AJ vs. Fury resume

Pure resume- AJ
Overall record- Fury

 

Fury.

Wlad and Wilder are better than anything AJ has.

Twice he beat the next best HW.

 

I can go both ways on who's Wlad win was better... For the sake of argument, I'm fine giving it to Fury.

But Wilder? Better than Povetkin or Parker? Absolutely no way.

AJ's resume is much deeper in quality - much... The question really is whether (and how much) you value Fury's win over Wlad over AJ's and how much weight you give to the competitiveness of their respective losses to Usyk.

Overall, I think AJ has done more... But Fury at his absolute best would probably have beaten AJ at his absolute best.

 

Well no, Fury clearly has the better victory over Wlad.

Wilderx3 is much better than any victory by AJ also.

Isn't even a debate.

 

Beating two long standing Champions in Wlad and Wilder on away soil whilst a huge underdog trumps anything Joshua and Re Matchroom accomplished. Joshua in his whole career only fought outside Britain on five occasions,America once and Saudi four times.

 

"Clearly" is not the word I'd use.

I do attach weight to the fact AJ was willing to rematch and Wlad didn't want it... Whilst Wlad was desperate to rematch Fury (who didn't).

Wilder never beat a single legit contender - he's probably the most overrated fighter over the 21st century so far, and that's saying a lot...

Beating him 3x isn't nothing, especially when Fury wasn't even in remotely decent shape for two of those fights, but that in itself tells you exactly how special he wasn't.

I'd say beating either of Povetkin or Parker once is at least the equal of beating Wilder twice.

 

If course it's clearly. Fury beat the HW champion. AJ beat an inactive fighter who hadn't won for two years.

Wilder was ranked top 3 for the entirety of Furys reign.

When AJ lost to Ruiz every man and his dog ranked Wilder top 2.

And Wlad schooled him 3 times.

AJ never come close to beating that level of fighter.

 

No, it's not.

Fury stank the place out against a distracted Wlad who underestimated him and knew he could've done a lot better... Which is why Wlad wanted the rematch so badly.
Still a great win, but it's not without points against it either.

Joshua fought an older Wlad, who was rustier too - but who didn't underestimate him and was well prepared... And Wlad chose not to rematch him.
Still a great win, but there's points against it too.

Which is better? Depends how you weigh up those plusses and minuses.

Only a complete fool has this as an open and shut case.

Wilder was massively overhyped... Your point is?
Just look at Wilders resume - the majority of his wins weren't even gatekeeper level fighters, his best being an ancient Ortiz who's own best win was several years behind him... Oh, and Wilder needed help to beat that mediocrity, too.

Wilder was a joke champion who's only real upside was he could consistently beat bums - if he hadn't kept that zero so long (by ducking anyone remotely decent) far fewer people would've erroneously ranked him so high.

Except that even old Wlad was 10x the fighter Wilder ever was.

And Povetkin was far better than Wilder, which is why Wilder wanted no part of him.

And Parker was way better, too.

 

AJ's resume is clearly more calculated and superficial, as is the case with a brand managed so carefully by his masters. He has more names but a detailed look shows that it's not what it seems. As we all know he has 3 gold medallists but all were way past prime and Pulev was even coming off Covid. Ruiz is only a 'good win' because he beat AJ which is an absurdity when you think about it. He beat nobody else.

Fury became a brand eventually, but during the main part of his career while with Hennessy, he was not hyped by media anything like AJ and had no sponsorships. That changed when he sold out to ESPN etc. Point is, his matchups were not calculated to the level of AJ's. For instance, no way does AJ fight Chisora at that age or even McDermott (when Fury was 20/21), or Cunningham (when Fury was 25 or so) or sign to fight Haye at that time either.

There are also other details for example even with shared B opponents like Kevin Johnson, Fury fought him pretty close to prime and AJ fought the journeyman version. Wallin was AJ's sparring partner.

In the end if we leave out the B/C opponents, Old Wlad/Old Povetkin/Old-Covid Pulev/Parker is not better than (old but younger) Wlad/Wilder/Wilder/Wilder, for the simple reason that Fury's Wlad was a better opponent and the Wilder he fought was more dangerous than Parker and the old EE's.

A simpler way to look at it is to ask whether AJ could beat Wlad in Germany and not get KO'd by Wilder in three fights. I think that's hard to see.

 

Both crap

 

Fury has Wlad who never won a fight again and Wilder who was never any good.. gave no legit challenger a shot and lost twice and retired.. absolute fraud

 

Doesn't matter, Fury beat a reigning champion, AJ beat an inactive fighter who hadn't won a fight for two years. It is open and shut.

Again doesn't matter, Wilder was always one of the top heavyweights in the world during AJs tenure, Wilder signed to fight Povetkin but Povetkin failed a drug test.

Fury has very clearly got the best 2 victories out of them. AJ has more depth yes, but Firy has better quality at the top end.

 

I wouldn’t say it’s much better but AJ’s is deeper resume plus the wilder wins have aged like milk and the Parker win has aged like wine.

I guess you maybe have to factor in loses though and fury has only lost to Usyk but he just never went against tough top level opposition consistently enough fury’s record is just like his mind it’s up and down.

 

Joshua has a deeper resume, Fury has a better resume.