Where would a victory over 2026/2027 AJ rank on Fury's win record?

While AJ is ofc very fragile now, this is delusional. It's a huge fight, Fury is way past his best himself, and AJ is still dangerous.

 

I agree with that. The loser will still be reminded of it in supermarkets in 30 years time, if the loser is still alive.

 

Zzz

 

He'll get turned over sooner or later. There's something off about him.

 

Tyson is frequently listed among Lewis's best wins. "He beat Mike Tyson!!!" If Lewis hadn't beaten Tyson it would be seen as a significant flaw in his record.

A key reason why it's downplayed is Lewis was perceived as in or around prime, Tyson was roughly 14 years past his. Whereas Fury and Joshua are both well past it, at a similar stage of their careers.

Even in the immediate aftermath of the Prenga debacle where boxing fans are most reactive, beating Joshua is still seen as in the Wlad-Wilder tier rather than the Whyte-Chisora-Cunningham tier, and rightly so.

Context goes both ways. In October 2015, if someone asked would Fury be an ATG if he went 4-0-1 or 5-0-1 against Wlad away, 10 defence Wilder away and 2x champ Joshua, everyone would have said yes. If someone had said in 2017 that Fury wouldn't just make a comeback and be alive in 10 years, but beat Joshua in 2027, everyone would have thought them foolish or insane.

 

If 2026/2027 Joshua would be Fury's 4th best win or below, then, almost by logic, the Wilder wins are in Fury's top 3. I guess they were great after all.

 

You claim Wlad's opponents were "very solid" but bend over backwards to diminish Wilder, who would have been Wlad's best win. If Wilder is nothing much, don't talk to me about Brock or Chambers, Chagaev or Ibragimov, and these are among Wlad's best title defences. No one would give Fury credit for wins like that. Chambers himself said 2014 he was pretty much helpless against Fury in sparring, more helpless than he was vs Wlad, and that Wlad should avoid Fury.

We all have our biases but some of your assertions have been lunatic: "Fury beating Chisora 1 was far bigger than Fury beating Joshua". And "Fury did not fight many relevant or dangerous opponenets", this is the reverse of reality. I mentioned Haye because Fury showed willingness yet again to go in as the underdog against a dangerous opponent, as he has done time and time again in his career.

Wilder was 38 and had 1 round in 25 months when he fought Parker, 2 years removed from his 2nd brutal KO defeat to Fury after the biggest American HW fights since the early 2000's. What was David Haye doing at 31/32? Ducking Fury, and a few years after that he was getting KO'd by Bellew. At 35 Sam Peter was quitting after 3 to Pulev's jab. Who was exposed?

"Fury didn't want to fight Usyk" is pathetic given he fought him twice. Many ATG's have ducked and you want to criticise Fury for maximising his earnings against a high risk opponent who he fought twice? Usyk has beat everyone he has fought, he arguably has the best HW record of all time, so losing to him is no disgrace. He isn't a Ross Puritty, Buster Douglas, Oliver McCall, Michael Moorer etc.

Wlad was a 1/4 favourite against Fury, it was not seen as a huge risk for Wlad. Fury was seen as another contender, maybe in Wlad's top 10 wins. After Wlad had lost to Fury he had far less to lose and more to gain, so taking on AJ made sense. You can give Wlad credit for taking those fights but unfortunately for him he lost them, and he'd have been far better off retiring after beating Jennings.

Wilder beats Corrie Sanders prime for prime, though I would be rooting for Corrie. If we actually scrutinise Sanders' record, we see that his best wins after a vulnerable early-mid career Wlad were journeyman Ross Puritty and a perhaps faded, always inconsistent Bert Cooper. We see a KO loss to Rahman and somehow, to a club fighter in Nate Tubbs. We see a fighter who never stopped anyone of any remote note after 2.5 rounds. Corrie was a very dangerous one round fighter, Wilder was tough, had crazy determination, and was very dangerous for 12 rounds, so he likely weathers an early storm and Rahman's him. The elevation of Sanders and even freaking Shannon Briggs over Wilder just goes to show how far these old heads are removed from reality.

Your narratives about Joshua, Fury and Wlad are again absurd. Wlad is an utter scumbag, a politically correct masochist and was a serial loser when he fought live opponents prior to the Peter 1 jab and grab. He ducked many fights in his career, often fighting soft touches and bums.

Whatever one says about AJ, he did not lose to a journeyman. Ruiz was on the same level as Brewster and Sanders. And he somehow beat the choke artist Wlad.

Fury is probably about to clear Wlad because he has bigger top wins, far fewer losses, less bad losses, only lost to one guy rather than five, wasn't as dirty in the ring, schooled Wlad H2H, and will probably beat Wlad's last conqueror AJ, if the fight happens.

I understand the annoyance if one fighter is declined and the other not, Lewis vs Tyson for example. But who complains about Ali-Frazier 3, or Leonard-Hearns 2? Those men were similarly past it and made great fights. The only reason you are complaining here is a bias, perhaps unconscious, against this era. I do not believe for a second that you would have been defending Wlad at the time. You would have been saying, like everyone else of this type, that K2 was "the worst, most boring boxing era of all time". I ask you to examine your biases here.

 

lol