Daniel Dubois is underrated

Miller beat Ruiz after the Dubois fight, which you say doesn’t count because it was officially a draw. But if you take the idea that the official result is the only thing that matters to its logical extreme, that’s a silly way to judge fights. Even if you think Miller is a bum, he clearly has a strong chin, and stopping him is an achievement in itself. When people talk about Usyk’s run at heavyweight, they don’t bring up Chisora or Witherspoon so why don’t you count AJ? Parker beating Wilder, who couldn’t even pull the trigger, Zhang, which is debatable, and an unprepared Bakole on less than 24 hours’ notice is worse than AJ and Miller. Wardley beating a chinny, low-power Huni and a Parker with no game plan, who was winning wide before that crappy TKO, isn’t better than Dubois’ run. Chisora’s overall run is worse than beating just AJ. Only Zhang (if you count the Parker win, which I do), Usyk, and Kabayel have, in my opinion, had better runs.

 

This content is protected

Please watch this video. It clearly shows why Zhang won.

 

If Dubois is “European level,” does that mean a “washed” Joshua, who gave a competitive fight to Usyk in their second fight and put together a solid winning streak, is only British level because he got destroyed by Dubois? Also, styles make fights. Dubois’ defense relies on his legs to move away from shots, and when someone like Usyk has faster feet, is extremely technical, and doesn’t get hit cleanly, it becomes one-sided. That doesn’t mean getting beaten by a top-three heavyweight makes you not world-level.

 

If you’re going off official results instead of revisionist history, stop putting an asterisk on the win. Dubois won, plain and simple. If you want to talk about runs to a vacant title, Parker’s best opponents before his title shot were Dimitrenko and Takam, who combined are worse than the Hrgovic win alone. Plenty of fighters like Machen, Page, Tucker, Hide, Morrison, Mercer, Chagaev, Martin, Glazkov, and Stiverne had more underwhelming paths to a vacant title shot based on their runs. Who cares if Parker beat Wilder as an underdog if Wilder’s performance was so poor? I’m not saying it’s Parker’s fault that Bakole was out of shape, but it doesn’t carry much weight either. Wallin isn’t on par with Hrgovic (if a 40-plus-year-old Chisora with no legs beats you one-sidedly, you’re not at a good level at that time), and Joyce was never the same after the Zhang fights. Dubois is still a great first defense for Wardley, so I don’t care if he lost to Usyk, who is a nightmare stylistic matchup for him. Unless you think a fight with Chisora would have been a better first defense, which was the fight being first suggested to Wardley.

 

I’m saying that historically, the road to a title shot hasn’t been that difficult. That’s why I brought up Joseph Parker (and several other fighters); guys who fought for vacant titles without particularly strong runs beforehand. As for Daniel Dubois, he isn’t at fault for the IBF’s decisions. Him having four title shots isn’t something you can hold against him. He’s simply taken the opportunities presented to him. It’s not revisionist history to say that Filip Hrgovic was clearly fouled, and putting an asterisk on that win is fair. In the same way, it’s not revisionist to argue that Jarrell Miller, in everyone's eyes (excluding the judges), did enough to beat Andy Ruiz Jr. I was mainly poking at a bit of inconsistency in your logic there.

At the end of the day, I think you’re a quality poster. We just disagree on Dubois’ level, and I feel like this thread has covered pretty much everything about him, so I’m happy to leave it here.