You can do the same thing with half of Floyds resume. Doesn't mean that who he beat when he beat them were bad wins.
I love how you use Triangle Theory to support your arguments even though it's the most useless support.
Also Johnson was already a journeyman by then and Povetkin was a few fights from retirement. AJ's only genuinely good win was 41 year old Wlad who he was almost KO'd by and who he was outboxed by for the majority of the fight.
The fact that this poster felt the need to dumb Joshua's resume down and prop Wilder's up says all you need to know about what he really thinks of the two. He's trying hard to convince himself what he wants to be true is actually true more than anything. Anyone with half a braincell can see through this garbage.
Perhaps AJ should have fought monsters like Seferi, Swchartz and Pianeta like Fury. Of hall of famers like Washington, Szpilka and others that Wilder fought for title defenses. AJ only fought top ten guys instead. You guys are either biased or stupid. Or both...
All heavyweight resumes look something like that these days to be honest. I would argue that while they weren't world beaters, a lot of these fighters were seen as at the cusp of world level, and generally the best AJ could possibly fight at the time due to the different inter promotional rivalries.
At the end of the day, regardless of what you think about who he's fought - YOU CAN ONLY BEAT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU. Joshua has literally fought the best opponents he could have possibly fought. In regards to who he hasn't fought - 1. Fury - This was attempted, but fell through to obvious reasons, he can't be to blame for this not happening. 2. Wilder - Wilder admitted he could have fought AJ but chose Fury instead, and we all know the reason for that is because he thought Fury was finished, but was still considered lineal, so would be an easy big scalp to add upon his pathetic shallow resume. Joshua was never going to get a fight with these two. When it comes to fighting "old men" 1. Wlad - For a belt, he wasn't going to turn down this opportunity because it was a mega fight and a huge occasion. 2. Povektin - MANDATORY 3. Pulev - MANDATORY What do you want him to do? Reject the mandatories? It's not as if AJ was picking these people due to vulnerability. He had to fight them or he'd be stupid not to for the rewards. Wilder was fed opponents that were **** poor quality, and picked the likes of Fury because he thought they'd be easy enough scalps to make his **** resume look better.
OK I forgot AJ Ruiz was before Fury Wilder 2 so he was widely recognised as #1 from AJ Klit to AJ Ruiz, roughly 2 years You simply can't deny that he was widely regarded at the time as the best in the division.
Fury was still ranked as the top heavyweight by Ring until early 2018, there was a period of just over a year when AJ was the consensus No.1 but he was never Ring's champion. He never fought Wilder or Fury during this time or since, so there was no possibility of that. AJ may have been more hyped and regarded as being the best heavyweight for a little more than a year, especially in Britain, but it was never proven.
AJ was kept away from dangerous punchers like southpaw Ortiz and Wilder because Hearn could sell out Wembley fighting creampuff "mandatories" instead. They got destroyed and exposed by a light punching, morbidly obese midget the first time AJ fought away. They avoided Usyk for as long as possible and then got schooled at home as soon as they couldn't. AJ and Hearn weren't willing to offer 50-50 to Fury or Wilder until one had beaten the other; they wanted most of the money, one-way rematch clauses, home/A-side advantage etc. Barring Usyk, Wlad and to a lesser degree Povetkin, these were grotesquely overrated opponents which posed minimal danger, yet AJ still managed to lose to one of the puddings. Wilder had the more difficult run. How many losses would AJ have if he'd fought Fury x3, Ortiz x2 and Stiverne 1? 4 losses? 5? Hearn did a great job conning the public and clearly many still haven't woken up from it.