I was in Wembley Arena that night in 2011 and Fury won easily against Fat Pudding Chisora. Pudding Chisora was criticised by Warden post fight for coming into the ring in awful shape. Was sitting behind David Price and 2 seats along from the Eastenders mob attending the fight. One of Fat Mick's better promotions but still a huge Black Curtain hiding 50% of the arena and the other half about 40% full.
Wins that Joshua has that are better than Chisora : 3 Klitschko, Parker, Povetkin .. .... oh look, Fury actually has a win over one of them as well (and before Joshua did it).
I think it's debatable that Fury's win over Chisora is better than Joshua's win over Whyte. Appreciate it doesn't always work like this (just look at the Hopkins - Taylor - Pavlik triangle) but I'd find it hard to rate Chisora above Whyte given Whyte has beaten him twice, plus you rate Paker as one of Joshua's best wins - and Whyte has beaten him as well.
1. I agree it's debatable. But I'm not pressing a point about Fury-Chisora x2 being better than Joshua-Whyte, I'm merely saying Joshua-Whyte is not better than Fury-Chisora x2. 2. I think Parker was unlucky against Whyte (I thought he earned a draw even with all the fouling from Whyte) - but if I'm inclined to put Whyte and Parker on the same level, I'll put Chisora on that level too. Whch means only "Klitschko and Povetkin" would be certainly better than Chisora. But I'm inclned to say Parker is better than Chisora. 3. So ....... to be fair (and accurate), Whyte of 2018 might well be better than ANY VERSION of Chisora, based on his win over Parker and win over Chisora in 2018. But Joshua did not face Whyte of 2018, he faced Whyte in 2015. A year later, a 2016 Whyte was still on even terms with Chisora. Therefore, it's pretty clear that Joshua never beat a Whyte who was better than Chisora. 4. As for Fury, his resume isn't great, but when he shut Chisora out in 2014, Chisora was enjoying about as good a spell as he ever has before or since., was in shape and experienced ... and even to this day no one has dominated Chisora in quite a fashion.
At the time Chisora's best wins were Sexton and an ancient Danny Williams,so it's really not surprising he was having success is it? Just clocked the date so disregard my comment.
He had a win over an undefeated Malik Scott, a win over the cagey Kevin Johnson, and back in 2011 had the "loss" to highly ranked Robert Helenius that the vast majority agree that he was robbed in. So his record was credible. In comparison, Whyte's best win previous to facing Joshua was what ?? A 40 year old Brian Minto ?? And yet Joshua's win over Whyte is being hailed as something special.
I think you're overstating the quality of a few there. Scott had an absolutely terrible paper record and I've never considered Johnson as being any better than a journeyman.
I never implied his record wasn't credible, but it wasn't and never has been world class. The idea that Whyte was short of his peak is correct ,but that applies equally to Joshua who actually had less fights. Who did Johnson or Scott actually beat? A 43 years old Thompson? You say the Helenius fight was controversial ,so was the Scott stoppage.
I agree. I don't rate Scott or Johnson highly either. And I don't even rate Chisora highly. ..... But he was clearly quite credible going in to the 2014 fight, if not in your "top 10" at the time he was on the fringes of the top 10 and/or as good as some of the men inside the top 10. Still, Brian ****ing Minto and the other 15 bums on Dillian Whyte's record prior to facing Joshua were not even on the level of Malik Scott and Kevin Johnson. In fact, Joshua in 2015 was the first time Whyte had stepped up above the D-level tomato cans. And he was KO'd. The second time Whyte stepped up (in 2016) he was lucky to get the win decision against Chisora. It's only in the second half of 2018 that Whyte actually improved to a legitimate top 6 contender level.
Yes, and that's exactly how the fight should be viewed. A British level contest between two relative novices/prospects (similar to Fury-Chisora 1). Neither of them were proven world class fighters at the time. A good win for Joshua at that stage but not a relevant win over a contender. And seeing as Whyte was bang on "Chisora-level" exactly 12 months later, by your reckoning that's probably NOT firmly world class either. So he was a long way off back in 2015. This continual citing of Whyte as a significant "ranked" scalp on the Joshua's resume is a misleading Whyte s a legitimate contender now but wasn't at the time he faced Joshua. That was, and is, my contention. I completely agree, I don't rate them much or rate Chisora much either .... but the fact remains that Fury's wins over Chisora are at least comparable to Joshua's win over Whyte. Therefore, I don't agree when Fury is down-rated because he's got no depth in hs resume outside Wladimir and Wilder (which is true), by the same people who cite Whyte as a significant world class win on Joshua's resume. People shouldn't have to go to those lengths to exaggerate or create a huge gulf between Joshua's resume compared to Fury's that isn't there, since Joshua already scores higher in the qualiy-to-quantity ratio, ie. he has 22 fights to Fury's 28, and turned pro almost 5 years after Fury did. The fact that Fury is perhaps less accomplished than Joshua at all, even marginally, or even if it's debatable, is high praise for Joshua anyway. Relative to length of career and relative to number of pro fights, Joshua has done much better. His progress has been excellent. But in absolute terms, the alleged gulf is resume really doesn't exist. There's really no need to downplay second-raters like Chisora, Cunnigham or even Hammer on Fury's record while boosting the value of second-raters like 2015 Whyte, Breazeale, Takam etc. on Joshua's (as some people do). Add to that the fact most people scored Fury-Wilder as a Fury win, and Fury dethroned a Klitschko who hadn't lost in 11 years, the whole "Joshua has a much better resume" argument falls down.