Anthony Joshua doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

Are you comparing butterbeans fame with AJ’s? Or achievements for that matter? I dont that is a fair try

 

Joshua was an unified champion who defended the belts several times and brought the excitement back in the heavyweight division.
Of course he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

People saying AJ and Wilder aren't HOFers because they were overrated(which I'm not disputing) are being delusional. Yall are being way too picky with the HOF. If the HOF adopted these standards they'd run out of fighters in less than 20 years.

In the 4 belt era HOF is for any champ with a nice record who defended a few times and has beaten over 5 title contenders. By my stricter count AJs defended 4 times and beaten 11 contenders officially hes defended 7 times and beaten 14. Him fighting old people and Fury/Wilder common opponents doesn't change that thats a HOF career.


AJ doesn't have the overall longevity traditionally associated with a HOF boxing career. But in this era doesn't really matter.

 

I think he should and he will. Joshua has many flaws, but he is still an exciting, big drawing, x2 HW champion who has a very respectable record. I think a lot of people are overly harsh on him. He's had a perfectly good career - and has enough intangibles to get him in the HOF, IMO

 

Not really, simply that fame (including casual recognition) isn't enough on it's own.

 

There's a world of difference between Joshua and Wilder, though... One was a joke champion with a joke resume who avoided practically all contenders (at best, if you grant old Ortiz that standing), the other beat most of the proper contenders active at the time and even with the era being a weak one that's still a world away from being the same thing.

Joshua's record as a champion is, mostly, pretty respectable - Wilder's isn't.


Broad-brush if Joshua doesn't get in then Fury doesn't (regardless of individual merits H2H, Joshua has far more longevity, isn't tainted by failing drug testing, etc) and Wilder certainly doesn't.

Yes, in an all-time sense Joshua was overrated by some at times, but arguably far less so than Fury and orders of magnitude less than Wilder... None of this changes that, in terms of record, he's right up there for this era.

If anything, at least at this point, Joshua tends to get underrated relative to his career to a degree that neither Fury or Wilder do.

I couldn't care less if none of them get in... But it'd be beyond ridiculous for Wilder and Fury to get in and Joshua not.

 

Not a huge AJ fan by any means, but it is called The Hall Of Fame, not The Hall Of ATGs after all and AJ is nothing if not famous.

 

For where the current bar is, then he's a no-brainer for the HOF. If Ricky Hatton is, then Joshua is. World silver, Olympic gold, 2x HW champion, and sold out Wembley multiple times. On talent he's not, but the HOF isn't solely about that.

 

Denigrating Ortiz while most of AJs reign is beating Wlad, Povetkin and Pulev is a double standard. After winning his belt off Martin Joshua fought 2 common Wilder opponents before Wlad then Takam after. Martins not as bad as Stiverne and Joshuas average SOS is higher than Wilders but Joshua didn't make it to 10 title defenses and lost to Andy Ruiz.

Joshuas best win from his era aged well specifically because Parker beat Wilder. Joshuas whole resume revolves around comparisons to Fury and Wilder who avoided everyone meaning AJ also avoided everyone. For me this era is defined by ducking and AJs career being slightly better than Fury really ain't something to be bragging about and parading around. And thats more my problem then thinking Wilders resume is better than AJ. The kid who scored a 71 shouldn't be talking smack to the one who scored a 68.

But while we disagree at the end of the day this conversation is nonsense and all of them are getting in the HOF. Wilder or Joshua aren't getting left out of the HOF because one defended their title more times than the other or beat more ranked opponents. They were both always getting in.

 

Bingo.

You can argue that Joshua and Fury are not "greats," which is subjective, but they are getting in the hall of fame.

 

They better not let that fraud in. Crimes against the elderly

 

He real famous though.

 

Love seeing a bunch of people on the internet talk about how these former world champions don’t deserve be in the HoF…

AJ, Wilder, and Fury were the faces of an era…like it or not…

It will be very surprising if they DONT make it into the hall of fame..

Not the best heavyweight era, but they all did what they should have done with who was in front of them. Sadly, the era would be looked upon a lot better if these guys had just all fought each other…

 

It's not just about being a pro afleet, it's about being a sportsman, leader, role model, mentor, father, team leader, manager, cultural icon, Knight of the British Empire, anti-imperialist, Afro-theorist, humanitarian, brand ambassador, UN ambassador, Olympian and torch bearer of ancient European traditions, bidness man, English nobleman.

And that's just the beginning. The man is only 35 years old. I assure you there is more to come.

Author, musician, music video director, mini-series screen-writer and director, public speaker and motivator, honorary Oxford degree in physical edumacationism, CEO of tracksuit corporation, politican, Youtuber ...

Haters can cry, but I think this resume speaks for itself.

 

Not at all... All they have in common is being older at the time.

Wlad and Pov were levels more proven than Ortiz, and Pulev at least as much so too.

My criticism of Ortiz isn't just that he was old, it's mostly that he wasn't very well proven - being old (and on heart meds) means he wasn't at his best at the time either.

Sure, Wlad and Pov weren't at their best by the time they fought Joshua - I don't know anyone sane who'd debt that - but they were declined from a far, far higher bar.

Martin and Stiverne were both equally awful in their failed defences - Stiverne at his best was slightly less awful, but that ship had probably already sailed... It's barely relevant with both being crap.

It's hard to weigh a loss to Ruiz too heavily against Joshua vis-a-vis Wilder when taking into account that A) it was avenged (albeit Ruiz didn't cover himself in glory) and B) Ruiz would've been very easily in Wilders top two (and very arguably his best win).

One of the reasons Joshua has wins that aged well was because he fought so many relevant fighters...
Some aged well, some didn't - it's the opposite of what happens when you hang your entire reputation on just one or two opponents.

Joshua's resume doesn't rely on comparison with Fury's or Wilder's and that's precisely the point - unlike those two, he didn't just avoid everyone which means you're not relying on comparisons against common opponents to make claims of being at an equivalent level (as you would for Wilder via Breazeale and Helenius, for example, as if triangle theories actually worked).

Unlike Wilder and to a lesser extent Fury, Joshua's career isn't defined by avoidance.

Anyone who thinks Wilders resume is better, frankly, just dksab... And were not talking about the equivalents of 71 to 68 - they're nowhere near that close on resume.

Broadly speaking, agreed - they're all likely to get in, and it's about being relevant and famous regardless of how it was achieved... Joshua may have been somewhat carefully managed, Wilder might've been as close to a complete fraud as it's possible to get with as many defences as he has - but those management strategies made both relevant for a time and that's what counts.