Is Fury now the clear 2nd greatest heavyweight of his generation?

[treelo]

Funnily enough Joshua’s signature win is beating a 41 year old wlad that hadn’t fought in two years?


Fury beat a wlad that was still champion


Joshua’s best wins are who?

Parker, whyte, wlad, wallin

Parker is a better win than anyone on Furys resume

 

[StopDucking]

Yes, he is the clear #2.

Fury's only losses are to Usyk who's the clear #1 and as much as people want to nitpick his biggest wins, Wilder was undefeated when Fury beat him and Wlad hadn't lost for 11 years.

The only way Joshua can surpass Fury is by beating Fury.

 

[Doctor Grudge]

Funnily enough Joshua’s signature win is beating a 41 year old wlad that hadn’t fought in two years?


Fury beat a wlad that was still champion


Joshua’s best wins are who?

Parker, whyte, wlad, wallin

Yes, Joshua doesn't have a gigantic signature win, but he has a longer sample size against good fighters. He took riskier fights than Fury. If you to resort to having to go back a decade when he fought Wlad, then that is kind of proving my point. Joshua was not even in his prime either.

Joshua never got the chance to fight Wilder. Who in their right mind really thinks Wilder can beat Joshua? That's literally the only guy Fury beat. There's just this idea that someone like Wilder is way better than Parker and Ruiz, and it simply might not be true. People are easily persuading by promoters for a reason.

Wladimir was old when he fought Fury also, so I am not really sure what you're saying. That Fury beat him first? So what? Wladimir is a better boxer than both Fury and Joshua - he lost to them simply because he was old (and before saying something like he was "only" 38, he had a ton of mileage on his body). I never even mentioned Klitscho, you just made a strawman argument.


Fury is just rated #2 by default for the same reason when I read the thread I automatically defaulted to him as #2. Boxing fans are lazy, and don't care about anything other than who has less losses. They also try to conjure up this concept of "kings", where only like 2 or 3 boxers matter in a weight class and everyone else sucks, when boxing isn't like that.

It's definitely worth exploring if Fury is simply #2 because he just didn't fight many good guys. Much of his most relevant years were in a trilogy with a guy who was marketed as a king of the hw division, who himself, had an even thinner resume. (Wilder) In fact, didn't Wilder essentially duck Joshua by fighting Fury?

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Fury is already publicly recognized as the #2 heavyweight but I'd like for him to actually cement it. By him fighting Joshua and/or Dubois we'll know whether his current ranking is justified. Like the poster above me said he hasn't beaten many top guys over the years. Very few, actually.

 

[Mujeriego]

I think AJs reign tops Fury's.
Let them fight it out.
Who knows, maybe Usyks fights the winner one more time and then retires.

 

[iwannabeadored]

Yes, Joshua doesn't have a gigantic signature win, but he has a longer sample size against good fighters.

He took riskier fights than Fury.

What’s the riskier fights?

If you to resort to having to go back a decade when he fought Wlad, then that is kind of proving my point.

You asked what are fury’s good wins and the wlad one is one lol.

Joshua was not even in his prime either.

I disagree, most people said Joshua’s prime when he was destroying guys was 2017-2018. Apparently the Joshua who fought Ruiz and got koed was gun shy lol.

Joshua never got the chance to fight Wilder. Who in their right mind really thinks Wilder can beat Joshua?

A prime wilder vs Joshua who can’t get out the way of a right hand? Yeah anyone’s fight

That's literally the only guy Fury beat. There's just this idea that someone like Wilder is way better than Parker and Ruiz, and it simply might not be true. People are easily persuading by promoters for a reason.

I love how you dismiss wilder, whose only loses came to fury until he was what 38-39 and inactive for 2 years who then got jabbed and grabbed by Parker and then koed by zhang.

Wladimir was old when he fought Fury also, so I am not really sure what you're saying. That Fury beat him first? So what?

Generally when you beat a fighter who was champion and who hadn’t lost in 10 years, you do get credit for winning…

Joshua fought a wlad who had been out the ring for two years and went life and death with him lol.

Wladimir is a better boxer than both Fury and Joshua - he lost to them simply because he was old (

So when wlad got stopped when he was 22 by a journeyman then brutally stopped by Brewster what was he then? 26? Not in his prime yet lol.

and before saying something like he was "only" 38, he had a ton of mileage on his body). I never even mentioned Klitscho, you just made a strawman argument.

What does a young wlad do differently against a prime fury?

What strawman did I make I brought up their good wins lol?

Fury is just rated #2 by default for the same reason when I read the thread I automatically defaulted to him as #2. Boxing fans are lazy, and don't care about anything other than who has less losses. They also try to conjure up this concept of "kings", where only like 2 or 3 boxers matter in a weight class and everyone else sucks, when boxing isn't like that.

It's definitely worth exploring if Fury is simply #2 because he just didn't fight many good guys. Much of his most relevant years were in a trilogy with a guy who was marketed as a king of the hw division, who himself, had an even thinner resume.

(Wilder) In fact, didn't Wilder essentially duck Joshua by fighting Fury?

This has already been debunked. In 2018 when Joshua was the king of the sport, Hearn publically stated he offered wilder a flat fee of 15 million. It was a 100 million dollar fight. So no lol.