Is Anthony Joshua overrated?

It's difficult to judge them. Who are the best boxers they have fought, close to their prime?

 

Yes. Because a fighter adored by the casuals like Joshua is almost always a little overrated.

But I still think he's the best HW because of his two most realistic rivals to that claim, one of them has a shockingly low amount of fundamental skill and the other is a manic lunatic whose discipline and motivation can plummet to zero on any given day.

 

He might be a tad overrated by his fanboys who believe he is considerably better than Wilder which he's not.

The most overrated heavyweight is Tyson Fury.

We will know more about Joshua after his fight with Povetkin but he is very talented.

 

So far he is, but it’s still early into his career. His biggest accomplishment was beating a past it Wlad and he barely beat him. Tyson’s won was actually more important because he beat him while he was still champ and have him his first loss in a decade. So the jury is still out on Joshua.

 

Leon Spinks beat the man considered the best heavyweight of all time in Leon's eighth fight.

Leon was the unified undisputed World Heavyweight champion in his eighth fight.

All the Charles Martins and Joseph Parkers don't add up to that and never will.

And Leon is considered a joke by most today.

So I think it's best to wait until Anthony Joshua retires before labeling him the best anything.

He could be an ex-champion by Saturday.

 

hes been a bit rushed to be honest, and probably hasnt reached prime yet (late start)

 

he's overrated by the more casual fan, who see him as some sort of deity. The ones who fully follow the sport seem to know what he is, a good, solid boxer, who does most things well.

 

He's both underrated and overrated. Underrated in that people are slow to appreciate his achievements, as they relate to history. People scoff when talking about him as an ATG, but when you actually stack up his in era achievements next to others in the top 11-25, they hold up fairly well. If he were to beat Povetkin and retire the next day, he would at least be somewhere in that 11-25 ATG list. People don't like to talk ATG while a fighter is active, at least not until most of their career is over, so that is an unpopular statement. But it is accurate. Of course, since he still has much of his career left, his ranking could crater if he goes on a losing streak, but as it stands it is quite admirable.

But he's also overrated by many in terms of being thought of as levels beyond the other HWs. He's definitely #1 right now. But if Wilder and Fury meet, the winner will have at least a comparable claim to #1. Fury would have a better claim. Basically any counterargument to that is easily compared and dealt with(i.e., a Fury of debatable prime is as good a win as a Wlad of even more debatable prime). And his fans and or the devoted Wilder or Fury haters don't like to admit that.

 

Mostly agree with this, in fact its getting at a lot of the points I just made in another post. I would dispute that no one can go past Lewis, though. Especially as AJ and Fury, as you yourself noted, have a leg up on Wilder in terms of having Wlad on his resume already. If AJ or Fury beat the other two of the "big three", clear out the rest of the division including Usyk, who is considered at least one of the two best CW's of all time, and then retires undefeated after beating someone who looks like the next big thing, who goes on to become an ATG themselves (shades of Lewis Vitali), then AJ/Fury would have a great argument at being better than Lewis and at least being a top 3 ATG.

Now, I don't think that will happen. But I don't think it should be ruled out yet, either.

 

11?

And if he lost to Povetkin on Saturday and retired, where would a win over a 42-year-old Wlad and a win over Joseph Parker place him on the all-time list?

I couldn't disagree more.

And, frankly, if he does beat Povetkin Saturday - and he should, because Povetkin is 39 and has looked shakey and Joshua is 28 and in his prime and has every physical advantage in the fight - I don't see Joshua "doing what he's supposed to do" to a 39 year old small guy elevating him IN ANY WAY to #11 all time.

If Joshua becomes an all-time great, it'll be because he won fights against Fury and Wilder and he beat the wave coming like Usyk and Joyce and Yoka and Dubois, etc.

It won't be becaue of these early wins over 40 year olds who were prime a decade ago and Charles Martin.

 

Hardly. No one has is saying: "IF Tyson Fury beats Wilder, Fury could be the 11th best heavyweight of ALL TIME."

And if Fury did beat Wilder, Fury would have won ALL the world titles ... WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, IBO, RING, blah blah ... and he'd be undefeated ... and only 30 years old ... and have wins over Wlad (two years before Joshua) and Wilder (who is miles ahead of Parker) and Chisora and the other Euro dudes.

Yet Andrew just said Joshua could be the 11th best heavyweight ever ... if he beats Povetkin. And others in this thread are saying Joshua has one of the best records among heavyweights ever.

Joshua is hands down overrated.

He "ain't" there yet. Not even close.

None of the current guys are, to be honest.

This is the moment when they all need to start fighting each other and the guys coming up.

That's how they'll prove it. Not by fighting 40 year olds.

 

The one who said Joshua would be the 11th best heavyweight ever doesn't know **** about the heavyweight division and that was exactly one of the fanboys i mentioned.

 

You keep going on about Joshua not deserving credit for beating a 'past it Klitschko', but then claim Spinks beating a 'past it Ali' is relevant....

Double standards?


Name me a Heavyweight who has Unified in 20 fights, remained undefeated, and fought 3 HW World title holders, which could be 4 after Povetkin.

You can't.

 

"And others in this thread are saying Joshua has one of the best records among heavyweights ever."

@Dubblechin

Who has said this?

Quote it for me.....

 

No