Sunday Times Frank Warren Interview

He hasn't really. Lots of people think Wilder really isn't very good at all and that Joshua would destroy him early rather than get dropped twice and earn a draw.

Either way, the crucial point is that if you openly state you're retired and do nothing in the sport for almost three years after one upset win, you can't expect to automatically step back into pole position. The sport moves on without you.

 

On what planet does some someone who doesn't win a fight become #1?

 

Not sure why it bothers you so much that some people don’t think Joshua is the best heavyweight?

 

He's on the Matchroom payroll, but yes AJ remains #1 for now but I can see both Wilder and Fury beating him.

 

Fair point, but he certainly has more on his plate now. Warren had absolutely nothing in his stable and gradually he built his way back from the brink with the BT deal and securing Fury. Hearn is under the cosh a bit with Joshua now as he will be forced into a position where the kid has to fight either Wilder or Fury. Winner of Whyte vs Chisora won't cut the mustard. He will have to risk his cash cow at some point and with risk comes potential danger. If Joshua is wiped out by Fury or Wilder then the landscape changes significantly. Which other big names does he have in his stable now bar Joshua?

 

It was said elsewhere on here so not my words, but Joshua is so big now that he's the story, and what happens in the ring is just part of it. At the moment it's AJ trying to unify. If he loses it's AJ on the comeback. Talk of him suddenly being under serious criticism have to be seen in the light of his last fight being against Povetkin, in front of 80k+, and doing Hatton Mayweather levels of PPV sales. He's legitimately, absolutely, massive.

I also think the narrative about him being protected/held back is just plainly weird. At 22 fights he's fought on a completely different planet of difficulty compared to what Wilder and Fury had done at a similar stage in their careers. He's genuinely one of the least protected fighters in the world.

 

People will argue who is the no.1 out of the three but they need to fight each other.
2 of them showed they would do this. The other one turned down $50m. No boxer in history has ever turned down that much money.

 

Nobody seriously accepts that 50m offer was genuine.

 

That's not true.
Eddie Hearn on an IFL interview confirmed it was and the money was there.
Barry Hearn tweeted about Joshua turning down $50m.
Only a true Joshua fanboy would ignore this.

 

Nobody doubts that the money is there. If someone offers you a billion pounds for your car and tells you Bill Gates is backing him up, you can laugh at the offer whilst not doubting that Bill Gates is a billionaire.

Basic comprehension tells you it's nonsense. Wilder made a guaranteed 4m v Fury who made a guaranteed 3m. 50m guaranteed is such a laughable jump that it clearly can't be taken seriously.

 

I agree that the heavyweight landscape has changed significantly after Wilder-Fury, but I don't think it backs Hearn/Joshua into a corner, or that would at least be a glass half-empty way of looking at it. In commercial terms, they now have two potential mega-fights rather than just one, and this is for a guy whose ho-hum title defences sell out national stadiums and generate close to a million PPV buys. A boost for Warren isn't necessarily a loss for Hearn; if anything it gives him more options.

It remains to be seen whether Joshua-Whyte II or Joshua-Chisora cuts the mustard. If it fills out Wembley or the Millenium and does comparable PPV numbers I think we all just need to accept that the conventional rules don't really apply to Joshua and people will buy what he is selling regardless of the quality of the product. If it doesn't, and starts to impact on the bottom line it is a different story.

The bit I fundamentally disagree with is this idea that if Joshua loses he ceases to be a commercial factor. Unless there is any lingering physical damage after a loss, he dusts himself down, points out that boxing isn't actually tennis, spews out a few pseudo-philosophical quotes about overcoming adversity, and the hype starts for the even bigger rematch. He doesn't suddenly go back to 8 rounders on Kell Brook undercards. Once fighters reach a certain level of fame, particularly in the heavyweight division, losses don't have much impact on marketability. Bruno had four losses before his biggest fight; Cooper had eleven. A Joshua loss (regardless of who beats him) is a bigger story than him winning, and the British public has a history of loving gallant losers more than winners.

 

Spot on.

If Joshua had lost to Klitschko, there would have likely been a rematch, and then quite possibly the same series of fights minus one of Takam, Povetkin or Parker. He'd be 21-1 and still a huge name.

Hatton lost to Mayweather, then broke a post-war attendance record against a nobody, then did a million PPV in the middle of the night against Pacquiao.

 

Fury is number 1. You can't make an argument for any fighter on Joshua's resume to beat Fury.

But you can argue that Wilder beats Joshua.

Hearn is bitter that Fury is now more popular than AJ.

Let's see the BBC SPOTY awards and compare AJ to Fury. That will tell us about wider popularity amongst the general public.

 

Warren said in an IFL this week that he's looking to put on the rematch the same date as Joshua Whyte in April. Giving Hearn some of his own medicine.

 

Great point. Let's completely ignore attendances, pay per view figures and every other metric by which you can measure popularity, and go with the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award.

An award which, lest we forget, suggested Zara Phillips and Greg Rusedski were more popular than Frank Bruno and Ricky Hatton.