Is Anthony Joshua overrated?

By some yes, by others underrated

Most people either have him as an unstoppable destroyer, or a glass jawed stiff bum

Obviously he isn't either.

I think hes got a lot of natural ability, very good power, great size, decent fundamentals, great physical strength he's naturally a fighter

The negatives are he's green, he needs yo work on his conditioning and they haven't found the balance between having a defence and being to aggressive, they keep going too far one way or the other. Also he can fall into predictable patterns.

I think Robert McCracken may have taken him as far as he can, Rob is a great trainer but I wonder if AJ might benefit from someone who can increase his effectiveness in the pocket, teach him a few tricks, how to vary hs attacks and create openings.

But for being in the sport for 5 years and the career he's had so far, you can't really complain.

 

I agree sometimes you need a bit lesser opponent to "try things out on"

 

Carlos Takam wasn't in "his prime." If Takam had beaten Joshua, Takam would've been like the third-oldest guy to win the title.

And Wlad was unbeaten for a long time, then TYSON FURY BEAT HIM. Not Joshua.

Again, CLEAR signs you're overrating Joshua.

 

Yeah, it is overrating him. Because he doesn't have the greatest resume after 20 fights of any heavyweight ever.

Hell, Tim Witherspoon arguably fought better guys in his first 20 fights (a prime Holmes, a prime Page, a prime Thomas, a prime Tillis and Snipes) and none of them were 40 years old and none of them were Charles Martin (arguably the worst heavyweight titlist ever).

And nobody says Witherspoon has one of the best resumes ever.

Because it isn't, and neither is Joshua's.

 

Takam was in his prime. He's shown no indication of aging or slowing down at all, and if anything has gotten better with experience and age, thus he's in his prime.

Sure, and I've always given Fury credit for beating Klitschko as well. What's your point?

So how am I overrating Joshua again?

Maybe your just a hating troll

 

I much prefer the route Joshua has taken, although when he finally faces Wilder we'll see which approach works best because Deontay's put away enough cans to bolster his confidence many times over. AJ's moved quickly to the top of the division with only a short amateur career and is learning on the job. I think you can see him improving each fight, partly due to his own hard work and that of his trainer, but also due to the motivation from the repeated step ups in the calibre of opponent. For which I think Hearn deserves some credit.

Every fighter only has so many performances in him. With AJ stepping up so soon relatively speaking he has a shot at ATG status should he keep fighting the divisions best, which is all anyone can expect of him. We'll see on Saturday if he's kept his focus because anything under par and Povetkin will punish him. That's as it should be at the elite level.

 

I think it's likely that Wilder clips any HW and lays them out, however, at the very top, he'll be a lot less effective than you might assume. Any hesitation or defensive frailty will be exposed by AJ.
V interesting match-up, I second all those wishing to see this fight next for both.

 

I think some people confuse selling out football stadiums with being the "best."

Keep in the mind one of the guys who holds the record for the largest crowd ever to pay to see him fight in the 20th century was GREG HAUGEN (when he fought Julio Cesar Chavez in Mexico).

Tyson Fury beat Wlad Klitschko and won all the titles except for the WBC belt (which Wilder held). He also beat Derek Chisora twice and a number of the usual suspects (like Hammer and Pianeta). And he's still undefeated and in his prime.

Deontay Wilder has the most title defenses and by far the most wins and KOs (compared to the other two (Fury and Joshua).

Anthony Joshua picked up all the belts stripped from Fury and sells the most tickets ... he also fights the OLDEST guys of all of the two. He fought several 40 years olds. A couple of guys close to 40 (Povetkin will be 40 next year). And one who was almost 50 (Matt Skelton).

So there are a lot of ways to look at things.

 

What?

Carlos Takam never beat a name who wasn't 40 years old. (Michael Grant. Frans Botha. Michael Sprott, Tony Thompson).

When he fought names who weren't 40, he lost.

Parker beat him. Povetkin knocked him out. Joshua stopped him. Chisora stopped him. Tony decisioned him.

You could argue Takam was a top guy if he'd beaten Grant and Botha about a 10 or 15 years earlier.

If beating Carlos Takam is the guy you're defending as a sign of Anthony Joshua's GREATNESS, you're the worst example of a fan overrating Joshua.

Takam was a late sub. A filler. Nothing more. He was Eric Molina with muscles.

 

1. He lost two of those fights

2. You are straw manning because I don't see anyone saying Joshua has one of the best resumes ever. Anyone.

 

The way I look at things is how the opponents were ranked

Sure Wilder has younger opponents but they were ****

Takam may have been 37 or whatever but an equivalent win for Wilder is someone like Kelvin Price

 

Every fighter gets overrated and under rated by someone. So answer is yes he's overrated but also under rated.

You only have to look at the people thinking he'd blow away Takam and Parker in 3 rounds when he himself said Takam would go 10 rounds and Parker would be a long fight. If you expect Joshua to KO everyone quickly which clearly some do, then you overrate him. Not even Foreman or Tyson blew away everyone quickly and Joshua is no different but the hype that comes with being a puncher often sees people lose perspective.

Personally I think he's the number 1 heavyweight in the world right now, but that doesn't mean I don't think he could lose. I see a near 100% Fury being a very dangerous fight for him. If Usyk looks as good at heavy as he did at cruiser I might even favour Usyk over Joshua, but we'll have to wait and see what Usyk can do.

Even Wilder has a punchers chance, not a great one, but Douglas beat Tyson, Sanders beat Wlad, Rahman beat Lewis, crazy things can happen at heavyweight and Joshua isn't immune to that.

 

I agree completely, it's one extreme to the other with AJ.

 

It's funny because there's lots of folks who are excitedly saying that Finkel and co have pulled a fast one on AJ and stole his thunder, whereas I think there's a good argument that Wilder is going to remove the single biggest threat to AJ's tenure of the title. If they were each at 100% I think Fury would be the harder opponent for Joshua than Wilder would.