AJ vs. Fury resume

He was rated that highly. No question
I could never really fathom some of the ratings
I think alot of it depended on having a title and other fighters taking bigger fights and losing if you know what I mean
For example... Whyte lost to Joshua but went on to beat Chisora, Parker, Helenius, Brown, Rivas which overall thought was greater than what Wilder did during that period
Still that is only my opinion

I do wonder if Fury and Wilder were given high ratings to create a new lineage to a degree?

I wonder why when Fury came back that he didn't go after the #1 in Joshua
I seem to recall hearing he was offered a 60/40 split for Joshua to defend
I wonder if he thought go for the WBC title, and if successful (which he was on the 2nd attempt) then has a bargaining chip for a bigger fight?
All speculation of course

 

I would be surprised if this wasn't the case.

Joshua-Fury as a domestic fight as the two Brits who beat Wlad would've sold well...

But Joshua-Fury for undisputed as an all-British mega fight? Way more money.

Plus... Similar Ortiz before his Wilder rematch, or so I suspect...
Wilder was clearly a weak champion with a poor resume - it was always a sensible gamble to take, especially when you're Fury and you know you're not fully fit again yet and haven't blown off all the ring rust (or in Ortiz case, especially when you should've beaten him once already and know you have a good shot again).

Most definitely.

But logical and believable speculation? Also "most definitely".

 

I seem to remember it more the opposite way round that it was to build Wilder v AJ. Fury was totally written off.

 

Thanks champ

 

I think we are referring to different times
I was referring to the rematch time between Wilder and Fury and I think you are referring to possibly before Wilder/Fury 1

 

Yes

 

Broadly, yes...

Then again, if you look at it from both points of view it makes sense.

Wilder thought Fury would raise his profile, even if he was (as expected) shot... And it did... Whether he intended to use that boost to actually fight AJ is anyone's guess, the evidence suggests probably not, but it's impossible to say for sure now.

Fury, presumably, saw through Wilders hype and figured he had a very good chance even before he was properly fit (and wasn't wrong).

Both probably saw it as a way to raise their profiles - and it did - but neither ever took the cashcow fight.

 

Well it is.... a debate. A fat 50% Fury beat Wilder in that 1st fight we all know that, then in fight 2 he took Wilders soul in a beatdown and fight 3, well he beat him up again when once again out of shape. Fury was the 1st World class boxer Wilder faced and he got fiiled in. The next good boxer he faced JP dominated him in a one sided UD, made me a few quid that result and then another world class boxer Zhang gave him another beating despite being however old he claims to be. Wilder made a name ironing out mediocre opposition and got beat up every time he faced decent opposition. Beating him 3 times does not trump AJ's best wins.

 

It isn't a debate, plus I've already replied to posts like this earlier in the thread so check my reply from whenever the exchange was.

 

It isn't a debate if you're looking at strictly "on paper" rankings at the time - Wilder was clearly ranked higher.

The problem is, that only really means anything if you're totally uninterested in who was actually better, what the rankings should have said, and/or just DKSAB.

Wilder's resume is horrible, he lost to every contender he ever fought and ducked a bunch of others... He realistically wasn't one of the top 3 boxers at the time and probably not even too 5 either - but on paper he was, the irony being that he was a paper champion who constructed a long run by fighting mostly people who had no business being in title fights.

 

Haven't we already done this?

 

I believe we did...

And yet you continue with the spreadsheets over sport method of looking at this

If you can carry on posting about how it's incontrovertibly a better win "cuz look at the paper rankings" despite lots of people making clear they have perfectly good reasons for seeing it otherwise (I might even say "properly" if in a combative mood), then why shouldn't I carry on pointing out why you're posting such nonsense (ie: because you're looking at it from what I regard as a dumb angle).

 

I'll just ignore all your insults and just say that you're wholly wrong here. Someone replied to an earlier post and I said I will have already replied to a post similar so read back through. Then you replied and I said we'd already done this.

Good day sir.

 

By that ranking he would be #3 not number 2 in the division with Fury #1 and Joshua #2 in the division. so again I never said wilder was one of the top two boxers in the heavyweight division at any time ( luf keeps on changing what he said from second best to now top 3).

 

I understand both of your perspectives.

In fact, I agree with you that Fury v Wilder should never have been considered #1 v #2. But the American ranking bodies of the time felt differently:
Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II - Wikipedia

The argument against Joshua was that he lost to Andy Ruiz Jr. and didn't win the rematch "the right way". The argument for Joshua is he took the rematch seriously, dropping weight, changing his approach, and won comfortably. He was again the holder of IBF, WBA, WBO (and IBO), and had easily the most top 10 wins of anyone at the time. The arguments for Wilder were, he was a long-reigning WBC champion and in the preceding fight had beaten Ortiz 2. The argument against is he basically lost every round against an aging Ortiz until he landed his money punch---he was the same weak champion only now looking worse than ever. The argument for Fury was he had previously beaten Klitschko (and did far better than expected in Wilder 1). The argument against is he was taken life and death by Otto Wallin, the fight before Wilder II---in fact, he looked so bad in the Wallin fight, Team Fury fired Ben Davison.

To me---as I argued at the time---ranking them #1 and #2 showed an obvious bias toward the failing American circuit. It was kind of ridiculous to have them by default #1 v #2 (for a new lineage lol) while excluding the guy who had been leading the division in terms of ranked opponents and holding three of the four belts. As I pointed out in my previous post, Joshua had been checking off fighters on Ring's top 10. What had Fury and Wilder done?

Now, the manner of Fury's win over Wilder definitely cemented him in the top 2 (and arguable edged him above Joshua at the time), but we still needed in 2021 (and still do) Joshua v Fury to settle who was the better guy. Everyone was pretty clear on that I feel, except for the American ranking bodies who were rushing to anoint Fury. Then Usyk came along and put the matter to rest.

But in terms of how their career resumes should be ranked. Yeah, Joshua is ahead on that one