If you are ranking them based on resume, then he doesn't make the cut, or even come particularly close to it.
Fury’s resume is paper thin. AJ has fought better competition, all be it losing to Uysk and a redeemed victory against Ruiz
But those are only 2 good wins. His resume is pretty thin. For comparison, someone like Riddick Bowe or Max Baer have two good wins and they're definitely not top 10 ATGs. You could also say Fury's win over Wladmir wasn't very impressive since Wladmir was very gunshy and 40 years old. Wilder only had a few decent wins over guys like Ortiz and Stiverne and most of the rest of his resume was pretty bad. Neither Wladmir nor Wilder were undisputed.
Fury is 5-0-1 (should be 6-0 really) against legit top ten heavyweights at the time he fought them. Wins against Whyte, Wilder X2, Wlad, and Chisora. Good wins, the Wlad win and Wilder win are standouts, Chisora and Whyte are decent but not exceptional. but that's it over 14 years as a pro. Compare that with Louis and Ali (over 30 fights with top ten guys). And I agree with others, let's wait until he's actually done fighting and we have some time to digest his resume (could age better/poorer based on what his former adversaries do in the future).
But before the Klitschko fight everyone was saying Wlad was gonna batter Fury but after everyone started saying Wlad was past his best? And before the Wilder fight everyone said he would demolish Fury but after everyone was saying Wilder sucked. And same again for Whyte. He was considered a top contender but as soon as Fury beat him people started dis crediting him and saying he wasn’t a good fighter. Unfair if you ask me.
There is nothing wrong with the quality of his best wins. The problem is that he doesn't have enough of them, pure and simple.
Because Fury was a complete nobody and had a very thin resume. There was no reason whatsoever to pick Fury to win. That doesn't make Fury great that he was overlooked in a matchup with a dominant champion who had more than a dozen title defenses. There were plenty of people saying Fury might beat Wilder. Many people thought Wilder was overrated and hadn't beaten anyone. Hell, even now people still make fun of Wilder and he's arguably Fury's best win. The bottom line is that those are Fury's best wins and neither of them were particularly impressive because 1) Wladmir was very old and gunshy and Fury took a close decision. 2) Wilder had a very thin resume himself and mostly knocked out bums. Fury has yet to face Usyk, Joshua, Parker, Ruiz, Joyce, Hrgovic, etc. There's PLENTY of decent names out there Fury could beat to silence the critics but he refuses to. It's not like he cleared out his division and nobody is giving him his props.
I don’t see how an argument for him can be made…at all. He’s barely beaten any ranked men let alone the top tier of ranked men. He’s failed to beat the best of his generation or even compete against them.
Nobody needs to make the case for him not being there - you need to make the case for why he should be there. The existing top 10 is already pretty crowded.
In my personal rankings, I have Fury ranked among the top 110% of all heavyweights who have ever fought.
I mean h2h he certainly is, just cause he's so much bigger than everyone else and he finally learned how to fight under Suga Hill... But legacy wise he's pretty low down on the list. Only 2 defenses, one against a guy he already Ko. Wlad and Deontay are his two best opponents, and the Wlad fight might be the worst in HW championship history....Wilder doesn't get much love from the scholars of boxing, so you can't give Fury too much credit for beating him. Hell even Wilder has 5 times as many defenses as Fury. Some people tend to rate more on skill set for ATG, but not me, I rate more on legacy.