The discussion centers around a user's ranking of the top five heavyweight boxers of all time, including a list of honorable mentions. The criteria for ranking include consistency against top-ranked opponents and performance throughout their careers, rather than peak performance alone. The conversation invites feedback and differing opinions on the selections made.
Participants express disagreement regarding the inclusion of Jack Johnson, with some arguing he should be considered among the top heavyweights while others defend the original poster's criteria and selections. The discussion remains unresolved regarding Johnson's ranking and the overall validity of the original list.
Participants have differing views on the significance of losses in a boxer's prime and the quality of competition across different eras, which may affect their rankings. The criteria for defining a boxer's prime and the importance of consistency versus peak performance are also points of contention.
woopydalan said:I don't know I don't have a strong enough understanding of the history of the sport to say. But I believe Tyson Fury would probably beat Ali given that heavyweights are way larger today than they were back in the day.
Mondayman said:Head to head, today's boxers would have the advantage of better training, diet, and size. Tyson Fury is a good boxer, but I don't think his resume earns him a top 5 spot.
That type of logic does not always apply in boxing since styles are a determinate: Just because Usyk beats Fury, And Fury beats Ali. Usyk does not necessarily beat Ali. There are examples of A beats B , B beats C . And C beats Asevensages said:First you wrote that Tyson Fury is overrated because he faced mediocre opponents, and you imply that Usyk is superior to Fury. Then you say that you think Tyson Fury would probably beat Muhammud Ali because heavyweights are way larger today than they were in Muhammad Ali's day. So I suppose you think that Usyk would probably beat Muhammad Ali as well; right?
Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali in their first match. Then George Foreman beat Joe Frazier. So a lot of people expected George Foreman to beat Muhammad Ali, but Muhammad Ali beat George Foreman.morrobay said:That type of logic does not always apply in boxing since styles are a determinate: Just because Usyk beats Fury, And Fury beats Ali. Usyk does not necessarily beat Ali. There are examples of A beats B , B beats C . And C beats A
woopydalan said:How can you say that Fury has had a more successful career than Usyk in terms of competitive accomplishments? He became lineal champion by defeating a 40 year old over-the-hill Wladimir Klitschko, who Anthony Joshua subsequently knocked out in Wlad's next fight and retired. Then Fury held lineal champion for all those years fighting WHO? Derek Chisora? He had a trilogy against Deontay Wilder who was considered a boogeyman at the time, but in retrospect had a padded record beating lesser competition. Joseph Parker and Zhilei Zhang exposed Deontay Wilder and diminishes the value of the wins by Tyson Fury. Fury ducked fighting Usyk and Anthony Joshua for YEARS to hold his WBC title. He STILL hasn't fought Anthony Joshua even though that is one of the biggest money fights to be made. He probably will now take that fight since AJ is shot psychologically as was seen last weekend against DuBois.
The TLDR to me about Tyson Fury is that he has carefully maneuvered his career to make it look better than it actually is.
Usyk became undisputed champion in both the cruiserweight division and heavyweight division. That alone cements him as a Hall of Famer. He's fighting guys while having major physical disadvantages because he is a smaller heavyweight, yet still winning.