How can you say they both flopped? According to 90% on here Joshua is **** and he’s still manage to unify multiple times. Usyk is an elite fighter, no shame in losing to him (even twice) but at least he wants to get back in there and correct it, he’s not running. Amir Khan was also a top fighter, he was exciting, also unified belts. Both been massive successes despite their flaws. Both under appreciated because they aren’t Floyd Mayweather.
Jesus Mitch, try going even a day without shoehorning Fury into an unrelated post or bringing up Wilder's "resume" (an indirect dig at Fury). You're coming across as obsessed. In regard to the point you're making here - the context is pretty different. One was a green 20 year old in a learning fight, the other was Joshua's supposedly glorious entrance into the American market when he was at the peak of his powers. The Ruiz defeat is obviously far more embarrassing. The optics are terrible too. If, for arguments sake here, we say Fury lost that fight - it was a gritty points defeat against a seasoned operator. Not that it matters particularly when comparing the two fights, but he admitted he was out drinking the night before and didn't take it seriously. He then avenged the wrong by winning by TKO in the rematch. Joshua was knocked down multiple times by Ruiz - who looked in appalling shape, was much smaller and had barely any preparation as a late stand in. This was when Joshua was probably at his most marketable and the fight took place at MSG. The Fury vs McDermott fight took place at the "Brentwood Centre". I don't think there's any argument to be had really about which "defeat" was more embarrassing.
Please don't do this, just don't. As for the OP, it's Joshua obviously. Joshua is a star, who quit against a fat Mexican. Khan was never a star, who avoided Brook like the plague, and got dropped by mediocre fighters.
Apologies, I know it goes against forum rules to criticise Fury or Wilder and not to have a dig at matchroom fighter in a post. Getting beat by a guy who had close fight in his previous title fight or getting schooled by John McDermott and having Terry throw the fight for you. I know which I would find more embrassing.
It's obviously not against the "rules" to criticise any fighter - the issue is that you dedicate your entire body of work to your anti-Fury agenda. It comes across as a bit obsessive to me. The fact that you think the McDermott "defeat" was more embarrassing is ridiculous though. Even in saying that it shows that you post entirely with an agenda.
I give Mitch the benefit of the doubt because unlike the other anti-Fury trolls he does at least put his points across in a mature and reasonable way. I find his agenda tiresome, but I think he's worthy of debating with because he keeps his composure. I don't bother to engage with "Ty is that guy" for example because he does not debate properly.
Put a poll up then.options of Joshua.khan.unsure.guarantee it won't be as one sided as you are making out.you seem to have a strong Khan dislike...have you been on here before?
Who cares what happens early on in careers. Bernard Hopkins, Henry Armstrong, Juan Manuel Marquez all lost on their pro debuts. Joshua quit against a Mexican fatty when he was world champion.
Ruiz always looks in appalling shape, so that point isn't really relevant. He fought Alexander Dimitrenko several weeks before the Joshua fight so had no ring rust.
