AJ v Klitschko 2....

I certainly wouldn’t be criticising him if he fought Ortiz or even the Whyte rematch considering fury and wilder were tied up.

It’s not much of a muchness if you can’t see difference between level of opponents Whyte has just faced and then look at miller’s. Plus whyte’s status in British boxing.

 

Thing is I don't really see how Whyte suddenly does anything different. He struggled very, very badly with Parker, who Joshua beat easily. He struggled very, very badly with Chisora, and in the eyes of many lost, and nobody is picking Chisora over Joshua. All whilst Joshua has been beating everyone he faces with no fuss except Klitschko.

Miller may be worse than Whyte, but he's something different. It's a who knows situation. For some, that's better than an outcome we all definitely know; Joshua flattens Whyte a hundred times in a hundred fights.

 

Joshua flattening Whyte is not a definite outcome. I would back Joshua to win but if you have a big concussive punch then you always have a chance.

 

Ortiz has been given this same mythical status by certain sections of boxing fans without real justification. Similar to Hughie Fury.

 

Most heavyweights 'have a chance' by that definition. Miller 'has a chance.' He's also not someone who's already fought Joshua and was rendered unconscious.

 

Let's be honest, Joshua fighting against anybody that isn't Fury or Wilder is not going to get the juices flowing for anybody. I'm not thrilled with Joshua vs Whyte, Miller, Pulev or Ortiz. But to me these are the only options. I think Whyte has the strongest case of the 4 to 'deserve' a shot against Joshua. Followed by Pulev, Ortiz then Miller. My personal preference of who he fights apart from Fury or Wilder would be the same order but maybe Ortiz before Pulev.

So no matter who Joshua fights next, nobody's going to be thrilled. But Miller is the weakest option of a not great 4. He hasn't mixed it with anybody at or near the top. The other 3 have.

But the main reason why Joshua's next fight is going to be somewhat of a damp squib, is because there isn't enough depth at the very top. If there's a big gap between 1 to 3 and 4 to 10, and 2 of the top 3 are fighting each other next, then it leaves the other one in between a rock and a hard place.

 

Ok, Whyte has a pretty decent chance. I think he has a few fundamental flaws but he a lot more dangerous now than he was 3-4 years ago. He has a big left hand that can knock a fighter out. He’s proven that. You’re right in the fact that Joshua did out box Parker, but don’t forget that the referee would not allow any inside fighting that night and it suited Joshua’s longer reach to jab him to bits from the outside. Don’t forget that Whyte floored Parker with a big left hook.

Joshua will outbox him, without a doubt, however, if they got into an exchange, Whyte has become a lot more proficient at landing that shot. It’s the old saying in boxing, don’t hook with a hooker.

 

Looking at resumes I would say Whyte is clearly the most deserving of a title shot in the divison. Followed by Miller, then it's Pulev.

Ortiz has done nothing to merit a second title shot.

As far as talent goes I would back the following to beat Wilder in the likes of AJ, Povetkin, Whyte, Parker, Pulev, Joyce and Hunter. Maybe even Miller too.

 

What’s Miller done to warrant a title shot?

 

Miller hasnt shown me anything to suggest he punches anywhere near as hard as Whyte

 

Lads, Miller fought Tomasz Adamek recently. You know, the bloke who last held a world title TEN YEARS AGO, at light heavyweight, and never made the step up to heavyweight successfully, losing five times to some poor names. That one blew my mind, I must say. Had to check it was Tomasz and not some other Adamek. Imagine the abuse Dillian Whyte or Ortiz would get for fighting Adamek. That's not who 'top ten guys' should be fighting.

 

Your favourite boxer of all time fought Christian Hammer before he won his biggest fight. He'd also beaten nobody better than Dereck Chisora. At the time the top ten rankings included Klitschko, Povetkin, Stiverne, Pulev, Jennings, Wilder, Glazkov, Perez, Arreola and Chagaev. Your all time favourite had beaten none of them, fought none of them, but had recently fought Joey Abell.

 

Christian hammer would be one of millers best wins, also Tyson fury beat a prime chisora taking his unbeaten record then beat him again before fighting wlad that in its self is a lot better than what miller has done so far.

 

I think we're dressing Chisora up to be something that he wasn't. He's lost pretty much every time he's stepped up.

The point I'm making is that fighters do get cracks at the title without a great resume all the time because there just aren't that many great fighters out there. Fury got a shot at Wlad and he'd never fought anyone who had ever been a Ring top ten ranked fighter.

Nobody is saying Miller is great. But in an era when Leapai, Mormeck, Wach, Pianeta, Stiverne, Jennings, Harrison, Chisora, Charr and so on all had shots at the world title, I'm bemused by why he seems to be particularly worthy of criticism.

 

Ha ha ha ha, you're a bleedin headcase Tony. Chisora X2, Hammer, Cunningham. That's four wins better than anything Miller has, including two eliminators. FOUR!!!!

I stated I wouldn't mind Miller getting the shot if he even had ONE GOOD WIN! He hasn't!

You're literally the only person on here who thinks Miller deserves the shot. Unsurprisingly of course.