AJ vs. Fury resume

Breidis will probably be considered his best win or Dubois

 

Joshua clearly has the better resume, unless you're a Disney Star Wars loving goon with half a brain.

Bit random. Not sure why I wrote that.

 

Fury easily

 

Briedis isn't a big enough name despite being elite. At this point i agree though, the Dubois victory supercedes the aj win for obvious reasons. I still think Fury is his best win. He was unbeaten, ended Wlads reign, took Wilders belt in a 1 sided beatdown and is one of the largest heavyweights ever.

When it's all said and done Fury will be seen as the second best of his generation. A majority of future boxing fans would favor Fury over aj and Dubois in fantasy match ups

 

Fury has the better wins imo.. his wins over WK & Wilder (2nd fight) are better than any Joshua win. At the time those were both long reigning champions on a tear.. Wilder tho limited was a very dangerous fighter back then & not the same individual we see today, although he's always been very overrated. Joshua's best wins are WK post Fury & probably Povetkin, who was 39. You could argue Parker for what hes gone onto do but that was a much greener Parker.. in my eyes he went on to lose Whyte, Chisora* and Joyce.. before regrouping & forming Parker mark II.. so I don't rate that victory that Joshua got over him that highly.

 

I think whoever wins if they fight could be the difference in who is ranked higher.

 

Since when did free passes get issued for losses?

Reggie Strickland is 66-0 with 14 KOs if we only consider his wins. Trouble is he also took 276 losses.

In assessing a resume, you have to consider losses. Every fight must be taken into account.

 

I agree, every fight must be taken into account. But I think Fury has had more than his fair share of free passes.

For me, Fury's controversial win against Ngannou is far worse than any of the losses Joshua took. Joshua, while seen as #1, was embarrassed on the world stage by Ruiz (a top 15 guy). Fury, while seen as #1, was embarrassed on the world stage by Ngannou (an MMA guy). As these were both pro fights, I'm pretty sure resume-wise the second one is worse. Now, Fury fans would argue that Fury didn't take Ngannou seriously, but that is the same argument Joshua's fans made about Ruiz at the time.

Anyway, if we are just looking at the 1s and 0s and the names involved, Joshua edges it for me. If we are going to add context - positives plus negatives, I still think Joshua has the better resume. Fury really shouldn't have wasted 18 months fighting Chisora 3 and Ngannou

 

Fury by a lot.

Joshua fans are generally a deluded bunch who follow one fighter and not the sport itself. They desperately try to claim that a 41 year old beltless Klitschko with two years of ring rust is a better fighter than a 39 year old active champion Klitschko fighting at home. They want you to believe that losses don't matter and that AJ has only been bested by "a punch from the gods" and the GOAT heavyweight (Dubois sure complicated that...)

If you dig into Joshua's resume you quickly find that there is only ONE top 10, prime fighter on there in the Win column: young Joseph Parker.

 

If Fury is the eras number 2 that seems like a bad reflection on the era as a whole given his thin resume and frequent struggles with guys like Wallin. He easily could have lost to Wilder, Wallin and Ngammou.

Maybe the next era will be better

 

Aj has the better resume and would beat fury 5 years ago, today, or 5 years from now. Imo.

 

General consensus is that AJ has the better resume, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that.....HOWEVER, there are two big names missing from AJs record that Fury has SIX fights with, and that would be Wilder and Chisora.

There's really no reason for AJ and Chisora to not have tangled at least once, and it would have made for an interesting fight.

And aside from that Wilder will always remain a blown opportunity for AJ.

They do share many common opponents, with some having fought at different points in their careers, such as Whyte, Klitschko, Usyk, Ngandu...I would definitely give AJ the edge in performance value against three of those four though.

I think AJ fighting Parker, Povetkin, Ruiz and Duboise certainly boosts his resume over Fury. But two of those guys knocked him clean out, and again Fury faced Wilder and Chisora, so that kind of cancels out some of that resume boost.

Never of them ever seemed to want any smoke with the Joy Joyce's or Zhang's of the world.

My final prediction: very slight edge in resume edge to AJ, but it go either way.

 

I see why Crazy is in your name. Your point about Wilder being Ranked here or there means sweet FA when you had Charles Martin as a Champion. Proof that useless boxers can wear a belt ala Wilder.

You are entitled to your opinion on the Fury win against Wlad, unfortunately for you the proof is out there on video on how poor Wlad was that night, unlike the night he fought AJ after near 2 years inactivity. Fury may win the opening round giving him the Best win from the 2, but the question was about the resume. So sorry to tell you but AJ has the better one.

Keep writing your clickbate replies

 

Wait so you agree with me Fury has the better top end wins? Cheers mate.

 

The problem with the Wilder trilogy, for Fury, is that the most instructive installment wasn't the second fight when he was extremely dominant and swatted Wilder aside with ease.

It's the first and third fights, where Fury won both (ignoring the dodgy card that lead to the official draw) when he had absolutely no right to.
IF Wilder was anywhere near he was cracked up to be, it'd be near enough impossible for anyone to turn up that out of shape twice, using two very different styles, and beat him both times...

The conclusion has to be that either Fury was just that good even when in poor condition, Wilder wasn't really that good at that point, or a combination of both.

But there's problems there... Fury proved on numerous occasions that he wasn't able to carry poor condition and win much easier fights convincingly - so is it reasonable to assume he'd win a consistently difficult one in that case? Not really, no.

Was Wilder at anything other than his best? Realistically no, he was in his prime and not too long off the back of his career highlight win...

The obvious conclusion is that both Fury was in poor condition (and that a legit contender should've won 1 and 3) and Wilder just wasn't ever that special - something his extremely thin resume does nothing to help argue against.


The idea that that's a better win than Povetkin or Parker is for the birds... Heck, I don't even know if it's any better than the earlier wins Fury had over Chisora.