Itauma vs Usyk

Ruined so early on in his career. He is 20, I don't understand the rush. If he was trying to break tysons record then fair enough but that has gone. I wouldn't be too bothered if he misses usyk completely.

 

It is pointless risking ruining Itauma when, at 20, he has the world at his feet if he is prepared to put in the hard work and the correct preparation for it. He needs rounds and more experience and once he has them his timing for a run at the very top will coincide nicely with the departures of Usyk, Joshua and the already retired Fury.

 

Joshua with a 1 year absence, now 35 years of age followed by being obliterated in his most recent fight has virtually retired along with Fury.

Itauma fighting Fury, Whyte, Joshua, Chisora these days is a similar liberty taken when Joshua was bashing up old men like Sprott, Skelton and Doctor Matt Legg from Eastenders.

The pastgen crew should stay retired but we know that once Usyk has retired, both Fury and Joshua will claim greatness when they fight for a vacant belt.

 

This is the thing that gets me every time Hearn talks about Joshua's "resume". His first 17 fights were against duds (including Charles Martin) which either said a lot about the division in that era or the careful matchmaking - or both. Whyte was the best man he fought until Klitschko by some distance.

Can't really fault the 2017-19 run unitl Ruiz blew it up but it's a small fraction of his career. He's been beaten by anyone with a pulse since.

 

Me either. But given the division is really not great - a mix of decent but ageing stars and a thin layer of up-and-comers, he's caught in no-man's land.

Tyson's era in the 80s wasn't much better but the broadcasters were OK with having him fight knockovers in leisure centres 25 times before giving him a better deal. By the time he got to the big names they were all past it. The modern era just isn't as patient.

 

Mike Tyson fought 27 times in 18 months, then stepped up.
The problem with Itauma is they seem to have cut him back to 3 or 2 fights a year schedule, and want to keep the hype level high, they have to match him with real fighters soon.

I don't know why Itauma v Wardley isn't being built as the big British fight of this 'new generation' (post-Fury/post-Joshua). Seems they want to spare both of them from losing their "0".

 

Dr Legg lol that’s a blast from the past!

 

And the fact Wardley is another Leigh Wood, one mis-step or batch matchmaking from getting sparked. Suspect Itauma would do it.

That being said Wardley would probably take it and I'd watch!

 

I mean, you can slice it up any way you like, and at the end of the day, Joshua has wins over Kltschko, Parker, Povetkin, Ruiz, and Whyte...and you can throw in Martin, Pulev Breazele, Helenius, Wallin, Takam and Ngannou. That's a legacy, there. I am not saying he is a top ten all-time heavy, maybe not top 15, but it is a legacy no one will be able to take from him.

 

I'm torn about the whole thing. You're absolutely correct but you can sum it up it by saying he could only fight who was there and ducked nobody. He could have vacated rather than take the forced Usyk mandatory (although Fury's court problems with Wilder probably dictated it too).

So there's a ton of credit there. But he bascially fought ageing Wlad era fighters or people that were never top notch - and you have to think that 2021-22 Fury would have taken him out too. The 2018 Parker fight was probably the warning bell given he hardly made a dent on the guy in 12 rounds.

 

The funny thing is AJ has better legacy than Fury despite lower skills, toughness, fight IQ, etc.. AJ's place in the ATG is clear after Dubois fight and I'd be surprised if he's ranked within Top 25 of All Time.

 

Absolute nonsense. A boxer is remembered for two things when he retires: the big wins and the losses.

Joshua has one "big" win and that was against Klitschko who'd already lost four times, was 41, at the end of his career, coming off a loss, boxing away at Wembley with everything geared up for Joshua, and 18 month inactive - all, as said, at age of 41...

He's had two hellish defeats in losing to Flubber man Ruiz who hadn't done anything before or since. He was then pulverised by Dubois at a time many were saying he was better than ever.

Fury has a win against an undefeated in ten year Klitschko, in Germany, wasn't given a cat in hell's chance by most. Had to overcome the Klitschko shenanigans with ring gloves etc. All geared up for Klitschko. Fight also had to be rescheduled for weeks later with Klitschko messing Fury about.

Then the trilogy with Wilder which was a sensation from start to finish.Will be watched for years.

Fury's only lost to Usyk twice which Joshua has also. Came closer to beating Usyk than Joshua did with SD in first.

Nobody except the likes of Mitch and Brixton Bomber are going to be sat there with a calculator trying to rationalise how beating Molina, Takam, Breazeale, Martin, Pulev is better because on some made up ranking list they are "top 10".

Joshua never took a belt off a champion. Can't call Martin that I'm afraid. Fury did, two longstanding, 10 and 5 year champs.

 

Ah, the memories — the halcyon days of the forum with Matchroom Mitch and Brixton Bomber. Simpler times.

 

Indeed! You know about that, better than most!