Who is the man at heavy...Usyk or Fury?

Joshua beat a dethroned 41 year old Wlad coming off 17 months of inactivity in a life and death war in Britain as the A-side. If Joshua was better than the undefeated 10 consecutive defence champion Wilder or the active 39 year old Wlad A-side champion that Fury fought in Germany then he wouldn't have been wrecked and made to quit by Andy Ruiz before his losses to Usyk. The respective Pulev performances a year prior to the Wlad-Fury and Joshua-Usyk fights also weaken the argument that Joshua was better than the Wlad that Fury dethroned.

We'll see what happens when Wilder fights Ruiz but the overwhelming expectation is that Wilder dominates him a la Stiverne or Arreola as Ruiz is too short, stubby, slow-footed and underpowered to do anything with Wilder, who is more durable than Joshua with better stamina and won't quit if the going gets tough. Hopefully this induces Hearn to put Joshua in with a 38 year old Wilder at the back end of next year as Wilder's handlers will want the massive money fight and the clamour for it will be enormous.

HW record:

Fury: Lineal + P4P No.2 Wlad, Wilder x3, Cunningham, Wallin, Whyte, Chisora x2

Usyk: Joshua x2, Chisora

The only way to even the argument somewhat is to throw in part-time HW's like Briedis and Hunter who were making 200 lbs when Usyk beat them but have fought against HW's (Charr, Bakole, Kuzmin, Povetkin) or other part-time HW's (Huck, Perez) while down at cruiser. The presumption though should be with Fury for his lineal win, his dethroning of two historically long-reigning champions and his 4 fights against top 3 heavyweights, plus the relative performances against mutual opponent Chisora.

 

"Resume" talk is subjective to a large degree: how many points does AJ lose for getting dropped 4 times and quitting against fringe contender 25/1 underdog fat Andy? And how many does Wilder gain for his draw with Fury? There are no objective answers to these questions but many, including Ring, currently rank Wilder above Joshua.

In reality, Joshua and Wilder have the exact same number of real fights.

Joshua's live opponents:

Whyte (puncher, determined)
Wlad (big puncher, big, very skilled, determined)
Povetkin (puncher, skilled, determined)
Ruiz 1 (NOMAS7 loss)
Usyk x2 (decision losses)

Parker was not live: he was unable to dominate Takam on the cards as Joshua did and he is famously tame and featherfisted, also not a front foot fighter. Further, he had a bodyguard referee against him who was allowing Joshua to take rests whenever he needed them. Parker didn't win more than 1-2 rounds on the official corrupt cards! He wasn't winning in 10 attempts and maybe not in 100.

Ruiz 2 was not live: 284 lbs after training in Taco Bell and grossly underestimating 236 lbs Joshua's ability to run a marathon in a big Saudi ring. Not a puncher, just looked like one because he nailed Joshua's temple in a wild exchange the first time.

Pulev was not live: featherfisted pointfighter, last impressive performance was Hughie 2 years prior and 13 months inactive, already KO'd cold by Wlad when he was fresh and undefeated. Pulev was NEVER winning a decision in Britain, or knocking AJ out with his lack of front foot ability.

Wilder's live opponents:

Stiverne 1 (puncher, strong-chinned, determined)
Duhaupas (strong-chinned, big, determined)
Ortiz 1 (puncher, skilled, southpaw, determined)
Fury x3 (draw, KO losses)

Contrary to popular belief, Wilder's pointfighter opponents barring Fury 1 were not live. Ortiz 2 was always going to eat a bomb if he tried to cautiously box for 36 minutes, ditto the far less capable Szpilka and Washington.

Joshua's record against live opponents is 3-3, Wilder's is 3-2-1.

The opponents I listed as credible scalps for Fury in the record comparison end at Chisora, who gave Usyk somewhere between his 2nd and 4th toughest and closest fight. So if Chisora's a "third rate heavyweight" then at least in his performance against Usyk, he's better than all save one of Usyk's cruiser opponents.

 

Arguing someone in invisible to the public or unknown etc doesn't seem like a good argument. Prior to beating Klitschko Fury had an absolutely terrible resume no better frankly than Bakole right now. By your logic should Klitschko not have not fought Fury because Fury hadn't done anything and there was no demand by the public for the fight?

As far as Wilder and Dubois go I don't find Wilders resume very impressive so I don't think the comparison is that outlandish. I would favor Dubois over virtually everyone Wilder has beaten. Ortiz seems like the only one that might pose problems.

 

Usyk is!!! Undoubtedly

 

As I said, Fury put himself in a mandatory position.

Incidentally, his 2008–2014 résumé is clearly superior to Bakole's body of work to date—it's also amusing to note that he did a demolition job on his cruiserweight, whereas Bakole got splattered by his.

But how do you think opponents are selected for a champion? They either bring some marketability or status (i.e. a trinket to unify with) to the table, get themselves mandated or serve some low-risk purpose such as a tune-up or tick-over.


You may theorize that Bakole and LOLOLov are big threats to Fury based on styles, but what substantive case can you make for either of them commanding a bout with him in the forseeable future?

Martin Bakole isn't generally considered Top 10, he isn't mandated, he brings no box office value or status to the table, he was knocked out by Michael Hunter (I'm throwing that in there, since you saw fit to make reference to Bryant Jennings being stopped by Oscar Rivas years after Luis Ortiz had defeated him), his best win is Tony Yoka, the ambiguous degree of risk he presents is incommensurate with the mininal reward he offers.

Bakhodir LOLOLov isn't generally considered Top 10, he isn't mandated, he has a paltry eleven professional fights to his name, he brings no box office value or status to the table, the ambiguous degree of risk he presents is incommensurate with the minimal reward he offers.


Contrast with the three men who were in the picture for Fury's upcoming December date;

Oleksandr Usyk has twice conquered one of the most prominent heavyweights of the last several years in Anthony Joshua, brings plenty of box office value and status (three trinkets) to the table as a result, is highly respected throughout the industry, is easily the most worthy challenger to Fury.

Anthony Joshua retains some significant status with two respectable performances against Usyk which suggest his prime is ongoing, is one of the most prominent heavyweights of the last several years and brings huge box office value to the table to make up for the risk he presents as a tick-over to Usyk.

Dereck Chisora brings significant box office value to the table for what should be a very routine tick-over to Usyk.


My nomination for a more balanced tick-over opponent than Chisora;

Otto Wallin isn't box office, but he is somewhat known for giving Fury a tougher night than expected back in 2019, a performance that could be evoked to interest fans (blood-spattered imagery and all).

Despite that grittily respectable performance three years ago, the risk he presents is mild enough to fit the role of stepping stone to a bigger assignment.

Though not a precise analogue for Usyk, his southpaw stylings provide Fury with a degree of preparation for his tangle with the Ukrainian.

It's really outlandish, and nobody reasonable would support it.

You can favor Daniel Dubois over Wilder's 2008–2019 competition on paper, but he hasn't run that gauntlet. He is much less accomplished than Wilder in actual reality.

2018 Luis Ortiz only maybe poses a few little problems for Dubois? Okay, then.

 

Depends on the champion's perspective. If you're Oleksandr Usyk, then you select the toughest and most skilled opponent available because that's how you roll.

 

"If I'm not fighting Fury, I'm not fighting at all."

Is Fury the toughest and most skilled guy Usyk could face? As it happens, yes. But he also offers the most box office value and status.

Since the quoted words were spoken on August 20, Usyk has broadened his scope to include Deontay Wilder, whom many here believe is unskilled and represents an easy night for Usyk (don't shoot the messenger). Wilder does bring other stuff to the table, though.

I don't see Usyk showing much interest in Cojimar's favorites, nor should he be expected to at this time.

 

Tyson Fury.

 

Stiverne claimed to have a fever against Ray Austin and that's why he performed poorly. He also claimed that Wilder beat him in the rematch by rabbit punching him rather than with a right hand through the guard, watch what he's saying to the referee after the KD's. So this is a man who is either a brazen liar or profoundly delusional and either way, not to be trusted. And getting punched in the head 200 times in 36 minutes by Wilder is a good way to need to take a trip to the hospital, if not the morgue.

People assert that Takam, who didn't have Duhaupas' chin, size or determination, was a credible win for Joshua despite losing to a man far worse than Pianeta in Gregory Tony. Fighters can improve with experience, especially if they're green. The Fury who schooled Wlad and destroyed Wilder was not the same Fury as the 7-0 novice who had a life and death with domestic level veteran McDermott etc. And I seem to remember you picking Duhaupas to beat Wilder on the grounds that he was a big tough game guy with decent skills, who was capable of "hurting Wilder more than Wilder could hurt him".

If Joshua had fought Fury x3, Ortiz 1, Duhaupas and Stiverne 1 I expect Joshua would have more than his current 3 losses. Ruiz was not more highly regarded than Ortiz or Stiverne and Joshua has proven that you don't even need to be a top 5 guy to beat him up and make him give up.

 

Joshua is 3-3 against real opponents, Wilder is 3-2-1 against real opponents. If you disagree about my assessment of AJ's record, explain to me how Parker (one of AJ's best wins, apparently) was a genuine threat to AJ, taking account of the grotesquely biased hometown judging, bodyguard referee and Parker's non-existent KO record at Cojanu-level and above.

What's relevant is Stiverne made BS excuses in multiple other fights so he can't even be taken as seriously as other many fighters who make excuses after a loss. Stiverne was coming off the best wins of his career and Wilder schooled and battered him over 12 rounds, that's all there is to it.

Wlad is a guy who lost to Ross Puritty (what a bum!) and unlike the notoriously hot and cold Stiverne against King, we know that Wlad trained for that fight.

Of course Joshua's beatdown and quitjob loss to Ruiz is relevant, losses are a key part of the record. If Joshua can lose to Ruiz in or around his prime then he can lose to several of Wilder's non-Fury opponents, who were for the most part bigger hitters than Ruiz and were more highly regarded. If Wilder loses to Ruiz then the argument that Joshua's 2nd tier opponents would have had a good chance against him is strong, if Wilder schools and/or demolishes Ruiz then the opposite argument is strengthened.

 

Wilder never lost to a pudding like fat Andy and revisionism aside, drew with Fury (which would be the best result on AJ's record). It's an open secret at this point that they're all using PED's to a lesser or greater degree and applies just as much to AJ's opponents (Whyte and Povetkin both failed multiple PED tests).