And some would say dethroning him on his home turf is better than nearly getting sparked out by a 41 year old on his retirement fight. But I agree with the rest of your post.
Agree that some people are now losing a bit of perspective on Fury. He still has some good victories and some impressive traits. BUT I do think the backlash comes, particularly, from his actions in recent years, talking himself up while avoiding the top tier challenges. So I don't blame people for being down on him because if he didn't go all out to prove himself as the best, why should fans accept him as such? I do agree that his career is not over - although I'm not sure he has much time left. But regardless of what happens from here, even if Fury goes on to defeat Usyk and AJ, his career cherry picking and fan gaslighting should always be held against him.
No, in all seriousness I'm really not convinced. Hence asking the question. I think there's an argument he was 'the man' after beating Wlad. But then of course he disappeared. So I guess that would be a very brief 'era'... By the time he returned I think there were other fighters around who had a claim to being the best in the division (AJ, Wilder, even if they were not). And I think this is where the problems started. Fury was able to milk this lineal title nonsense, being called the best without really facing off against people who were his top competition. So, I guess for me, any claim to him having an era would have heavy question marks around it. But again I am interested to hear people's opinions. I am not against the idea of a lineal champion per se, but I think this is an example where it has been cynically exploited for professional gain. And this is the danger with the concept which I wish more people would acknowledge.
He's arguably the best of his era until Usyk. But, you could make the same sorts of arguments for AJ. I would pick best Fury over best AJ, just barely. But the fact is that Fury's "greatness" rests on one-trick pony Wilder whereas AJ is a much more solid proposition. In fact I would say that if AJ fought Wilder and Fury now, he'd beat them.
Problem for Fury and his legacy is he COULD HAVE BEEN, but was happier to retire multiple times, avoid the Wlad rematch, fight Wilder x3 instead of the rest of the Top 10 - especially Joshua - , and tried as hard as possible to avoid Usyk and age him out, taking meaningless fights multiple times when their were better out there to be made. He showed in rounds 4-6 against Usyk how intelligent and good he can be - could you imagine if he had 'lived the life' and been more disciplined? Fury's legacy I think when all is said and done will be more overshadowed by what could have been than what was.
Honestly, if much of Fury's legacy rests on him beating Wilder, Wilder deserves to be up there as well. To me the post-Wald pre-Usyk era is still defined by the "Big 3" at the time of Fury, Wilder, and AJ. If only Wilder could also be beat by Usyk, that would really cement the connection.
AJ doesn't need to fight wilder right now, we all know the better fighter even if y'all choose to deny, that's how you guys almost pushed Ngannou to his death. AJ will fight Wilder only if he can prove he's still good enough not to get murdered, and he's got to prove that against Zhang this week
People also tend to forget that out of the big 3 that AJ is the only one not to fight either of them. Yet he's supposed to be the best based on hypothetical match ups? I'd like to see Usyk beat Wilder to really cement his status and being the only man to have beaten the original "big 3".
