We think that both of them retired today, and then we write on this topic. Fury had a better best win (Wlad) than AJ (also Wlad). Fury IMO had the better best second win (several wins) in terms of undefeated Wilder (whom AJ hasn't boxed). Fury has lost only to one man, and never by knockout unlike AJ. Fury's prime passed slowly, unlike AJ who never recovered from Andy Ruiz. And AJ was lucky that Andy Ruiz didn't treat their rematch as a sporting event...
AJ has wins over better fighters than Wilder and not just the Wlad win. Povetkin, Parker, Whyte, Ruiz, even the Charles Martin win, probably. Fury is mostly smoke and mirrors. Joshua tested himself more and as such was exposed more. Most probably rate Fury higher but personally, I'd rather be AJ.
Fury historically, but overall not by a lot. I feel like AJ at his peak was a bigger star than Fury was at his.
AJ. They both have the same signature win (Wlad) but Joshua stopped him whilst Fury outhugged him... And also, Joshua was willing to rematch and Wlad chose not to - Wlad wanted the Fury rematch and didn't get it. AJ never got busted with PED's... Which doesn't necessarily mean he didn't use them, but there's no smoking gun. Likewise, AJ fought a full career - Fury fought two shorter spells. Guys like Povetkin and Parker make for better resume depth than Wilder and Chisora. The best argument for Fury is that he did better against Usyk... Then again, Joshua improved significantly in his Usyk rematch, where Fury didn't. Joshua was cringey, and had a couple more losses, but fought almost everyone relevant in his era - Fury didn't.
Fury is a far far FAR superior fighter....Not even a question. Fury didn't get gifted anything either like AJ. No gifted gold. No Olympic limelight. No gifted first belt. Fury broke America AJ got chinned over in America.
I think the main issue I had with Fury is the lack of a Wlad rematch. That just has never sat well as anyone can have an off night and the first bout was awful
Povetkin (39 years old), Parker (24, not yet prime), Whyte (16 fights, not yet prime), Andy Ruiz, and CHARLES MARTIN are ALL better than Deontay Wilder? Interesting. I would argue that a resume of a LOT of old men who have big names, a billion dollar promotion, and constant A-side advantage with rematch clauses tends toward a "smoke and mirrors" resume. Did Joshua test himself more? Was he ever the underdog in a fight? Did he travel and take risk? Fury went to Germany at 25 to face a 10-year unbeaten, champion Vlad as a 4-1 underdog. Fury went to the US after looking horrible to face undefeated, champion Wilder as a 2-1 underdog. Fury faced Usyk twice for undisputed. He faced undefeated Chisora early in his career as an underdog. Who took more risk? Who had the more emphatic wins over champions? Who was lineal?
I love that Wilder is Schrodinger's boxer. A protected overrated boxer that only has a right when you want to down play him, yet a world beater when you need to fluff Fury
Joshua has benefitted from better and more marketing, more sponsorships, a more lucrative career financially in the UK. He has more title defences. Fury has a better win over their mutual best opponent, Wladimir Klitschko, less losses (only to one man, the undisputed inarguable king of their era Usyk), and a historic 2-0-1 trilogy over their mutual rival Deontay Wilder (while Joshua never faced him even once). Both are two-time world champions, only Fury has been lineal. For British heavyweights, both have had outstanding careers, but if I could only pick one, I’d rather be Tyson Fury.
