Sunday Times Frank Warren Interview

If you class number one as who has the best achievement on their resume then no problems, Tyson Fury is number one. That's not what most people consider however? It's all about performance over time. Fury has his fight against Wlad and then retires, balloons, decries boxing and takes himself out of the picture. AJ fills the vacuum with solid win after solid win, including 3 top 5 opponents. Fury returns with Seferi, Pianeta and a moral victory against the number 2, Wilder. That can get him to 2, but I don't think it gets him to 1.

There's always a number one, it's just a ranking representing performance of the top guys. If you artificially withheld it then the number 2 would be the defacto number 1.

What can rightly remain open is a title such as the Ring champion. They, rightly I think, took the decision to remove it from the inactive Fury but not to give it to the new number one, Joshua, until he'd faced 2, Wilder then, now Fury.

https://www.ringtv.com/ratings/?weightclass=272

 

I don't think it's so clear cut .
Joshua was elevated to number one by many a long time ago, based only on a win over Klitschko, who hadn't won a fight in two years and had lost clearly to Fury.

 

He beat Klitschko, was the holder of 2 (+IBO) titles and Fury was gone from the scene. Who would you have had as number one insteadf?

 

Complacency and arrogance from Hearn has allowed the fish back into the water. He thought he was invincible with his sky deal but the pressure is on now.

 

The current situation is not historically atypical; there are several instances throughout history where one claimant has a stronger claim through lineage, versus a more active claimant with better quality recent wins. Corbett-Fitzsimmons, Jeffries-Johnson, Louis-Charles, Ali-Frazier, Spinks-Tyson for example.

The dispute in all cases was resolved in the ring, and not via promotional warfare or the historic equivalent of discussion forums. The title claims remained disputed and essentially unresolved until the actual fight. We can rank fighters in the meantime, and by whatever criteria we consider appropriate, but it's a pretty meaningless exercise as an end in itself.

Interestingly, in all the above cases the lineal claimant got spanked. History isn't on Fury's side if he does get Joshua in the ring, but he's spent his entire life defying the odds.

 

It would have been very hard to argue that Wilder, (who at the time had a best win over Stiverne) was above Joshua (who had a win over Klitschko.)

 

He holds the division's cash cow during the hottest and most dynamic heavyweight era in decades. Win, lose or draw, he has potentially years of mega-fights lined up for Joshua. Is he really under pressure?

 

I think I'll ask for 'Frank Warren and vinegar' next time I order fish and chips.

 

Klitschko hasn't won a fight in 2 years, and that a decent but unimpressive decision against Jennings.
So Joshua becomes number one on that .... Then why can't Fury be deemed number one on the strength of the fight with Wilder?

It's okay saying Fury was gone but Klitschko had been inactive as long as Fury and had last been seen in a ring getting thoroughly outboxed by him !
And yet ..... Joshua beating him supposedly makes a number one position that is now regarded as indisputable?
I'm not buying it.
Joshua is a fine candidate for number one right now, but so is Fury.

 

didnt read the whole thread but the whole thing with stub hub and matchroom is that matchroom ate sponsored by them, and when they "sell out" in anminute thousands of tickets appear on stubhub instantly. its not been proven but many think they allocate stub hub with tickets. its a resale site for people to sell tickets, it should be banned IMO but warren cant stop people selling their tickets on there

 

Those words 'not been proven' are key

 

If Joshua hadn't fought since beating Klitschko, you would be making a legitimate argument. The fact that Joshua is active, and has beaten better opposition than his rivals, is enough to retain his ranking. What deserves a higher ranking, beating Takam, Parker and Povetkin all of whom were ranked top 10 at the time of the fights. Beating Stiverne, Ortiz and a draw against Fury. Or wins against Seferi, Pianeta and a draw against Wllder?

 

I don’t see why anyone has to consider
Joshua no.1 because he holds 3 belts and does massive PPV buys. The 3 belts he holds are a direct result of Fury dropping them. And I’m not saying that Joshua’s fault I’m just stating the facts. Joshua wouldn’t have been a champion that early on in his career if it wasn’t for Fury. I’m not denying
Joshua’s marketability he’s a one off whose like we will never see again in this country for a long time. He’s tall, handsome, looks aesthetically brilliant, won the Olympic gold medal in his home country, knocks everyone out. He was the perfect package. Joshua marketed himself at the olympics. Everyone already knew who he was before he turned pro. It’s just he hasn’t proved he is the best heavyweight yet just because he holds 3 belts and is a big draw. We won’t know until he fights Fury. He is top of the pile because his achievements better anyone else’s in the heavyweight division. It was officially a draw against Wilder yes but anyone who understands what their watching knows Fury got shafted. Not underplaying Joshua’s achievements they are great just not as good as Fury’s. Joshua is a victim of his own success winning a title that early because he can’t get away with fighting much fodder after that. He wanted that IBF belt against let’s be honest an easy opponent then don’t be surprised when everyone expects you to fight the best which he has done to his credit. Just not the very best YET.

 

Fury did not drop them. Fury got stripped as he was in no position to defend them. He made zero defences, that's right zero. Name me another champion in history who has remained #1 without defending their titles.

If Floyd announced his return to boxing would we place him as the #1 WW in the world? It would be absurd to do such a thing when though his never been beaten and never lost his titles.

If AJ announced he was taking time away from the sport and didn't fight for 2.5 years he would have no claim in 3 years time to be called the #1 HW in the world.

 

He was stripped of the IBF and he vacated the others. I remember him putting a statement out at the time saying it wasn’t fair holding up the division. Joshua is considered no.1 in the division by most but that doesn’t mean he is. Why does it matter how long Fury has been away? He came back and fought a better level of opponent than Joshua has within 3 fights. That shows you how good Fury is. He rolled off his sofa lost 10 stone and jumped pretty much straight in with Wilder. Fury has already proved he’s arguably better than Joshua within 6 months.