Tyson Fury > Wlad Klitschko

If Fury beats four loss Joshua, it's "so what? Ruiz, Usyk x2 and Dubois got there first."

If Fury loses to four loss Joshua, it's legacy-ruining.

If Fury doesn't make the fight (Joshua is desperate for it now as it's the only way he can partly redeem his own legacy, and secure a huge cash out) he's choosing legacy protection over money, I don't see how this is hard to understand. Fury-Joshua is still probably the biggest money fight in boxing.

 

Fury was the No.1 HW in between dethroning Wlad and losing to Usyk, or certainly prior to Usyk making his mark at HW.

Wlad didn't fight his No.1 rival in his own era and most apparently believe Wlad would have lost to him.

 

I agree this has to count for Wlad but at the same time Fury has missed so many names of this era (not all through his fault like some out but still) so it doesn't really count in his favour against Wlad.

Fury also never held all the belts at the same time either just like Wlad.

 

Yes, No.1 amongst these:

Seferi
Pianeta
Schwarz
Chisora
Wilder
Whyte
Ngannou

 

What was Wlad's ATG status coming off getting schooled by Fury? It was considered highly debatable that he was top 10. And snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against a green pro Joshua should have sunk his reputation further.

 

Fury's main rivals were Wilder (2-0-1, 2 KO's over a trilogy) and Joshua (who fell below Fury when he was stopped by Ruiz). Fury would have fought Joshua's conqueror but the little fat man wanted 20 million to get his head jabbed off.

Wilder's x2 are the best wins among those. But even Chisora and Whyte are arguably the best wins of Vitali, Haye, Kabayel (as it stands) and Povetkin.

 

Did Wlad win by losing? Your hero seems to think he did.

 

lol

 

I think he has missed more names than AJ but obviously some of the fights fell threw and not all of it was Fury's fault some of it is due to this era inactivity.

I agree Wlad had the worse losses but for me his reign is enough to put him over Fury even considering. I was only using AJ to show the risk Wlad was willing to take at a age much older than Fury is now even though he did lose.

 

It's unclear because if I said Vitali > Wlad, the general response would not be disagreement. They were certainly the top 2 HW's post-Lewis but pre-Fury. Or if I said Bowe > Wlad, there would be a mixed response but a lot of agreement. They'd say things like "I favour Bowe H2H and he had better top wins and a fraction of the losses and not a bad loss but Wlad had much more longevity/quantity" etc.

I don't think victories over Chisora, Whyte, Kevin and Hammer necessarily make a fighter a world-beater. But while these wins are often played down for Fury, they are arguably the best opponents beaten of Vitali (Chisora), Haye (Chisora), Kabayel (Chisora, as it stands), Povetkin (Whyte), or round out the top 10 wins of Vitali (Kevin) and Povetkin (Hammer).

 

I don't put as much value as you do in Wlad beating a long list of Calvin Brock's and Alex Leapai's.

It's not Fury's fault that Joshua kept losing when it mattered and now legacy-wise, it doesn't matter.

It's not Fury's fault that Wlad capitulated to Joshua and then claimed a perverse "moral victory".

 

In a way, he is like Robinson, p4p, both, rather significantly, never selling out to Joshua.

 

Fury couldn't carry Wlad's jockstrap.

 

https://library.sportingnews.com/st...y_ot43uk6re8jn15uxurk5vz07i.jpg?itok=cr1irria

 

Fair play to him, he beat past prime 39 year old Wlad. Too bad he ducked the rematch.