Who has the greater legacy, Anthony Joshua or Deontay Wilder?

If Andre Berto made 10 successful welterweight title defenses, only lost to Floyd, and also floored Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao TWICE in a title defense

... And Berto successfully defended his welterweight title against Floyd Mayweather or Manny, I doubt people would leave that SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE off Berto's resume.

One bad decision over Manny Pacquiao essentially got Tim Bradley in the Hall of Fame, and Tim never came close to stopping him or even putting him down.

 

*yawn* IF...IF....IF... Let me know when you have the candy and nuts...

 

Wlad, Povetkin, Parker, Whyte, Ruiz, Pulev, Takam, Martin, Helenius, Breazele > Ortiz x2, Stiverne x2, Helenius, Arreola, Breazele, Washington, Szpilka, Duhaupas

 

If Deontay Wilder was Andre Berto ... IF ... IF ... IF.

If Deontay Wilder lost to garbage like Jesus Sotio Karass ... IF ... IF ... IF

What a terrible comparison.

Deontay Wilder is the best US heavyweight of the 21st century.

Ande Berto is not the best US welterweight of the 21st century.

 

Most fans believe the draw was a bad decision though, and the 115-111 scorecard for Wilder was one of the worst scorecards ever in a Heavyweight championship fight.

Technically yes it was a title defense for Wilder but how legit fans believe it was is another matter, considering most fans felt Fury was robbed.

 

Don't t care about Nationality. Means f*ckall to ranking greatness or resumes. Might as well call him the best HW from Alabama as if that adds anything different.

The point was the 'goto line' of his defenses and reign time over TERRIBLE competition. It took AJ almost just a third of the fights to better Wilder's garbage resume.

 

Wilder made his eighth successful defense against Tyson Fury, floored Fury twice in that fight and walked out of the ring with the belt and a bigger check.

Nobody you listed here is better than Fury.

Hell, Parker is Fury's sparring partner. And Fury beat Wlad. And Whyte didn't win a minute of their fight.

That's why you guys always leave him off. If you put Wilder's successful defense agains Fury on there, Joshua doesn't have a case.

Joshua flooring Fury twice and successfully defending against him would be the BIGGEST accomplishment of Joshua's career. Because Fury is better than everyone he's fought.

 

"Legit" fans?

I guess George Foreman isn't a legit boxing fan. Lots of people had Wilder winning.

And even if you didn't, and a draw is a successful defense. It was for Jack Johnson. Tommy Burns. Lennox Lewis. Evander Holyfield. Hasim Rahman. Everyone. And none of them floored their challenger at all, let alone TWICE.

How does a successful title defense not go on a resume?

 

Are you being serious?

 

Scary thing is, he is. Thing is, DESPITE having two of the thinnest resumes in boxing for HW champs/titlists, since Wilder KO's low rankled cans, and Fury is GIANT, AND they fought. They somehow are ATG's already.

 

How is leaving off Wilder's eighth successful title defense from his resume serious?

Did Deontay Wilder floor Fury twice? Did Deontay Wilder successfully defend his title that night? Did he walk out of the ring the champion? Did he defend that belt three more times after that night (finally losing to Fury in their rematch)?

Then why does it get left off?

People leave it off in these threads because if you include a two-knockdown successful defense against Fury, that beats out anyone you can list in Joshua's column.

Simple as that.

 

Fury beat Wlad and Whyte straight up. If Fury sucks so bad, Joshua beating them isn't such a big deal.

Who is he left with? Fury's sparring partner Parker? Wilder's next one-punch KO victim?

 

It gets left off because the vast majority of people see it as a gift draw. Should we start putting Usyk on AJs resume because he was vaguely competitive with him?

 

Joshua didn't floor Usyk twice and successfully defend his title against Usyk in any of their meetings, did he?

No. He didn't.

If Joshua had, you'd count that on Joshua's resume, wouldn't you?

Yes, you would.

You guys have been biased for so long you don't even recognize how biased you're being.

If you weren't, you wouldn't have used such a bad example.

 

It was a highly controversial decision that most people had Fury winning. Alot of people do not have Wilder winning the fight that is false.

If you had a poll right now on this forum over 90 percent of the members on here would think Fury won the fight.

As I already said yes its technically title defence but how legit you think it is another matter.

I don't consider Briggs vs Foreman, Holmes vs Spinks 2, Lewis vs Holyfield 1, as legit decisions. And neither do I think Wilder vs Fury 1 as legit either in which I thought Fury clearly won on points.