That's completely incorrect. You probably mean that there are more American's on the board than any other nationality. But again, I don't mind, if you have an African-centric ratings panel or an Australian publication that rated fighters at that time and had Ruiz or Joshua higher, that's fine; you use it. I won't though.
It was correct, I read through your board members page at the time we argued about this. But it's fine, TBRB wanted to rubber stamp a lineage, and liked the Wilder v Fury fight. But as you hinted at, Ruiz held the other 3 belts. Which is why Haymon wanted to make undisputed between Wilder and Ruiz Jr. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/andy-ruiz-jr-reveals-talks-21033104 Boxing isn't football, but it's like Portugal should have been awarded Euro 2004 after beating Holland. Because who cares about an underdog like Greece really The main issue is that there have been two parallel heavyweight scenes running for some time now. With one of the few recent points of crossing between top 10 fighters being Ruiz Jr. against Ortiz. It's is so fractured that trying to draw a line through it would require Harry Beck.
Is the board different to voting members? I'm just trying to argue in good faith here, and using your terminology. I said voting members, you changed this to the board. I said American journalstic fraternity, you reframed this as American organizations and people born in the U.S. I consider Luis Ortiz to be from the Americas btw, even if Cuba and the US aren't on the best terms.
There has never been a time when there were enough members to represent enough countries while having a majority from anywhere. You've mis-remembered, presumably. You've seen that there are more Americans than any other nationality and remembered this tonight as a majority of Americans. That is not just untrue, but impossible. There is no difference between the board and voting members. They are the same thing so changing them represents no change. I don't know what you mean by "American organisations" etc. I reject the notion that a majority of Americans can't be trusted to rank American fighters though. I think that's a bad start, and I want nothing to do with it. I know you are wrong about the TBRB membership nationality spread. I've no further interest in discussing it with you. I also don't mind if you want to use Australian rankings or whatever makes you more comfortable, you should - but i'm happy with the appraisal i've used. Anyone who ranks AJ or Ruiz above Wilder, and never had Wilder at number one is OK by me. I did, and I was in a majority as far as I am aware. If it could be demonstrated to me that many independent rankings agreed with your position at the expense of mine, id' be interested in that data.
The same AJ that couldn't make a fight with Wilder to unify all of the belts? Fury took the Wilder fight at a time when he probably wasn't ready to do so after his long break and massive weight gain. You can pick apart anyone's resume but AJ fighting his mandatory (Usyk) and then rematching him to try and regain his belts after he lost was nowhere near as big as him taking the Wilder fight for all of the belts.
One thing I want to give you guys credit for, since our argument about balance a year or two back; TBRB does look like it has added more members associated with the other parts of the world. Just going off the flags in the members page today, (at a rough count) 29 are associated with the Americas (19 the U.S.) and 23 the Rest of the World. I agree though, let's not argue about journalistic integrity. As I mentioned above, I do like your rankings. I also like the PBO rankings. They even have Fury as #1. Though they also had Ruiz Jr. as #1 Here is the link to their data. You can see the career peak ranking of different fighters as well: https://www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200 edit: Sorry, forgot to quote you in.
His resume, objectively speaking, is good. He’s engendered so much bad will from this latest Usyk fallout that nobody wants to give him any credit for anything, I get it, but we must remain objective.
Why didn't he give Wlad the rematch? Answer: because he knew Wlad was going to be much better and mentally prepared instead of angry. He had to feign mental illness for years to avoid the rematch, which I believe Wlad would have won. That AJ KOed Wlad was probably the fundamental reason Fury ducked him. Wilder is technically a terrible boxer. He has selected carefully those he fights and there are obvious fights, such as Malik Scott, who have taken a dive. The problem for Usyk is if he destroys Wilder then he will never get the Fury fight. Fury has only spouted hateful diatribe and given us no fights. Keep supporting him and letting him destroy boxing, or just ignore him and let him disappear into history as a wasted talent. PS back when everyone had Usyk getting destroyed by every HW, well before "smart boxing fans" were saying AJ by KO, I posted exactly what would happen, ie Usyk would most likely beat Joshua. What I also said was that Fury would be his toughest stylistic matchup and I favoured Fury. Not anymore, Fury and I can both see that Usyk has surpassed the unthinkable, and is actually stylistic kryptonite to a guy who is going to look as slow as Valuev did against Haye. Found 2 links: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/usyks-chin.631388/page-2#post-19895020 https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...r-almost-7-rounds.640184/page-7#post-20188219
PPS my point is that I respected Fury and hid chances against Usyk. I am not blinkered anti-Fury, I am pro boxing longevity and greatness.
Like Wlad, AJ, Usyk? "Duurrrhhh, I fink he beet Wlad, Fury is my herrro, his poster on my ceiling is prooving that" You are the problem. You support bad sportsmanship, dishonour, and propagation of lies. You're not a boxing fan. Go to www.suckfuryoff.com where you can be head moderator.
Frank Sanchez is coming for Fury. He is fast and has good movement. But I think Fury will retire in order not to fight Sanchez.