Better career: Anthony Joshua or Deontay Wilder

He beat Wlad fairly easily.

 

I remember the debates on here on who would have the better legacy as time passed, when Holyfield and Lewis were near the end of their careers, that was at least debatable.

This isn't, Wilder's resume is worse than a lot of the top heavies that fought during this era and in the end that's what decides a fighter standing. He'll be remembered for sure, the good, the trilogy with Fury, the bad, how he ducked every threat he could unless there was an angle to win, Ortiz (Old on heart meds, looked poor in recent fights), Fury (Inactive for over 2 years, in horrible shape, looked poor in recent fights), Parker (recently stopped for the first time, perhaps shop worn).

 

You're fine, I disagree with you to some extent - I think he'd have had a punchers chance with them, but probably less than a coin flip chance of beating most of them... It's not that he couldn't have won, I just don't think he'd have done so regularly if he'd been fighting at that level.

I suppose if you're backing the Wilder that went 50/50 with Ortiz in the first fight it makes sense to back the Cuban as well... Albeit, like Wilder, I personally just can't help thinking there's a reason he never chose to prove it.

 

He stunk the place out against a poor version of Wlad.

The decision is difficult to fault - in that sense it's clear... But the lack of rematch, and the circumstances of such, make it contentious for many.

 

I'd say AJ has the better career, even just going off of their best wins. Wilder's best win is Luis Ortiz, AJ's is against Klitschko. Sure, you can make the argument that Klitschko was old, but Ortiz wasn't exactly a spring chicken when Wilder beat him. At least Klitschko was a proven quality fighter, Ortiz's reputation is about as questionable as Wilder's.

I'll give Wilder his due though, the fight that made him a champion was the better of the two. Martin kinda rolled over and he won the belt in the first place largely due to the fact that Glazkov fell awkwardly at one point and screwed up his leg. Stiverne at least unquestionably earned his belt and came with intentions of defending it against Wilder. Granted, even in that case Martin has probably aged a little better as a win, and neither of these dudes are exactly world beaters even at their best, but at the time I feel like saying Stiverne was the better win wouldn't be unreasonable at all. Might not be much, but it's something.

I'll also just throw this in here, I feel like Wilder has the more memorable stoppages, though that comes down to personal opinions more than anything.

 

It often gets skirted over, as well, that he failed the test for nandrolone after the Christian Hammer fight which was the final eliminator for Klitschko---remember the Klitschko win was 9 months after the failed test...

Not only should the Hammer result have been overturned, but he shouldn't have been allowed to fight Klitschko. It's all seemingly been brushed under the carpet by British Boxing, I can only assume so that he (and his financial backers) could continue to lay claim to the Lineal Championship.

 

Just look at the 7 people votted for Wilder. They are not even Wilder fans, they are Fury ones. This pretty much sums everything you need to know about this 2 frauds and their fans ....
And then tell me what is the point to even try to argue or have a discussion with this people ? Waste of time and space.
As far as the thread goes, this was never a serious discussion, as they are miles apart.

 

Yeah they at first wanted to NC the Hammer fight, but BBBOC refused to do so. The agency that caught Fury wanted the fight to be overruled, but corruption at it's highest.
They also hide everything about the failing test, as Fury team straight away start suing the doping agency, so they f**** the process and get away.
If a fighter start suing the doping agency, then it's a clear he is dirty and just wants to get away due to doping agency not having much money to deal with lawsuits, etc, etc.

And that ****** was still banned for 2 years is all you need to know.
Let's not forget that he failed another test, and rejected another, which is an equal to failing a test.

Once a cheater, always a cheater, so he 100% is still on the wild boar meat.

 

Tell them testing guys to **** off and get out my gym
True story

 

AJ’s win over 41 year old Wladimir is better than any win on Wilder’s resume. Also, Wilder wouldn’t have fought a 45 year old Wladimir much less a 41 year old one. Wilder was coddled and his whole career carefully managed and crafted to avoid risks. AJ is at least willing to take risks.

 

Yep after winning the belt, Finkel said they had no plan to unify as Wilder was a baby or something like that. Wasn't really until after the Jennings fight when Wlad looked less than impressive, that's when Wilder and the people around him started talking about a possible fight with Wlad, but then Wlad lost the belts to Fury. So clearly they were waiting to age him out and see when the time was right, typical Wilder or at least tried to but Wilder fell at the last hurdle against Parker. Though Hearn is also to blame for over marinating that fight at the end, should have been Joshua/Wilder not Parker/Wilder.

Joshua in contrast won the belts, had 2 fights with Haymon fighters as Haymon got options on Joshua for 2 fights for making the Martin fight and then immediately went for Wlad once he was free to do so. Both have very different approaches to their career and I blame Haymon as that's his business model, minimal risk, marinate fights until it's a sure thing then cash out. He did it with Mayweather, he did it with Spence and also did it with Wilder.

 

Well, we can't go back and retroactively make the result of the first fight contentious because we don't like what transpired afterwards. It was boring and not overly impressive, but it was an easy win.

I think that Wlad looking poor had lots to do with the stylistic difficulty that Fury provided. He certainly looked better almost two years later against Joshua, but there is no chance that AJ fought the better version.

 

The result wasn't contentious - whether Fury was a better fighter than Wlad was.

As you say, boring... But effective. And still impressive in its own right.

There's two arguments about Fury-Wlad... One side suggests Fury just used a style Wlad couldn't deal with, the other suggests Wlad wasn't best prepared or particularly up for the fight.

Of course it's possible both are true - that Wlad wasn't at his best mentally or physically and that in that state he couldn't deal with Fury... But then the question is whether Fury could repeat that against a better (or "the real", depending on your perspective) Wlad in a rematch - and since the rematch never happened, it'll remain an open question.

I'm not sure AJ didn't fight the better version - it's hard to tell, really... It's very possible that AJ and Fury fought similar levels of Wlad, for different reasons (age declined Vs disinterested/poorly prepared declined).