Has past-Usyk Joshua really separated him self from other guys?

[Toffee]

Wallin was the only good win/performance. He’s the clear #3 guy though.

I don't know how to separate Fury and Joshua right now. Both have been champions, both lost to Usyk, both have looked dominant and vulnerable.

Wilder is a big win for Fury, but I think there are enough question marks over just how good a win it was.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I don't know how to separate Fury and Joshua right now. Both have been champions, both lost to Usyk, both have looked dominant and vulnerable.

Wilder is a big win for Fury, but I think there are enough question marks over just how good a win it was.

Fury was the man who beat the man until Usyk ripped that title from him. AJ has never been the man at HW.

[famicommander]

Fury was the man who beat the man until Usyk ripped that title from him. AJ has never been the man at HW.

Going by TBRB and The Ring, Fury became the man twice.

First by beating Klitschko, then vacating by "retiring", then winning it back in a fight between the #1 and the #2 when he knocked out Wilder.

Joshua had his shot at being "the man" after Fury's second "retirement" when he faced Usyk in their rematch. Usyk won the vacant TBRB and Ring titles then, and technically defended them against Fury in the undisputed unification.

Now the discrepancy is resolved and people who didn't honor his "retirements" can agree with the people who did, and Usyk is the champion by all accounts.

It's actually kind of annoying that people continued recognizing Fury's lineal claim through two retirements. Joe Louis was retired for less time but he was still considered to be fighting Charles for the vacant lineal championship when he returned, and Ali was also considered to be fighting Holmes for the vacant championship. But Fury's marketing team kept throwing the lineal claim out there and everybody let him off the hook for not one but two retirements, when Ali and Joe didn't get the same grace.

[Toffee]

RJJ-94-02=GOAT famicommander
I'm less concerned with lineal.

I'm taking about "the best". Which was never decided until last month.

Joshua losing to Usyk, and Fury losing to Usyk, makes Usyk the best.

Neither Joshua nor Fury losing to Usyk makes them finished, bums, or anything below the next two places.

Joshua, Fury and Usyk were already separated from the rest on ability and resume. Joshua beating Ngannou didn't move him substantially upwards in that reckoning - he was already there just as Fury is still there after a loss to Usyk.

If you compare Fury and Joshua, there's nothing really between them. Being an ex lineal champion means nothing in that equation.

[famicommander]

RJJ-94-02=GOAT famicommander
I'm less concerned with lineal.

I'm taking about "the best". Which was never decided until last month.

Joshua losing to Usyk, and Fury losing to Usyk, makes Usyk the best.

Neither Joshua nor Fury losing to Usyk makes them finished, bums, or anything below the next two places.

Joshua, Fury and Usyk were already separated from the rest on ability and resume. Joshua beating Ngannou didn't move him substantially upwards in that reckoning - he was already there just as Fury is still there after a loss to Usyk.

If you compare Fury and Joshua, there's nothing really between them. Being an ex lineal champion means nothing in that equation.

Fury was the champion, Joshua was a titlist. That's a significant difference.

It's not predictive, though. It has nothing to do with what might happen if they fight. But until or unless Joshua becomes the legitimate champion of the world, Fury will always be able to hold that over him. Joshua, Wilder, Ruiz, Stiverne, Martin, Parker... these guys are all beltholders. Joshua did better than the rest by unifying multiple times, but he was still never the world champion. Klitschko was the champion, then Fury was the champion (once or twice depending on who you ask), now Usyk is champion until he loses, retires, or leaves the division.

[Toffee]

Going by TBRB and The Ring, Fury became the man twice.

First by beating Klitschko, then vacating by "retiring", then winning it back in a fight between the #1 and the #2 when he knocked out Wilder.

When you think about it, that's crazy that they were considered 1&2.

Wilder and Fury were ranked #2 and #8. Based on drawing with each other they were #1 and #2 the next time they met because TBRB invoked their 'robbery clause' and ranked both of them highly. It never really made sense from a pure rankings perspective.

Klitschko v Joshua had an earlier case for establishing a new champion. Joshua was #1 instead of #2 only because Klitschko had been removed from the rankings (at #1) by TBRB for not having a fight booked... within days of announcing the fight with Joshua! These were the two best Heavyweights fighting each other.

The difference in TBRB's history comes down to those two very marginal decisions (and a few others)

Ultimately Usyk rendered all possibilities irrelevant this past month.

[Toffee]

Fury was the champion, Joshua was a titlist. That's a significant difference.

It's not predictive, though. It has nothing to do with what might happen if they fight. But until or unless Joshua becomes the legitimate champion of the world, Fury will always be able to hold that over him. Joshua, Wilder, Ruiz, Stiverne, Martin, Parker... these guys are all beltholders.

He was the champion when he beat Klitschko. That's an era ago.

I think it's a stretch to say he was the champion again when he beat Wilder. I'd put Wilder in the beltholder category.

Who is better? My argument is that there's nothing between them to determine that. Historical designation interpretations don't change that.

[famicommander]

He was the champion when he beat Klitschko. That's an era ago.

I think it's a stretch to say he was the champion again when he beat Wilder. I'd put Wilder in the beltholder category.

Who is better? My argument is that there's nothing between them to determine that. Historical designation interpretations don't change that.

You can believe what you want, some people never honored his retirement(s) to begin with but among those that did ESPN, The Ring, the TBRB, BLH, and every other independent outlet had Fury and Wilder as the top two guys in the division at the time of their second fight.

So either Fury is a 2 time champion and Joshua is a 0 time champion, or Fury is a 1 time champion and Joshua is a 0 time champion. No matter how you look at it only Fury and Usyk have been the heavyweight champion of the world since Klitschko was beaten.

If you want to argue Joshua has beaten way more quality contenders than Fury has, I'll be the first to co-sign. And I think Fury is faded enough that I might pick Joshua in a head to head. But there's no getting around the fact that Fury was the champion and Joshua was a mere titlist. A two time, three-belt unified titlist, which is a great accomplishment, but a titlist nonetheless.

[Rockybigblower]

While i think AJ has improved...those 3 showings dont show much on the grander scale. AJ will never beat Usyk...but then again who will. Usyk will retire soon and AJ will hang around on a second wind to try to bolster his legacy. I expect it will go this way. He will do money fights with shot Fury and Wilder at some point down the track which he will win and will historically look great on his resume as time fades memory. He might pick up a belt or 2 along the way if he gets a vacant shot against a prospect fighter like Anderson when the belts scatter after Usyk. If anything i think the IBF title becomes vacant once Joshua is contracted into another fight....and Dubois fights Kabayel. Joshua will shoot for the only belt he never had...WBC. .maybe against Wilder.

[Toffee]

You can believe what you want, some people never honored his retirement(s) to begin with but among those that did ESPN, The Ring, the TBRB, BLH, and every other independent outlet had Fury and Wilder as the top two guys in the division at the time of their second fight.

So either Fury is a 2 time champion and Joshua is a 0 time champion, or Fury is a 1 time champion and Joshua is a 0 time champion. No matter how you look at it only Fury and Usyk have been the heavyweight champion of the world since Klitschko was beaten.

If you want to argue Joshua has beaten way more quality contenders than Fury has, I'll be the first to co-sign. And I think Fury is faded enough that I might pick Joshua in a head to head. But there's no getting around the fact that Fury was the champion and Joshua was a mere titlist. A two time, three-belt unified titlist, which is a great accomplishment, but a titlist nonetheless.

Champion, titlist... it matters, but it doesn't talk to who is the best.

Usyk is the best now. Fury was the best for a very, very brief moment nearly a decade ago. Right now, that means nothing in comparing Joshua and Fury.

I can make an argument for Joshua being the best when he beat Klitschko. Who else was there? But it doesn't matter for much, just as Fury's claims don't matter. There was a guy in Usyk who put all that right.