Do you think Anthony Joshua would be a top 10 heavyweight boxer if he competed in the 1970s?

But you have to take into the equation that once he starts losing he is no longer at his peak and might even be sent to retirement young. He could crack the top 10 maybe but shortly. Also if he fights one dangerous contender at the same time he might even miss the top 10 completely. How he would manage his career would be a key factor. After he loses to a top 5 maybe he becomes a can of tomatoes.

 

gas tank wouldn't come into it. it would be like Foreman-Frazier. Hell, Frazier would be a cw now instead of a fat little hw.

 

That "CW" would clean house. Cruiserweights are still big enough to be top HWs. Look at Holyfield and Usyk, one is a HW ATG, the other pegged as the next top HW. Frazier was better than both.

Joshua hasn't gone out early to demolish someone in years, why would he start with Frazier? He wouldn't and so because of that he'd be walked down and taken out late. Frazier picks up the pace after 6 and starts making Joshua's sides red

 

Because Frazier was a head first brawler who never faced anyone with power like some of the guys have today.

 

No, this is objectively false. Frazier was a bob and weave swarmer who went to the body and fought inside. Labelling him a brawler is false.

George Foreman??? And by the same logic, AJ never fought anyone with the pressure and skill of Frazier who threw as many punches.

 

Frazier also never threw a straight punch outside of a jab, which is why Foreman destroyed him.

 

Ah, yes, all boxers back then were better athletes than the current ones. Meanwhile every other sports athletes have advanced in leaps and bounds since then. Not to mention the best athlete back then played Football.

 

Chisora>>>Frazier.

 

Did I say that? I said Frazier was more skilled and aggressive than the people Joshua has fought. Which he is. By far. I'm of the opinion fighters today are clearly more athletic as well. No point coming at me with that argument when I agree with you lol

 

that is pushing it.

 

Well, you have your opinion, i have mine. Either guy getting ko'd isn't beyond the realm of possibily.

 

Might sneak in....the Class of Heavyweights in this era is pretty average o say the least.!!!

 

Most certainly he would be. I'd pick Foreman to beat him, and Clay on a good night....Norton and Shavers would be dangerous, everyone else would crumble at his feet

 

Hey, I'm not trying to be unfair to your argument, but why do you assume he wouldn't be at his peak anymore after a loss? Think about how many fighters have been heavyweight champ with one or more KO/TKO loss on their resume: Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Lennox Lewis, both Klitschko brothers, Chris Byrd, Hasim Rahman, Floyd Patterson, Joe Louis etc. That's leaving out all the lower weight fighters who improved after being finished, like Barrera, Bobby Chacon, Terry Norris etc.

That kind of dispels the notion that losing a dangerous fight automatically puts a talented, world class fighter on the road to becoming a tomato can, right? Even if Joshua getting pounded into submission by Frazier or knocked stiff by Earnie Shavers, I doubt he starts losing to guys like Jean Pierre Coopman or Alfredo Evangelista.

Plus there's the fact that Joshua has already rebounded well from his first loss, which was a really bad one as far as losses go. That makes me think that he could do the same in a different decade.

 

During the 70's, there was only one champion so you had to fight stronger competition to eventually get to the top. And sometimes you had to fight 15 rounds. I don't see Joshua doing very good. He is more a talent than a gladiator. Once he gets floored by the top guys, I don't think he rebounds. Today is a different story. The multiple belts and career management have diluted the competition and increase the opportunities. Joshua would never fight a Butterbean (Ruiz) twice in the 70's in a four belts unification. Would be ridiculous.