Joshua says Fury hasn't proven himself against tough competition

Wilder has been ranked at worst 3rd in the Ring rankings for the last 5 years. The order has varied, but the top 3 has been pretty much a closed shop in the division during that period, or top 2 when Fury has been inactive. The hierachy was so well established and obvious that I don't even need to flesh out which fighters I'm referring to. Everyone knew who they were, and pretty much everyone at the time agreed with them until it became imperative to trash Wilder so that Fury doesn't get any credit for beating him.

Any lingering doubts about whether Wilder belonged in there with the other two guys were removed when he held Fury to a draw and dropped him twice in the process (regardless of the controversy in the decision). We can discredit Stiverne and Ortiz if we want to in turn discredit Wilder, but they were top 5 heavies at the time and fancied by many to beat him.

When Fury and Wilder fought second time round it was for the vacant Ring title, based on the consensus that it was the two top guys facing off. At no point was it even put forward by any credible source that Joshua-Povetkin should close off the title.

If you're trying to apply "my criteria" of lesser wins not being that important, while at the same time wanting to start a debate between the third tier wins on Povetkin and Wilder's resumes, I really think that's missing the point. For what it's worth, Duhaupas is as meaningless a win for Povetkin as it is for Wilder.

Historically, I'd put Povetkin above Wilder. In the context of how and when they beat them, Fury's is clearly a more significant win than Joshua's.

 

Great post.

The amount of Tyson nuthuggers on here is mental.

 

I don't think getting a robbery draw against a muscle atrophied coming back from drink, drugs and depression against two no hopers Fury does much to 'prove' Wilder. If anything it works against him and I say this as someone who rates Fury as a h2h talent.

 

I believe Fury’s is only more significant on the basis of Wilder being grossly overrated on criteria which you yourself surely accept? He’d beaten almost nobody of note; Ortiz is ancient and Stiverne a name to drop in alongside Martin, Ibragimov and Lyakhovic in the list of thoroughly mediocre modern champions. ‘But but but they were top five ranked contenders.’ And what were Parker, Povetkin and Ruiz when Joshua beat them?

 

They were ranked top 5. Hence why Joshua was justifably ranked number 1 or 2 prior to the loss to Ruiz. I've no idea why you think comparing Joshua's record to Wilder's, is relevant to a Fury-Joshua comparison.

Putting agenda-based revisionism to one side, where would you have ranked Wilder prior to a) Fury I and b) Fury II?

 

Exactly.

Just watch ANY Wilder fight and look at how limited he is.

He has immense power, that's it. He's the least skilled fighter in the top10.

 

The point I am making is that by using your ranking criteria (start with the best win and work back from there), Wilder must rank quite low.

His best win is Ortiz by some distance. Ortiz in turn has a best win over possibly Bryant Jennings? I've mentioned who Povetkin has beaten if we're talking about Joshua. Parker has beaten Ruiz. Whyte has beaten Parker and Rivas.

All I'm doing is using your criteria about working back from best wins and finding pretty much nothing which says we should rate Wilder all that highly. We can say the biggest names in heavyweight boxing in the last five or six years have been Klitschko, Joshua and Fury. He's beaten none of them and been destroyed by one. On the second level we have Whyte, Ruiz, Parker, Povetkin, Pulev, Ortiz. He's only beaten one of them. Do you really become so highly ranked by knocking over third-level types like Audley Harrison?

 

Where did you rank him prior to the two fights with Fury?

 

Prior to the first fight with Fury I'd have probably ranked him somewhere similar to Whyte. On the cusp of top five, possibly fifth.

After that fight, when consensus was he clearly lost to an overweight guy who'd just come off a pretty desperate fight with Pianeta and had barely boxed in years, he certainly didn't go any further up. He fought two very 'Wilder' opponents in his next two fights and was then mercilessly walloped by Fury in the rematch.

I've made this comparison before, but I really see Wilder as the sort of guy we'll remember as a weaker David Tua type. Tua never won a world title, but he fought in an era of Lewis, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield, and he himself beat Moorer, Ruiz and Rahman, all of whom were world champions and reasonably decent ones too. Wilder has, as far as I can tell, only beaten two world champions, namely Stiverne and Lyakhovich, both of whom make John Ruiz look like an absolute legend. Beyond that, even in a fairly weak era, he's got nowhere near cleaning out the division.

Now he looks a busted flush; Jeff Lacy was once the super middle Tyson before Calzaghe battered him and he was brutally exposed. He now seems more accurately the super middle Wilder. Wilder also reminds me a little of Broner. All that 'how do you solve the problem' nonsense and then Maidana just went out and chinned him, and almost overnight he seemed to drop into gatekeeper territory.

 

The same Ortiz that Eddie Hearn SIGNED to keep away from Joshua. Had it been Joshua that beat Wilder you would be touting all these guys as killers.

 

was that the reason Hearn signed him?genuinely interested why you think that.this was before Ortiz fought wilder and Joshua fought klitschko.more recently Ortiz and/or his team turned down a career high purse and multiple world titles to duck Joshua aswell.

 

If Joshua beat Wilder (which I think he would) then he wouldn't be Joshua's best win by a long chalk.

As I have said, using criteria of 'name the best opponent and work backwards' is a dismal way to try and justify Wilder's bizarrely high rankings. Ortiz twice is by a comfortable margin his best win in forty-plus fights and in both he was losing. Thereafter we have a litany of third-division opponents.

 

Joshua has problems with southpaws. Hearn promised Ortiz big fights and big promotion and instead he got Malik Scott and Dave Allen, that's why they left and went to Haymon. With regards to the Miller replacement, Hearn offered £2.5 mill knowing full well they would refuse (he needed to get big names in the hat and quickly) and didn't go back with a second offer (as Ortiz team were expecting). Ruiz eventually took the fight for £5 million more than double what they offered Ortiz.

 

both he was losing? But the fact is he won both by KO!!!