It would help if u actually tagged me fella so i could see ur message. I repeat, Joshua (femi) has never been an underdog at the bookies in any of his tough 50/50 fights. Never won on away soil. Had it all his own way. Fury was meant to lose to Klit, Wilder, Pudding chisora first time and David Gaye. Funny how after they’re beat they’re all of a sudden useless
You do know that bookies odds change depending on the amount of money being placed on each fighter. Stands to reason AJ will very rarely be the underdog, he’s a popular fighter so lots of people will bet on him to win.
AJ's resume a little deeper in terms of B\C wins. But I think Fury's is better. His W over Wlad is better, plus he doesn't have a loss on his record either
Let's not forget that Fury had nigh on 3 years out of the ring, and those were his prime years. So put their CV's (not resumes) in perspective. He's a better boxer than Joshua, which is plain to see, and that's all that counts.
Who said that ? Chisora is definitely world level and better than Breazeale and slightly above Takkam. He's a good fighter but theres nothing suggesting that Wallin is that good until proven otherwise. Wallin would definitely beat breazeale but beyond that he hasn't shown much.
Two best wins.. Fury Wlad in Germany, ended his decade long reign. Wilder in the US, beat him once and was stiffed, went back and stopped him. Fury is the recognised number 1, Fury is the DADDY.
If we're talking about curriculum vitae's people are also forgetting about their jobs before boxing. Fury was a used car salesman and Joshua was a drug dealer. I'm not sure which one is 'better'.
I like them both but the resume argument is black and white in my eyes. At World championship level the history books currently show Tyson Fury as 2-0-1 (1 KO) with no defences and no unification fights. Anthony Joshua as 9-1 (7 KO) with 8 defences (7 successful) and 2 unification fights. Resume wise AJ is also a gold medal olympian.
The funniest thing is how Klitschko was apparently "having an off night", "underestimated Fury", "gun shy" and "lacking motivation" in 2015 in Germany, but "one of the best versions ever" turned up 18 months later, aged 41, inactive, coming off of a loss and in Earn and Joshua's arena... This is the main argument that is put forth. I'm not really bothered how many Charles Martin's, Carlos Takam's, Eric Molina's, Dominic Breazeale's, Andy Ruiz's etc. you can beat. I think that people are fooled by the fact a belt is on the line. This is exactly how sanctioning bodies make their dosh. These are all pudding bouts and he still managed to lose one of them once he stepped outside his beloved London. It's more than looking at a few numbers. These "history books" don't stop anyone from watching the bouts and reading into the opponents. For instance, the Parker bout was an absolute joke, how can that be a legacy defining bout? With this logic, even if Fury beats Joshua, according to those who back this formula, Joshua will still have the better resume. Now that's where I think a lot of people will shoot themselves in the foot, because many will jump over and then say Fury has the better resume, despite lacking title fights against legends like Carlos Takam, Eric Molina, Pudding Pulev et al.
Joshua's Nigerian name was actually Femi. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I assume he was known as Femi but changed to Anthony or something like that. I remember Dillian Whyte making a big deal about this in the build up of their fight, but Anthony Joshua is basically his birth certificate name.
