Wilder Vs Fury Resume and H2h

Hard to make a realistic argument Fury's got a substantially better resume, per my initial post, at least without making arguments like fights were fixed etc that aren't generally accepted by anyone but some in the blogging community and are impossible to prove. There's a big gap after their top respective 3 and 4 best opponents, so after that they aren't really worth comparing, although Wilder has faced more lower leverl opposition than Fury. So its the top 4 best opponents of each that is worthy of review. Tough to argue Chisora is as good as Stiverne. Tough to argue Scott isn't at least close to Cunningham. Even tougher to argue Duhaupas isn't better than Hammer, since he beat a guy who beat Hammer's best win better than Hammer did. The only real argument is Johnson is better than Wilder's 4th best win. That's not a compelling argument that Wilder "isn't close" to Fury in opp. You can say Wilder should have done more as champ, or that Fury tried to face more top HW's than Wilder has, but in terms of who they've actually faced, they are very close and it's not debatable using logic instead of emotion.