AJ vs Wilder or Fury?

It's called an agenda and throwing logic at an agenda - no matter how sound the logic - is like pissing into the wind, it is an absolute and utter waste of time.

 

It's not that, it's just that any realistic criticism of Wilder gets labelled as hate around here... The double standard is honestly ****ing ridiculous, the guy who deserves far more criticism gets defended to the hilt even from fair criticism - guys who did far more get slated on both fair and ridiculous points and nobody bats an eyelid. The pro-Wilder bias is just crazy.

In context, it's a good win for where Wilder clearly is now - but for a guy who's main strengths were always speed and power, struggling to land is a clear sign that his route to victory against anyone decent and/or less shot than that is limited.

Nah, it's always difficult - it's why runners are always so infuriating to watch, their fights usually go quite a few rounds and they're frustrating... Sure, most are a lot more capable, but the flipside is they're usually trying to win that way.

A novelty fight against someone who wants to fight isn't that hard - a novelty against someone who's only trying to survive is a bit different.

All novelties are pretty meaningless and worthless, naturally.

We'll never know for certain because there's always a punchers chance, especially with someone who's got some speed and has real power... At the same time, the assumption would rightly have been that the guy who was way more proven would've won more often than not.

Joshua losing to Ruiz was poor, he didn't fight well and Ruiz was decent on the day... Ruiz at his best was pretty much the equal of Parker (let's not forget they went 50/50 and Parker juust squeaked out the win) and Parker would probably always have beaten Wilder, too - Ruiz would've topped Wilder's resume easily if he'd beaten him... Losing to him when Wlad and Pov were better wins isn't great for Joshua, but it's not like it invalidates his entire resume to be fighting multiple guys much better than anyone Wilder beat and going 1-1 with one of those.

Physically, he clearly is... Mentally they're both clearly damaged.

 

Looking forward to some of this 'realistic' criticism of Wilder from you. It sure will be a contrast from the chip on both shoulders, hate campaign you have waged on him since day one.

 

Wilder is one of the most criticized boxers on this forum. At one point in his career I'd agree it was largely justified, but I don't think that is the case anymore as he's challenging himself more in the tail end of his career rather than taking soft money fights.

The only double standard that seems to exist here is AJ and Usyk getting passes for fighting joke opponents, while Wilder isn't getting much credit for outpointing Chisora on his home turf with a dodgy referee. In fact, Wilder is the only one of the big three to not fight a non-boxer, whereas AJ has done it twice.

 

He's up there, and along with the other heavily criticised ones in the same sort of bracket (Tank, etc), it's mostly deserved.

The same criticisms that were fair game in his prime are almost all still valid now - he proved relatively little for what his position/belt should've made possible (if he was good enough) and didn't... That was the criticism then and it's still fair now.

About the only thing that's potentially changed with him stepping up later is that it makes it appear more that it was a management decision to protect him that much, rather than a cowardice problem - it's not guaranteed, but that's likely a fair objection... Regardless, it doesn't make him more proven in his prime.

It's certainly creditable that he's making better fights since losing his belt - but does it rescue his resume? Not really... He's lost to two guys who would've topped his resume, and beaten one who'd always have been in his top two but is almost comically shot.
Excusing his losses because he's declined/shot himself whilst claiming a huge victory when he beats someone far more shot physically is having your cake and eating it, IMHO.

Nobodies giving Usyk a pass, he's getting criticised for it and rightly so.

Same goes for AJ, especially with Paul, and for Fury... AJ gets a little bit of pass over Ngannou because Fury made it look much more difficult than he should have, but it still shouldn't have happened.

Wilder isn't getting much credit because Chisora looked far more shot than he did even against Joyce and Wallin, and he looked pretty done in those too...
Yes, Wilder himself is clearly declined (mentally more than physically, but he's lost some speed too and his timing doesn't look right) - if anything, he looked worse than I expected too.
It's not that there's no credit there, it's that it's so hard to gauge what it's actually worth when Chisora was in the awful state he was - it's still a good win, it's just hard to say how good, and it doesn't signal that Wilder is "back" in any kind of sense that suggests he'd be competitive in the top 10 or probably even 20 or 30.

 

Ha! Watch us get Fury v Wilder IV

For the poll though I think they are both still moderately interesting. Wilder showed some glimpses of the right hand and we know AJ is vulnerable when clipped. Who knows how has mental state is after the Dubois defeat then the crash?

Fury i've always thought really somehow didn't fancy Joshua, in that the risk of getting sparked like Ngannou was not worth the reward of winning. Depending on how Fury looks against Mak i'd still make him favourite over AJ, but his diminishing punch resistance makes it more even in my book that it previously was

 

Joshua will continue to fight Youtubers, MMA guys, or get outboxed and have his lights punched out by top 10 guys like Dubois...

...and his dedicated fanboys on this site will STILL insist everyone is ducking him.

Astounding.

 

Someone has a valid criticism of "Fighter A"
A bunch of posters come in to spew fanboy logic in an attempt to defend "Fighter A"
Those same posters, in a moment of confused self reflection, lash out and call the original critic of "Fighter A" a fanboy

and around it goes.

 

The fanboys have joined a decade after me and managed to churn out thousands of lengthy posts about Joshua that I couldn't come close to in a lifetime. They see someone upsetting their fanboyism as a personal attack and always react poorly. I am followed around by these characters who are so dedicated to the online defense of someone who doesn't know they exist.

 

To be fair we're talking about the present, not only 6+ years ago. Their resumes don't stop at 2020. In recent times Wilders resume is better than AJs full stop despite Wilder being 4 years older and clearly more worn from the Fury trilogy + the Zhang KO.

It's not a case of "having my cake and eating it too" when I point out both fighters were roughly on the same level, with Chisora having a significant advantage having his fight on home turf and coming off of two quality wins. Both Wilder and Chisora showed tremendous heart and grit in the ring, but the clash of styles made it look quite ugly and their age was showing for BOTH fighters. The crap ref didn't help.

The issue here is that you're just refusing to give Wilder any credit at all because Chisora looked bad in that fight, yet when it comes to AJ v Paul the excuses and justification comes out. That's not being consistent, nor is it being fair.

Plenty of people give Usyk and AJ passes and excuses for their opponents. Regardless of how poor Fury looked when fighting Ngannou, it was a shameless money grab from AJ to take that fight. He didn't "save" boxing, that's just copium from his fans who were more than happy to dish out criticism when Fury took the fight, but had to flip-flip when AJ did the same thing. Usyk also gets the "he's cleared out the division, nothing to prove" excuse quite often as well.

I get your stance when it comes to rating overall legacy, but credit should be given where it's due. Being honest, is there anything Wilder could do/opponents he could fight that would get credit from you?

 

Some of these Joshua fans log on to this forum every day and write novels defending their hero.

I hope they're at least using AI to write this ****. The word count generated every day is crazy.

 

If you're talking about the most recent fight only, sure - Chisora, even mega shot Chisora, is an okay win where Jake is a novelty, regardless of it being difficult to catch a runner.

Last 3?
Nothing significant in it... Herndon and Paul are both worthless. Zhang and Dubois are both clear losses. Ngannou and Chisora don't set the world alight... In other words, neither is covered in glory.

It kinda is mate.

Chisora being on a better run is no advantage when coming in that overweight and that shot... Ultimately you seem desperate to give some significant credit, but all that fight proved is Chisora is completely and utterly finished and Wilder isn't too far off it - he'd have won far more easily otherwise.

They're both pretty meaningless - you're desperate to give one credit without caveats, where the other you're not. I don't think you're being consistent or fair here.

At the end of the day, Fury's embarrassing performance did make the sport a laughing stock in some circles - and legitimised Ngannou to some extent...
It didn't make him good, but it made him relevant and (to some) interesting at the time - the WBC even put him in their top 10.

Ultimately, Joshua shut that narrative down and made him irrelevant again - still novelty, but it's somewhat understandable in context.

There were absolutely more competitive fights he could've taken - it's irritating that it was in anyway justifiable for him to have been taking it.

The problem is he basically has... That doesn't excuse novelty BS, but short of retiring or shutting up a hype narrative or two, there isn't much left to prove - I'd rather he did either of those.

I think overall legacy is important, and keeping lesser achievements in the twilight of dying careers should be kept very much in context...

Wilder beating a proper contender or a non-shot gatekeeper now would be a massive achievement - I don't think he's realistically beating any of the contenders now, nor the better gatekeepers like Hrgovic, but going in and beating someone like Sanchez or Okolie would be impressive given his level of decline.

In reality, I think he'll try and aim way too high and land another one-sided loss like he had from Parker or Zhang.

 

Chisora and Herndon is better than Jake Paul and Ngannou. Two boxers, one an established gatekeeper/contender vs an MMA fighter with 0 wins and a Youtuber who lost to Tommy Fury.

Except that it isn't. Both fighters were shot to bits, therefore they're on equal footing. You can't claim that Chisora only lost because he is old and shopworn when his opponent is in the same boat.

Coming in heavy and on the front foot was clearly Chisora's gameplan, and even if it wasn't and purely down to laziness Wilder can only fight the guy in front of him. The fact is that Wilder came into this as the underdog against an opponent most here backed to beat him. He not only beat Chisora, he did it in his backyard with no A-side advantage with a dodgy referee.

Personally, I feel that Wilder deserves a lot of credit, and shows a lot of growth from Wilder who actually came in with a gameplan and kept a relatively cool head despite the corruption unfolding in front of him.

Doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right, and this never changed the perception from the MMA community that they're better than boxers. As for Usyk, he's only had 5 opponents at heavyweight. 5. Most of them are rematches. There are plenty of other opponents he could be fighting.

I think he beats all three of those opponents rather handily, even in his shot state.

If he decided to go for a harder opponent, then good for him. That deserves Kudos and is a refreshing change from what the rest of the contenders and champions are doing.