AJ beats Wilder when he's 41

Tldr. Come back when you actually have a point and are able to stick to it.

 

Oh yes. When it suits you.

 

Calling a 150 word post too long to read probably isn't the witty comeback you think it is.

 

Now we know why MarkusFlorez went so quiet.

Pretty sure he did the same thing concerning Wallin as well. Predicting a loss or unfair win for Joshua and then giving no credit when Joshua exceeded his expectations.

 

There is something deeper in the fury-ngannou fight we still do not know . You can argue that fury was unprepared , that aj in current state is better . But its nonsense to say fury is a pure bum .

ngannou was schooled and destroyed by aj such massivly - he was obviously without the slightest chance - that also fury even in unprepared state should have handled ngannou easily .

 

Your double standards are ridiculous.

So let's ignore the facts that Ngannou is an MMA fighter and never fought a professional boxing fight in his life, but because Ngannou lost to Fury despite it being a highly controversial decision in which Fury was dropped. You don't think the context of any of the above applies to Fury because he won ? Absolute nonsense. It was a disgrace of a performance in which Fury's stock plummeted and made a mockery of boxing.

Joshua beat Ruiz 12-0 in the rematch and that for you isn't revenging loss ? You make absolutely no sense at all.

 

Slight difference mate Fury gave Ngannou the impression he was a legit top 10 Heavyweight by almost losing to him.

Joshua made Ngannou look like the novice boxer he was coming from MMA.

Thank god Joshua restored some credibility back to boxing after Fury almost single handily destroyed it.

 

Didn't you know that performance only matters when fighters are 1-1? Well, maybe 2-2 and 3-3 as well... 4-4? Not quite sure how the science works yet, but will get there.

 

Aye, that much is certainly true. Whether you like him or not, AJ's record is arguably the best of any current heavyweight & by a fairly decent margin too.

 

Not a double standard at all. There's no excuse for any top boxer fighting a novice. That's why I don't really give any of them credit for fighting Ngannou. The real double standard are those slating Fury for fighting Ngannou yet somehow giving AJ a pass for fighting him.

Outpointing a fighter after losing by TKO in a humiliating fashion, in my opinion, isn't a proper redemption. They're 1-1 and I rate Ruiz's performance above AJs, therefore Ruiz > AJ to me.

Let's be real here AJ is getting way to much hype and credit for only beating one top ten fighter in the past couple of years. He's getting shown up by Parker at both of the last events he headlined. You wanna make excuses for it then you do you.

 

Outpointing a fighter in comprehensive, bordering on humiliating, fashion is a perfectly respectable display of dominance... Fighting in a disciplined manner to a solid plan isn't a negative either.

Parker didn't need to knock out Wilder to thoroughly humiliate him and nor did Joshua need to knock out Ruiz to avenge his loss.

Context matters...

Fury chose to fight a 0 fight novice - then made it competitive by turning up in even worse shape than usual and swanning around as if it were a formality - and performing badly enough that it really wasn't.

Joshua fought Ngannou because the demand was there after Fury's poor performance - the question people wanted answering was whether Francis was actually a top level boxer or whether Fury had embarrassed himself more than the other times he got away with it... Oh, and Joshua turned up fit and sharp, got the measure of Francis and won unambiguously - which Fury hadn't.

It's bad that top level boxing had a circus turn, and you're right it's bad that they both fought him - but the two fights couldn't have been more different in terms of competitiveness.

Everyone in this era is getting overhyped - because it's a pretty poor era.

And worse, guys who have achieved very very little are getting hyped up as serious contenders with incredibly thin resumes - Hrgovic, Zhang, Wilder?
These guys don't have the resumes that serious legit contenders should, not remotely close, yet the consensus is that they're at that level.

Joshua's recent activity has been decent rather than great, and Parker's looks better because he's been beating on overhyped guys - in the whole, Joshua's got the better resume by a long way, but there's no denying Joe's willingness to fight guys that are assumed to be serious (and who can clearly bang even if they're not very serious!).

 

Because you're applying no context in regards to Fury vs Ngannou by saying "well he won" but it's not that simple is it ? Fury was dropped and struggled immensely vs an MMA fighter. The fight didn't enhance Fury's reputation infact his stock plummeted, and he was laughing stock all across social media in which alot of people thought he lost.

As for Joshua vs Ngannou well Joshua gets credit for restoring credibility back to boxing and by making an example of Ngannou.

The same logic don't apply for Joshua and Fury because Fury is the one that gave Ngannou the clout and the impression that he was a top 10 Heavyweight.

So yes Joshua gets more credit for destroying Ngannou than Fury labouring to a controversial SD over Ngannou.

The fact is Joshua has destroyed his last 2 opponents who gave Fury hell.

 

Joshua was supposed to fight Wilder they had an agreement if Joshua and Wilder both got past their banana skin fights.

Joshua did his part but Wilder on the other hand failed.

I don't think that makes Joshua look bad it just makes Wilder look incredibly overrated.

 

Joshua’s recent run of opponents is no different to when Parker fought the likes of Massey and Kean after he got splattered by Joyce.
At least people have heard of Wallin though I suppose.

 

@BubblesUK @hobby rider @Bokaj

Who has Wallin beaten ? Name me his best win

If Wallins a good win this shouldn't be hard