British fighter of the year & decade?

Not a bad analysis, joey twelve pack wasn’t a shot to pieces Alec POV or a retired old shot VLAD, or a two week notice carlito takam.

The Parker win is decent, particularly as you say Parker beat the tubby little Mexican who made AJ quit first time around, HOWEVER it has a big asterisk against it for the way the referee acted in that fight, it was despicable protectionism which gave me harrowing flashbacks to ottke Reid and actually made me ashamed to see that in a British ring.

so yeah it’s an ok win - but needs a fat asterisk against it for me.

decent shout though

 

Takam was a late replacement for Pulev though so he can be let off for that

 

The Stiverne rematch was an insult to boxing, every aspect of it.

 

Of course it’s not impossible. Do you think every single fighter gets progressively worse as they get older? Was Froch worse for Groves II than he was against Dirrell? Was Calzaghe worse against Kessler than he was against Salem? Was Mayweather worse against Canelo than he was against Castillo?

If you don’t think that, then you accept Klitschko could have had a better camp, been in better condition and in a better physical and mental mindset when he fought Joshua. Boxing fans are weird sometimes. In every single sport everyone accepts competitors are not always prepared the same. Off nights can happen. Except in boxing.

 

Joshua doesn’t go to another champions country because he makes too much money. The reason Fury fights Klitschko in Germany and Wilder in America is because he has very few fans and generates very little income.

Do you rate Canelo because he does all his big fights away from home? Do you see it as a black mark against Mayweather because his fights against Hatton, Pacquiao and Maidana were all in America as opposed to the UK/Philippines/Argentina?

 

true but it doesn’t change the fact that I found Fury going to these guys back yards and embarrassing them more impressive. If Joshua is victim to his own success he needed to do something else to compensate for him not travelling in order to beat Fury in the accomplishment steaks. I don’t think he did enough personally. Fury's win over Wlad was more impressive as he ended a dominant reign and wasn’t in any danger at all. I really liked AJ's performance against Wlad but he had to fight tooth and nail against an even older man, and damn near lost. I actually preferred that fight to watch but it doesn’t diminish the fact that Fury's win was better, I know who I’d rather have been out of AJ and Fury in those fights.

 

If Joshua was challenging the Wlad that Fury faced, the fight would have been in Germany. Mandatory split rules would have applied. AJ got gifted a world title as Charles Martin picked up an easy belt. That easy belt wouldn't have been available if Fury hadn't beaten Wlad.

Joshua's reasoning for fighting Wilder in the UK were completely farcical. Everybody knows that fights in the States on PPV generate the most money. By insisting the fight takes place in the UK, he was putting up stumbling blocks.

Joshua and Hearn were also offering Wilder flat fees... flat fees is a way of ducking fights. Mayweather tried it with Pacquiao. The whole 'I'm giving you your largest payday' method of negotiating is complete nonsense. They never wanted the fight.

 

If fights in the States generate more money why did Joshua earn loads more than Wilder whilst he was fighting exclusively in the UK and Wilder exclusively in America? Simple question.

 

No.

 

You're completely missing my point.

The point was, does AJ vs Wilder generate more revenue in Las Vegas on Showtime/Fox PPV, or does it generate more revenue at Wembley on Sky Box Office?

 

Probably the latter.

 

Wlad was also complete trash against Bryant Jennings in the fight before the Fury loss. He lost multiple rounds in a close fight against a guy who was stopped by Ortiz in his very next fight.

In hindsight Wlad was shot from the Bryant Jennings fight onwards.

 

What does Joshua being a novice have to do with anything? Perhaps Joshua was just good enough at an earlier stage in his career than some thought? Happens in loads of other sports as well. Novice 18 year old Boris Becker beats Ivan Lendl in the Wimbledon final. These are the facts. Does this mean it’s impossible for Lendl to improve? No. He wins a further five Grand Slams.

Your argument is based on the farcical idea that because Klitschko was older against Joshua he therefore had to be worse. That is patently nonsense. By his own admission he was physically and mentally far better prepared. Indeed, I think deep down Fury knows this hence the blatant bottling of the rematch.

 

So would it be fair to say the version of Klitschko that faced anyone from Jennings onwards cannot be considered ‘prime’ but even an athlete outside of their prime can fluctuate in terms of performance? Or is that another thing which is literally impossible?

 

So someone who loses instantly becomes worse?

Stick with tennis. Roger Federer wins five slams on the trot. He then faces Rafael Nadal in the next. He loses. He holds his hands up, but says he’d been struggling in training. His mind wasn’t on the job due to a few things happening in his personal life. He hadn’t prepared as well as he could. A few injuries had hampered him. Next slam he faces Novak Djokovic. He loses again, but this time says he was fully fit, fully trained, and many people watching him said he looked far better, and much more capable.

Your position seems to be that the above is simply impossible. That it’s not even up for dispute that the Nadal win was ‘better.’ I’m saying it clearly is.