Why does Moses Itauma target fights with old men?

It's very different to that time.

Heavyweights peak in their 30's nowadays and have longer amateur careers. Most of the best heavyweights are in their 30's. Moses is always going to be facing boxers much older than him.

 

He's been qround, though: How old is he now? He was slow as molasses already when Wallin outboxed him a few years back.

He does have a puncher's chance as long as it lasts, though, that's true.

 

Most Wilder fans?

They'd probably prefer him to be American, though...

 

As usual, this board is way too easy on Wilder and way too harsh on Joshua.

I hate defending the latter, but look at the resumes of everyone in the division objectively (without names) and you'd know Joshua was a champion, he had the best resume by miles until Fury returned (at which point he was still clearly #1 on paper).... You'd look at Wilder's and see zero losses but very little credible in the win column to suggest you were looking at a champion - and that's where the fraudulence comes into it.

To suggest there's not much between them is exceptionally generous to the one and uncharitable to the other - there were always levels between them.

 

You're right and it feels weird to me to be defending the former. I wanted him to lose back then because I couldn't stand the hype around someone so technically unsound. And now I just want him to end his career because is more shot than whyte, more brand than boxer and only takes up a spot on a card that someone else could take.

And over their whole career Joshua takes the cake easily. But Wilder had a span of time where he faced mostly ortiz and fury and a few okay opponents, and when people were calling for joshua vs wilder.

And for that span of time I feel that had they fought it would have been very interesting. Joshua lacked head movement and he was mostly good at blocking punches, wilder lacked general technique but was great at finding punches. To me it looked like hagler hearns on a lower technical level. Offense is the best option for both ans it won't take long and is not easy to call.
Joshua might be the favorite, but I remember how robotic he was back then. Not like in Joshua Usyk 2 where he actually fought beautifully. He was stiff, I remember how awkwardly he moved backwards vs Parker.

Awkward Wilder might just as much find joshua through his static defense at the time. So on that basis I have to say that for that time they could be judged as 'not much between them'. In my post I was reacting to 'fraud' as a perceived insult to the level of their prime. And by that measure I stand by my opinion that wilder can not be called a fraud.

I see that fraud was more meant towards the career maneuvering, which I agree on.

 

Well yes... But... Ortiz was ancient, hadn't really done very much (Jennings was several years earlier, and was extremely overrated anyway) and Fury turned up fat and rusty and still won the first fight clearly.

Well, career and levels...

The idea Wilder was ever anything more than a fringe contender with a punchers chance is something I don't see evidence for - he lost clearly to every contender and fringe contender he fought, and went life and death with an overhyped gatekeeper on heart meds... If anything, I'm probably being generous in that assessment.

Sure, he'd have had a punchers chance with Joshua, especially during that time as you say, but realistically it would've been levels - and Joshua wouldn't have turned up in the state Fury did in #1 and #3

 

You take a very factual and history-minded approach, which I appreciate. I am more subjective and imaginative in my judgements I guess.

Still, Joshua also wouldn't have been able to box like fury did, no matter the physical state. Fury's head movement was great even when he was out of shape. If Joshua doesn't stop wilder early, which is not a given, even before the ruiz loss, he gives wilder a 50-50 Chance to win it.
It took Joshua seven rounds to get brezeale for example.

I feel like when we only look at wilders flaws and judge joshua on those dimensions (boxing ability) Joshua looks much better. But when we judge the whole fighter and remember Joshua wholistically as he was with his flaws back then... Then it gets closer and closer between them.

Joshua had many more good wins than wilder, but they all were either old or timid (Parker) or on a lower level (charles martin, brezeale,...) and then he lost to ruiz. Mind you that i do rate joshua higher than wilder for his whole career.

My point is though, that joshua didn't exactly fight a wilder type. Ruiz was kind of in that category. Prime age, with experience and some achievements (though not more than wilder at the time). And determination.

It's a bit like people granting fury the potential win against joshua without them fighting. Wilder will always be worse in that dimension but Joshuas flaws play into wilders hands.

 

Except the way you judge a fighter wholistically is resume... At which point there's at least a level between them, possibly more.

Yes Joshua had flaws, but he was a skilled and effective legit contender - Wilder had his plus points, but much more significant limitations and, as an overall package, never proved he could beat anyone nearly on Joshua's level (and his best win ducked a career high payday with AJ).


I get where you're coming from, it's not impossible... But the only reason it's considered an interesting question is hype - take away hype and it's quite clear who'd be overwhelmingly likely to win.