Is Whyte the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best Fury fought?

I get it you don't like Joshua. it still doesn't change the fact that Joshua has the deeper resume.
We can go through anyones resume with the same critique of dismissing every opponent. it doesn't change anything as Joshua has clearly fought more high ranked opponents than Fury.
I clearly explained what would be required to remedy that. you're just a pathetic fanboy and there's nothing else to add to the conversation.
Also show me where somone said Usyk was "small, old, featherfisted cruiserweight"?
What happens if Usyk beats Fury? Is he suddenly the GOAT because he beat your man crush?
Oh by the way Wilder is and always was crap......so yeah thin resume although Fury has the best win taking out Vlad the rest not so great.

 

You're a hypocrite because you've claimed that the heavyweight division is weak and that there is a big difference between the top boxers and the rest. Joshua has only beaten some of "the rest", and all in England. The fact that you are trying to make out that Martin, Molina, Takam, Breazeale, Pulev, Ruiz, Parker, Povetkin are killers is hilarious. They are all hopeless at the top level. It doesn't matter if they were ranked top 15 or 10 in a governing body. That means nothing. If you're going to say that the rest of the division is weak, then you can't claim Joshua's record is strong. You're making a fool out of yourself.

You even state that Wilder is a weak opponent. So what does that make Parker, Takam, Breazeale, Molina, Martin, Povetkin, Pulev etc?

Wilder has only lost to one guy, who may be the best in the division.

Usyk may well beat Fury - and it would be a fantastic bout between the two best in the division who have not lost to plodders, who are both road warriors, who have won every belt available to them and who are lineal champions. They are head and shoulders above the rest.

 

Where have I claimed the division is weak?
I never said the fighter were killers you're conflating and using fallacy logic to support your position.
They are clearly better than half the bums that Wilder and Fury fought. and that's just a fact....

This content is protected

 

He's lost to one guy because he's only ****ing fought one guy worth mentioning!!!!

No one else he's fought comes close to that caliber of opposition because Wilder is an egotistical tool, and only fought Fury to begin with because he thought he was finished.

He was almost KO'd vs Ortiz where the ref could have easily waived it off in the first fight and gave him 30 seconds extra recovery time, and a free licence to through Ortiz around the ring without deducting points!!!!

It's easy to avoid defeat if you fight no one of worth.

 

This thread is a train crash

 

Their claims aren't even plausible and can easily be checked. It was unethical of Hearn to make Ortiz-Allen. The 35/1 underdog late sub offered virtually no resistance, lost every round clearly, was badly beaten up (to the point he admitted he couldn't get an erection for a month after) and was stopped for the first time, 3 rounds earlier than he's ever been before or since against other contenders and big punchers.

 

These are the facts (and not unlike Hearn).

I think his tongue was partially split in two.

 

If Wilder had fought the unranked fellow PBC fighter Ruiz in 2018 instead of highly rated contenders and champions like Ortiz and Fury, every AJ fan in existence would have claimed that Ruiz was a lazy obese featherfisted late sub bum and a Wilder KO waiting to happen. And to be fair to them, Ruiz's record of losing multiple rounds and going the distance with badly faded/shot versions of Liakhovich and Kevin didn't inspire confidence, which is why he was a 10/1 underdog initially and a 25/1 underdog after the AJ casuals had put their money down. Ruiz's record wasn't more impressive than Stiverne's or Ortiz's and he wasn't nearly as big a puncher, even Duhaupas had a better win. But Ruiz knocked AJ down 4 times after being put over himself and made the hyped up bodybuilder quit, so suddenly he became a dynamite puncher with a granite chin: "David Tua with faster hands" as one resident clown on this forum labelled him. Wilder fought his fair share of Andy Ruiz's, Ross Puritty's and Oliver McCall's, he just didn't lose to them, which is to his credit.

 

People will be biased for their fighters. My main point with my recent posts, as I've stated many times, is that people should accept that all the top fighters resumes could be nitpicked at these days, but the reality is AJ has a greater amount of wins that are considered top 10 fighters.

 

Nitpicking isn't necessary. If Joshua genuinely had even nearly as good a heavyweight record as Fury, he wouldn't be a big underdog against Fury in a hypothetical matchup. The bookies aren't stupid and they have plenty of information on their respective abilities now.

 

Martin and Breazeale were 9th ranked when AJ smashed them up, whereas Ruiz was outside the "top 10" and Usyk was lower ranked in the "top 10" when they both schooled and battered AJ. These facts in themselves should discredit the BS rankings.

This obsession with the "top 10" is strange until you realise the intent. "10" is an arbitrary number determined by a particular rankings body with their own subjective criteria. It implies that all wins within this arbitrary "top 10" are equal (a win over Wlad, Wilder or Usyk equal to a win over Breazeale, Charles Martin or Takam) that close/controversial wins are no less valuable than dominant wins, that circumstances don't matter (A-side, home advantage, age, inactivity, short notice etc.) that multiple wins over the same top opponent only count as a single win, that losses don't matter no matter how bad and that wins over the 11th, 12th etc. best heavyweight are valueless. The "top 10" also frequently changes: while Wilder has been a fixture of it for something like 9 years, nonentities like Breazeale or Kownacki can regularly drift in and out, yet they are counted as equals! This is all completely irrational and propagandistic but it serves to make AJ's record look a lot better than it is.

 

Top 5 Resume wins

1. Wlad
2. Wilder
3. Whyte
4. Chisora
5. Wallin

What a h2h monster....

 

Wilder fought bums until he fought Fury and only took on Fury because he was a name and he thought Fury was washed up.
Also your using a false equivalence regarding Ruiz who's been very inconsistant throughout his career. this despite the fact that Joshua schooled him in the rematch.
I wouldn't mind but I don't like Joshua as a person but I can still assess his career objectively.
The thing that you fanboys have a problem with on a consistant basis. you gave to undermine other fighters whilst ignoring all the flaws of your own man crush. you apply rules to one and not the other this is known as a fallacy argument.
Also Ruiz and McCall are clearly better than anyone Wilder beat as they were belt holders who would have easily battered Stiverne...
Who did Ortiz fight? Dave "White Rhino" Allen....his resume is just as weak as Wilders both are untested against the other top guys.
People like to slag people like Whyte or Parker off. at least those two have fought live bodies. so we can at least understand where they fit in the rest of the division. If you don't have those fights then you are untested. just fighting 1 live body does not indicate how good you are against everyone else.

 

Not enough half-blind 5'10 205 pounders on that list for me.

 

Are you trolling? you can't claim a win that he hasn't even fought yet....