Historical context on the need for Fury vs AJ

I don't think so.
Guys like Corbett, Fitzsimmons maybe, Willard, perhaps even Dempsey, took long layoffs and announced retirement or spoke of being retired.

 

I never heard anything about them officially retiring like Fury, you have something on that?

Anyhow, for Fury to have been champion from 2015 up until now you'd gave to accept that Wlad automatically became undisputed when Vitaly retired, rendering the WBC belt meaningless, and then going three years without a defence, with more than a years retirement snuck in there. By that standard Ali would have been champion when faced Quarry in 1970, with an arguably stronger claim. That's devalueing the championship too much in may eyes.

 

For starters, I'm fairly sure James J. Corbett retired prior to Fitzsimmons v Maher.
I'll dig deeper when I have time.

Yes, everyone considered Wladimir the champion, most did even when Vitali was still active.
Certainly, yes, NO ONE took Stiverne's or Wilder's claim at all seriously.
Wlad was champion.
It was not disputed by anyone who followed boxing and even Wilder's handlers considered Wlad the champ and stated that Wilder was not quite ready to challenge him.

Ali had a good claim, of course, BUT there was the fact Frazier had settled supremacy over the division when he beat Ellis after Ali "retired".
Frazier established a new lineage in that vacuum. His claim was legitimate.

When Fury was AWOL and "retired", Joshua and Wilder failed to meet to establish a new line.
So Fury came back and hasn't been supplanted.

That's the way I see it.

 

Fury didn't have to beat Wilder to become the champ, but AJ did? Can't fully see the logic in that. If the belts Fury had was enough do become champion, why wouldn't AJ winning them be? (I don't think AJ's ever been the true champion either).

Not that it matters to me, If you retire and don't defend in three years, you're not a legitimate champion.

I don't consider Spinks the true champion when he met Tyson either btw. I don't think Ali was the champion going into FOTC, even though he had been forced out rather than gone AWOL. And Frazier picked out up the pieces left when Ali was exiled, just as Joshua did when Fury retired.

 

Sure, but I can take your word for it. If you have time, though, it would be interesting to know for sure just for historical reasons.

As for the issue at hand such a historical precedent means nothing to me, since we for example have a historical precedent that it's perfectly fine to deny your best challenger on account of his skin colour and not defend against anyone else either for three years and still be called champion. That for me doesn't become an acceptable conduct for someone supposed champion to be just because it has happened before.

But still, it is always interesting to know for sure.

 

The belts are irrelevant.
Wladimir wasn't champion because he held some belts, he was champion because he beat Chagaev, Povetkin etc.
When and how he exactly established himself as the true champion is debated but I think everyone agrees by 2015 he was certainly the true champion.

The belts don't matter.

Fury was/is champion because he beat Wladimir Klitschko.

While Fury was away, Joshua had 2 notable wins : Wlad and Joseph Parker.
That was good work that could go towards establishing a claim, but not enough to establish a new championship lineage.
A win over Wilder would have sealed it, in my opinion.

Frazier-Ellis was like AJ-Wilder ..... except the latter didn't happen.

 

I’m in the camp that Fury’s reign is a bit overstated. He knocked off Wlad in dominant fashion but his only other notable win is against the overhyped Wilder. Both Fury and AJ need each other to define their respective legacies which is what makes this fight all the more intriguing.