Should Fury be given credit for beating Wilder?

Fury took Wilder's heart.

 

Fury's resume will keep taking hits as Wilder fights on.
Fury haters will like that and rewrite history so that Wilder was never dangerous.
Wilder is near forty and unlike Zhang, relied almost entirely on speed and explosiveness and timing.

People will have their narratives as they always do.
They'll overlook hero fighters for losing out of their prime, they'll discredit other ones when it fits another narrative.

The narrative here will be Fury was never that good because Wilder wasn't and AJ was always better than Wilder and would have beaten him, therefore didn't need to fight him.

The simple reality is that the ball was in AJ's court all along, particularly after Wilder lost to Fury. He had years to make that fight but didn't because he was scared of getting flattened like Fury. Wilder fought Parker and Zhang in this period when he obviously would have preferred the bigger fight with AJ instead of risky fights for far less money. AJ fought Franklin, Helenius and Wallin.
If Wilder wasn't a threat AJ would have made the fight.

I think it's hilarious the 'superfight' fell through, but it's irritating people can't see the obvious ducking from AJ the last few years when Wilder was available and actually calling for the fight. The idea Wilder would avoid that 'cash out' to fight Zhang who's been hurting or KO'ing everyone is ridiculous.

But of course Wilder lost so now he was never a problem and AJ didn't avoid him. Pretty convenient.

 

Wilder is the most overrated boxer of all time.

Fought 3 proven world level HWs in Fury, Parker and Zhang.

I don't believe it that Wilder was past it against Zhang and Parker. Against these two Wilder displayed the same weaknesses as he showed against Washington, Spzilka, Nichols, Scroniers, Ortiz, Duhaupas, Stivernenand Ortiz. The difference Zhang and Parker aren't Tina cans.

 

The Roy Jones effect

 

I think, in fairness, Fury must be given a degree of credit. Wilder was undefeated and a big puncher. And, in truth, Fury wasn't at his best in fights 1 and 3.
HOWEVER it's a little more tricky than that.
Wilder does has a poor resume. He was protected as champion. I do feel the signs are there that he has physically and mentally declined as a fighter since the Fury trilogy (age, inactivity, much more mellow). But the guys who beat him recently - Zhang and Parker - would always have caused him problems, let alone now. So it becomes quite hard to separate his decline from the notion that he would always have lost to guys like this.

 

He should get some credit, he ended his reign in Wilders backyard. Despite Wilders obvious lack of skill he was still a champion with a dangerous punch, it's just a shame we never got to see these bigger fights sooner. The AJ v Wilder fight will forever remain a question mark in the history books, even if their respective fanboys pretend otherwise.

 

Wilders true secret weapon was the fear factor. When that was removed he was truly exposed.

Of course he’s past his best, but it’s not like he’s going in there with 22 year old fighters. Parker is in his 30’s and Zhang is in his 40’s.

In conclusion, Fury gets way too much credit for his Wilder wins.

 

Wilder was always a limited one trick pony but it was a good trick. He no longer has that trick, the pony died 3 years ago.

I think a prime Wilder probably beats Zhang but it is what it is.

 

Terrible post with terrible examples. Wilder was never any good; comparing his "prime" to that of Ali or Holmes should be ban-worthy. Wilder beat up hopeless journeymen with one telegraphed punch by their dozens—that's literally what he has been doing to earn his paper championship. He was a fabricated champion with a cherry-picked resume. The US market needed a home fighter, so PBC built Wilder into that role with carefully selected tomato cans, always fighting on US soil. But even an ancient, slow Ortiz boxed his ears until he gassed out. Then Wilder was thoroughly exposed in his last five fights, where the only guy he could beat was a shot Helenius, who was never any good anyway. Imagine a fighter who calls himself the greatest ever, and the foundation of that claim is beating Wilder over and over.

 

A Holmes that had been out of the ring for 2 years and completely unfit.

 

Wilder shying away from quality opposition at his best makes him a bit hard to exactly evaluate. But even Washington and Ortiz gave him a really hard time, so you'd have to figure that he'd take this kind of losses even back then if he kept on facing contenders.

So I don't think he stands out as someone you should really go life and death with 2 out of 3 fights, especially seeing how thin Fury's resume is otherwise.

That's why Fury fans are as desperate as Wilder fans to write off these last two losses as not the real Wilder, even though no one said that when he iced Helenius, who is more on the usual level of Wilder opponents. The "real Wilder" was pretty much reduced to a puncher's chance against the likes of Washington and Ortiz. That was always his level. Parker and Zhang are just better than those guys. That's the gist of it.

 

So do Usyks 2 schooling of AJ and his stoppage of Dubois who just beat Hrgovic count for nothing now?

 

Wilder was a feared undefeated fighter at that time. Fury absolutely deserves credit for being the first person to put an ass whipping on him. Both fighters faded and declined badly after the trilogy.

 

Because Wilder never fought anyone, if that Povetkin fight materialised he would have been knocked sparked out then, he got lucky with that one

 

Lets forget it