why their great is based on their time or strictly the world of fantasy. Like how you guys exaggerate that fat ****'s movement like he's ever done more than bow at the waist, pivot, and backpedal.Comment
-
I just sent you a PM as I think this post really expresses a lot of relevant ideas as well as a critically thought out prognostication!Originally posted by Willow The Wisp View Post
you spoke so well on the finer points of the topic:
Fury is exceptionally talented when motivated: He has shown the ability to fight expert fights using totally different styles, he has shown will power, guile, and the effects of boxing in a professional environment since being a youth. Truly, the plodding amatuer style that is so limiting does not affect the Gypsy King. He is more like Pitbull Cruz (a favorite of mine) who fights with that professional sheen of bravado, than these guys who revert to jab, plod, plod, wind up, rinse repeat.
At his best he has shown resolve to hang with a puncher, though Foreman pressures a lot more than Wilder (or for that matter Klitsko)... and the ability to use his natural gifts against sound technical fighters like Cunningham. On this last accord Holyfield was a lot more talented and experienced than Cunningham of course.
Fury has the talent, the chops to fight in that league, whether he wins, or not. The fights, I believe would be competative. Lerts consider Holyfield and his own private "tale of two cities." Exciting Evander goes in there and slugs it out with Bowe. Exciting fightb with a preordained conclusion. To win the next one Holyfield is told to box... He does and is successful. Because Holly can do that, he is coachable and though he prefers a slug out, he would know that to beat Fury necessitates boxing. This match would be a chess match. I can see Fury, at his best prevailing.
Foreman is an interesting hypothetical because of the pressure he brings. Different kind of puncher than Wilder, and for that matter, one of his mentors, Liston. Foreman has a good chance of winning unless Fury can establish range and stop Big George from cutting the ring.Last edited by billeau2; 04-02-2024, 12:31 PM.
Willow The Wisp
likes this.
Comment
-
Fury is a fat, inactive, unproven oaf. If he turns up for one Usyk fight, let's see how he does and judge his historical standing afterwards.Comment
-
I suppose that at least some of the time, our current champ is all of those things. But in a world of 8 billion, all of whom have access to this sport; all of whom qualify as liking the idea of an extra 200 million dollars in their account; nobody has come forward after a decade of trying to topple the giant.Originally posted by dan-b View Post
The MMA world gave it a shot when they had a pure boxer as their champion; but they fell woefully short too.
Maybe Usyk can change this narrative???? Six weeks to go!!!Comment
-
Comment