Usyk, Kabayel, Wardley and Itauma are overrated and Hrgovic is underrated - long analysis

I would say Vitali Klitschko and Lennox Lewis are better than Hrgovic, despite them not sharing my nationality. I also said already I don't consider any other Croatian boxer top 10. So your accusations on my personality are false. I don't blame people of other nationalities for rooting for their own, as I root for my own. That's normal. What I do blame people for is not being objective in actual assessments of a fighter, hence why I made this thread, as I think Hrgovic isn't treated fairly. And it's because I am from the same nationality that I root for him and care that he is treated unfairly and care to know all the information. Whereas most people in the world would be neutrally disposed or dislike Hrgovic for coming from a small country already, so that coupled with the mainstream media narratives against him that most people buy into is why I think the majority of boxing fans don't have an objective understanding of his qualities, or even all the information to decide on his qualities.

I've explained the circumstances of the Dubois fight multiple times, and these circumstances are facts, or as you say, "the truth". I'll do it one last time, extensively, so that if somebody else mentions it I can simply link to this post instead of writing it all over again.

It's the truth that a Hrgovic coming off from a sickness and with unfinished camp where he didn't train 2 weeks prior the fight was winning rounds against Dubois, when Joshua himself was losing rounds.

It's the truth that Dubois constantly intentionally headbutted him.

It's the truth that the judge did nothing about it.

It's the truth that boxing rules state that if cuts are opened by intentional headbutts the fight should be a DQ of the enemy, and if the headbutts are deemed accidental by the judge (which doesn't really apply in this case as we have documented video evidence of Dubois repeatedly headbutting, if it was accidental it wouldn't be repeated), then it's a NC or a points based decision. What a fair judge would never do in this situation though, is stop the fight in Dubois favor on cuts.

It's the truth that Joshua got KO'd in 5th while Hrgovic was unfairly stopped on cuts in 8th.

It's the truth that at the literal moment of the stoppage of the fight Hrgovic was throwing a punch (22:33 here

This content is protected

), whereas before that while Dubois had the initiative the judge didn't mind letting the fight go on, almost as if he was hoping Dubois would KO Hrgovic and when that didn't happen he didn't want to give Hrgovic a chance to get back in the game.

It's the truth that the referee (John Latham) in that fight where a Brit (Dubois) was fighting for the world title was, coincidentally, himself British. It's deranged how that is even allowed, obviously the referee and judges should be from neither of the competing countries.

It's the truth that despite all these advantages Dubois had in their fight he neither outboxed Hrgovic on points, nor managed to KO or at least knock him down or visibly rock him, despite Hrgovic being there for the taking in 7th round because of his sickness and lack of training induced exhaustion.

It's the truth that Hrgovic has called out Dubois for the rematch multiple times while stating he only lost because of sickness and unfinished camp, and in Croatian media he also mentioned the cuts, which he doesn't want to mention in English media because even though he is right, it is career suicide for him to say the full story to English media like I am saying now. Dubois could have picked Hrgovic for the rematch now if he was confident he could beat him again as Hrgovic is a better name than Zhang, but he chose Zhang instead, who is currently ranked lower than Hrgovic and has more losses, and comes off a loss, while Hrgovic comes off two wins and has beaten Zhang and Joyce (who beat Dubois).

These are all undisputable truths.

And while who would win the rematch and who is overall a better fighter is a matter of opinion, not all opinions are equal as they are not all equally based on truths aka facts. Based on "the truths", it's a logical conclusion that Hrgovic would likely win a rematch, assuming a normal camp and fair refereeing, in the same way he was a favorite in the first fight. That doesn't mean it's a 100% he'd win, he could slip and break his neck on the way to the ring, it just means that based on all the available facts he is more LIKELY to win, so an opinion that Dubois is better and would win the rematch is an objectively worse opinion to have as it is based on ignoring the truths of the context of the fight and focusing only on the single truth that Dubois won that one night under these specific circumstances, and even then he cheated and his win was a robbery and not a fair win.

Unless you assume Hrgovic didn't learn from his mistake and would get sick again and not postpone the fight, and the referee would again be pro Dubois, only in that scenario I can see the opinion that Dubois would win being an objectively better one, but that combination of circumstances is unlikely to occur again. It's possible the judge would be biased again, but it's extremely unlikely that Hrgovic would come off a sickness and with unfinished camp again, and it's likely he'd be more wary of Dubois' headbutts the next time.