He a good fighter, very skilled, but his resume, right now at least, is not the best, counting his defeats and all.,
Other than Parker and Whyte, and Ruiz, who he went 1-1 with, it's a bunch of guys on the wrong side of their 30s and a couple 40 year olds.
If we're talking best resume of all time obviously not, if best resume of this era, that's probably not true anymore though his is deeper than the others but lacks the true elite win and some of his wins haven't aged well. But there was a time when he was seen as the number 1 when he clearly did have the best resume at heavyweight. When Wilder hadn't fought Fury yet and Wilder's team were doing their best to sabotage any possible unification and Fury was either suspended or on the come back trail. Joshua had beaten Wlad, had unified against Parker and was chasing Wilder to become undisputed. For a short time he clearly looked like the guy who would be the stand out heavyweight of his era, but then Uysk moved up and Fury got his act together and the rest is history. Love him or hate him, fact is before Joshua came along heavyweight boxing was in the doll drums and no longer the marquee division in boxing. Had he not come along and generated so much interest from casuals we might not have even seen fights like Fury/Wilder because no network would of stumped up the cash needed to get those two to fight.
Good post. These threads always throw context out the window, and generally just make things up. Just one example being this idea that Ruiz went life and death with Arreloa. Pfft. A flash knock down aside, Ruiz won that fight very comfortably. Besides, who knew dropping weight and being under a new trainer might negatively impact a fighter. Anyway, our current champions are Usyk and Fury. Fury seems like he is more interested in fighting exhibitions than being involved in the era defining fight the fans want. Probably why some of his countrymen are starting to get behind Usyk. Fury will always have that win over Klitschko, but the Wilder trilogy (whilst obviously entertaining) adds little for me. People forget, they had to screw over an aging Ortiz TWICE to have something Wilder could even point to past Stiverne. I like that Fury has at least added Whyte to the list. Now if only he would sack up and fight Usyk. Regarding Joshua's resume, after beating Klitschko, he consistently fought universally recognised top 10 opponents. Not the same men he had the beating of again and again ad infinitum. And this is now somehow a bad thing? Fury's resume is still developing. As is Usyk's. And Wilder's is still pure dog ****. So no, Joshua's doesn't look bad at all
Problems with the “top 10 wins” myopia It omits losses and draws, which often say as much or more about a fighter as their best wins 10 is an arbitrary number: why not “top 3”, “top 7”, “top 15” or “top 22”? It implicitly suggests that a win (or multiple wins) over the 11th/12th/13th best fighter is valueless and that a win over the 10th best is just as valuable as a win over the 1st or 2nd It makes no distinction between a fighter who has been rated highly in the “top 10” for many years and a fighter who has been just inside the “top 10” for a matter of days or months Different bodies have different rankings based on their own weighting and criteria, there’s a large degree of subjectivity Whether a fighter is considered “top 10” is often based on wins on paper, regardless of context (controversial officiating, brutality or competitiveness of the fight, did the opponent come to win etc.) High risk fighters can be avoided by more established names, which makes it difficult for dangerous fighters to rise up the rankings if they do not have powerful backers It ignores whether a fighter fought a range of styles/body types (e.g. only fighting short light punching orthodox plodders) Fighters who were not “top 10” when they were beaten are sometimes included as “top 10” opponents retrospectively Whether a fighter is “top 10” is relative to the rest of the division at any given time
It was always dubious that AJ ever had the best HW "resume". And even if it were true by some standard, some believe that Poirier had a better "resume" than Khabib, whatever that means. AJ best win by a clear margin is 41 year old, 17 months inactive, KO-less in 2.5 years, B-side clear underdog Wlad in his final fight in Britain, who had already been dethroned and schooled by B-side Fury in Germany. And AJ went life and death with Wlad over 11 rounds. AJ had some decent supporting wins: Whyte, Parker and Povetkin but so did Fury with Chisora x2 and Cunningham. So Fury had also shown a level of consistency, while reaching a considerably higher level of performance, in considerably more adverse circumstances. After AJ had lost to Ruiz in the most humiliating defeat in combat sports history the "resume" argument became completely farcical, even more so after Fury spectacularly dethroned another historically long-reigning champion KO artist champion away from home as the underdog.
Joshua's resume: Klitschko (common win) Povetkin Whyte (common win) Ruiz Parker Pulev Fury resume: Klitschko (common win) Wilder x2 Whyte (common win) What am I missing? Joshua has the better resume. Unless Wilder>Povetkin,Ruiz,Parker and Pulev. Wilder doesn't have a win as good as 3/4 of the people on that list do, but I'm sure many people here will see no issue ranking him as better than all four of them. In Pov's case he even went on two years later, at the age of 41, to get a better win than Wilder has been able to get so far.
Fury has three wins that are better than any of Joshua's wins. That's all you need to know in determining who has the superior resume. Joshua has the *deepest* resume but it's not at Fury's level based on top victories.
He does not. Fury has more top wins, more "deep" wins and no losses (while Joshua has three). The gentleman who you quote ignores context almost entirely. Fury's three wins against Chisora, as well as wins against Wallin, Cunningham and Hammer are no worse than the very fat Ruiz, who was not fit to run around the block, zero ambition Parker and old 'n scared Pulev. Although Povetkin was old and had to take a count against the Liverpudlian Brit David Price, he was still a competent albeit ageing boxer. I wouldn't refer to it as a key win, however. I support all the Brits, as a native myself, however it's difficult to argue that Joshua has a better professional record. You'd need to be very biased to sell that!
I think AJ has more "good" wins than Fury, who has spent too much time inactive, and I don't ding him for losses. We mostly agree, tho, because obviously Fury has three elite wins and Joshua has zero.
Remind who Anthony Joshua is again? Never heard of him. Fighting the guy Dillian Whyte drew with last time out?