Tyson Fury has never defended a world heavyweight title

Yeah everyone knows that. Technically he defended the WBC belt against Schwarz wallin and wilder because that was a rip off.

but whatever, that’s boxing, if only my aunts had b.alls and all that.

furys resume isn’t better than wlads now. Not yet. If he beats wilder again, aj, whyte and Usyk then most would be confident of putting him over wlad.

but it’s a big if of course!

 

He's defended his lineal championship 6 times now. Granted, only two of those are very creditable defences (although Wallin could yet appreciate some in worth), but guys like Sasha went in other directions when offered a fight. Question I'm asking is, does he need the ToysЯUs alphabelts when we know that three of them were stripped from him and effectively rerouted to Joshua, while the other was a vacant strap picked off by Bermane Stiverne and passed to Wilder? (Fury is lending the WBC some credibility right now, not the other way around.)

Bear in mind, he went straight to the guy that Joshua had been wrangling and biding his time over, and showed Anthony how to take care of business. Did it on Wilder's turf, with the political leverage against him t'boot. That's worth more than some mandatory wins over Kubrat Pulev or guys of that note.

 

I mean, I'm willing to wait 'til the (allegedly flappy) gloves are hung before comparing the résumés and overall careers of Tyson and other champion heavyweights. I'm just saying, in light of his biggest feats and the circumstances in which he's achieved them, a lack of official defenses doesn't weigh too heavily as a knock against him.

 

Defences mean F all in concept due to the way the boxing system works, where you can pick and choose or slip and slide as the champion and where the rankings can be flexed for convenience.

You literally have champions openly saying they want an easy defence after winning their belts or after a number of hard fights, even 'deserving' one. It's laughable because it's an open admission of filler fights that will count toward a defence streak. On one hand you have people consistently complaining about fighters milking title reigns with easy defences or even 'holding the belt hostage', then people still use defences as a measure of validity.

Let's put it this way, if Fury beats Wilder again, then Joshua (and maybe even Usyk) then retires, he will have better wins than Joshua and Wilder but nowhere near as many defences. Because defences mean F all, it's about who you beat!

 

Fury is rated high h2h, but has a poor resume. Similar to Vitaly Klitschko.
Maybe if you are 6 foot 8 and can fight people assume you'll destroy anyone

 

na price, Julius long, wach, tye fields, Valuev, Ustinov, Jefferson, breazelle

 

A stinker versus ancient Wlad and a second chance victory against a guy nobody ever respected beyond his one punch power. Truly a GOAT

 

Not correct. He won the title with Wilder 1 and he defended it with Schwarz, Wallin and Wilder 2.

 

He has defended the lineal title 6 times now

 

Given that lineal titles aren't real, should they be stripped after you fail a drug test?

 

One of them (IBF) was stripped, just as it would have been stripped from anybody because the IBF are the biggest sticklers for mandatory defenses. The other two he vacated before choosing to go on a three year bender instead of be the HW champion. The only person to take the WBO and WBA away from Tyson Fury was Tyson Fury.

Stop revising history.

 

He beat the sanctioning bodies to the punch, they were poised to strip him because his license was about to be removed on account of being "medically unfit" and testing positive for coke. Semantics aside, the upshot is the same. He didn't lose them in a boxing ring.

In the case of the IBF and WBO, those belts were each won vacant by a contender and shortly passed to Joshua. The WBA was thrown into the Joshua-Klitschko bout.

 

Pretty cool that fury just beat wlad, chucked the belts, went on a bender for years, said eff it I’m coming back and then wins the WBC.

what a man