AJ vs. Fury resume

I guess in the context of comparing Joshua's resume to Fury's, the age of the opponents is far less of a problem. Actually, Fury has been steered away from young guys in their prime for the most part. The last one he fought was Wallin and we saw what happened there.

Since 2015, fighters 33 and under for Joshua:
Cornish (28), Whyte (27), Martin (29), Breazeale (30), Parker (26), Ruiz (29), Ruiz (30), Franklin (29), Wallin (33), and Dubois (27).

Since 2013, fighters 33 and under for Fury:
Abbel (32), Chisora (30), Hammer* (27), Pianeta (33), Wilder (33), Schwartz (25), Wallin (28).

Joshua has eight fighters 30 or under.
Fury only has four* fighters 30 or under.

It's Fury that fights a lot of old men...less so Joshua. That's just a meme

*failed a PED test against Hammer

 

So belts that can be moved for frivolous reasons some times Wilder for that matter won the belt off of a guy who never even beat a champ. (Stivern)

 

I've honestly no idea why a minority try to argue against themselves on this matter.

Every single boxing fan was calling for AJ v Wilder because they were the top two heavyweights in the world.

No one thought AJ had cleaned out the division when he fought Parker or Povetkin, everyone wanted him to fight Wilder.

Everyone ranked Wilder that highly.

People pretending now is just weird.

 

I think that is highly reductionist and doesn't cover the whole story IMO

+ Was Wilder RANKED one of the top 3 fighters? Of course, but...
+ Did many astute boxing observers claim that Wilder was a manufactured, protected fraud crushing cans through his 'reign', and would come a cropper when stepping up to even A- competition?
+ Was there massive contention around why Wilder / Joshua & Joshua / Fury fights never came to pass?

Whilst i'm never a fan of 'revisionist history', I do believe there is a change in some less astute boxing observers perceptions when events happen that back up the claims that Wilder wasn't all that and would be exposed.

Fury & Wilders resumes are inextricably linked due to their 'trilogy', and even the way that trilogy came about has some interesting asterisks:-
+ Did Fury manufacture the 3rd Wilder to avoid Johsua? That fight was looking close, then Wilder r3d fight kyboshed it...
+ If Fury had dominated / stopped Usyk then it would have elevated Wilder's somewhat
+ Ngannou, Parker & Zhang plus the Fury Usyk losses all conspire to tarnish both Wilder & Fury's resume in different ways; mainly because the make things clear to people what others were saying all along - if you take away Wilder's right hand, then he has nothing else to fall back on, other than heart.

One last thing i'd comment on here is that IMO folks really can't seem to separate resume from H2H from bias etc - though I appreciate some of that may well be agenda-driven trolling

Resume is purely achievements and fight history - and IMO should include CONTEXT there, though many conveniently take context out of things in resume and purely look at Resume via an "On Paper - Cold Hard Stats" lens - I think there is value in both, because although both are actually subjective in the final accounting, context is arguably far more subjective, and easier for folks to move goalposts to suit their agendas.

On paper, based on stats & cold hard metrics, I think it's a toss up, with Joshua having a slight edge based on number of top 10 ranked opponents he fought. Fury gets more from his fights with Wlad and Wilder here which evens things up. The Usyk losses balance out, but Joshua also has losses to Ruiz & Dubois. No one else has beaten Fury aside from Usyk, though there is the Wilder draw in the mix.

With Context, things become a good bit more muddy - the Ngannou farce really damages Fury's resume a LOT, and in terms of looking at shared encounters, it's again a tossu up - Fury probably just about did better against Usyk than AJ, but it's fine margins their, and in the end they both lost clearly both times. Joshua avenged his loss to Ruiz, but the manner of it wasn't very compelling. Fury's trilogy with Wilder has aged poorly with Wilder being schooled by Parker and starched by Zhang.

Whilst Joshua got demolished by Dubois, I think he gets credit for getting in their with a young prime puncher on a great winning streak; whether that was bad miscalculation / over confidence etc, but he gets credit from me for at least taking that fight.

All in all I can see both sides, and have no dog in the fight - whichever way you look it their resumes are both flawed, with asterisks and VERY little between then in the final accounting.

I think that's why, even though it would be far too late, a Fury / Joshua fight would still have been very interesting, as it would - in most reasonable people's mind - push the resume question to either side (or not as a draw would be feasible!).

I think that's one of the reason's that Fury hasn't taken the fight as he knows it could be very damaging to his resume vs Joshua; and if he was confident of the win at this stage in his career, I can't see why he wouldn't make the fight.

 

Fury best wins:
1. Wlad
2. Wilder 2
3. Wilder 3
4. Whyte
5. Chisora 1
6. Cunningham
7. Wallin
8. Chisora 2

That's all there is. So 2 great wins and the rest is nothing impressive.

Joshua best wins:
1. Wlad
2. Parker
3. Povetkin
4. Ruiz 2
5. Whyte
6. Martin
7. Pulev
8. Wallin
9. Helenius

One great win, 4 good wins but to be honest nothing special. He has more depth than fury.

Usyk is getting even more special if you look at his resume:

1. Fury 1
2. Aj 1
3. Fury 2
4. Aj 2
5. Dubois
6. Gassiev
7. Breidies
8. Glowacki
9. Huck
10. Bellew

8 great wins and a couple of very good wins

 

Great post. Agreed with almost every word.

 

Fury towered over Usyk and his reach compared to Ruiz`s reach would be insane.

 

Ok?

 

Not everyone... you keep saying that yet it has been repeatedly shown by posters on here that not everyone shares your view on the bumsmasher Wilder ever being number 2, he sure never accomplished it in the ring...

Did I want to See AJ VS Wilder yes I wanted unification does that in any way make Wilder the second best heavy, just because he picked up a title no. there are plenty of people who won a title not rank and never will be number 2 their division. Wilder needed to beat a few good fighters, he never did.

Here is a funny fact besides a way washed up Liakhovich (who was KO'd in his first defense) 7 years after Briggs KO'd him and after he was knocked out again by Helenius losing 4 of 6 going into the Wilder fight ( so standard fare for a Wilder opponent ) , Wilder has never even beat a champion who actually won their title in the ring 48 fights and not a one.

 

I think prime for prime, Fury wins. But AJ did so much more. Since he was champ, Fury only beat wilder, whyte and chisora (lololol)

 

No what's been shown is a tiny minority try to pretend they never ranked Wilder in the top 3 or top 2, but they're only pretending.

Like if i take you for example, you were very happy declaring the winner of the Wilder v Fury rematch as the new lineal champion. So a fight between Fury and Wilder, in your opinion at the time, was enough to create a new lineage. The reason you thought that is because you ranked them both in the top two.

People can pretend years later, but history is what history was.

I don't care about Wilder having a poor resume, everyone knows he has a poor resume, no one thinks he has a good resume.

 

There are a lot of smoke and mirrors with Joshua's resume and Fury definetly holds the better win over Wlad, but they're more or less on par overall.

Though the loss to Ruiz was a pretty bad one, that may be the single reason I'd edge Fury.

 

This is pretty obvious...

But it's also precisely the crux of the argument you're having with multiple posters.

They look at Wilders resume and say he's overrated because it's poor and he lost to every legit contender he ever fought.

Your response is to ignore all that and point to what the corrupt orgs were saying at the time and point out that plenty of posters got caught up in the hype...
But so what? Honest enquiry demands that you modify your position when you're given the evidence that shows you were wrong.


Resumes are proof.

And especially in the context of how valuable a win someone is, their resume and context are far more important than where they were in a dodgy rankings chart at the time.

 

Wilder you mean. Who knew that a win over the legendary Stiverne and the killer Ortiz did wonders for the CV?

 

Not corrupt organisations, the posters themselves.

They ranked Wilder in the top 3 at the time and pretend years later they never did.

It's only a tiny minority but if i can't point it out here where can I.