Is Anthony Joshua a hall of famer

Referee judged it

He deemed Fury the winner therefore worthier and sexier fighter.

 

All these posts about “unified champ” are laughable.

Paper belts people!He was never the man in the division.Not for 1 second.

 

He held 4 belts that's as unified as you can get. any more and he would have been undisputed and did it two times.
He filled Wembley stadium and was by far the biggest earner of this generation at Heavy.
I prefer Fury and Usyk myself but you can't deny the success Joshua had unless your bias is blinding you.

 

So what?4 paper belts.
In order to be undisputed he had to beat Fury and/or Wilder .No chance.
Indeed,he has had financial success and box office appeal but thst a HOFer does not make.
IMO offcourse.

 

Wilder..are you high G-Man?
Wilder never attempted to unify and sat on a belt and defended against bums for 5 years. It's not like Vlad's era where the level of competition was no good and he fought who was there. Wilder avoided all the other top guys he only took Fury on because he thought he was an easy nights work. Joshua's resume is far better. I'm not a fanboy either I just have to pushback on the nonsense on here sometimes. Fury and Wilder fanboys big each other up and dump on Joshua. the fact is Fury and Wilder have thin resumes whichever way you cut it.
I would also make a distinctiion between someone being a 2 belt unified versus a 4 belt champ. There is a marked difference and again fanboys belittle that despite there fighters having far less. It just strikes me as being hypercritical.

 

I dont want or care about the politics of the situation.
Which ever way you spin it:
This era’s top 3 guys are AJ,Fury and Wilder and AJ fought none of the other two.
He was never THE MAN.
All that “unified champ” is pure smoke and mirrors.

 

Well you should care about the politics because that gives context.
So Wilder and Fury fought each other fair enough. Who else have they fought in the top 10? Fury fought Vlad donkey's years ago when he was the man. Other than that who else?
AJ tried to fight Wilder and his handlers didn't want that smoke. He then tried to fight Fury who made the right noises until at the last minute admitted that he had to fight Wilder for the third time.
So as I've said and I don't really like Joshua as a person I'm a Usyk and Fury fan. Joshua is the only one who tried to clear the division out and clearly had a bigger following than the other two although I think Fury has cought upto Joshua to an extent in the last couple of years.
The only one of the three that was smoke and mirrors was Wilder and that was always the case.

 

It does give context but in 100 years more people will be talking they didnt fight not why they didnt.
There is a lot of context on Dempsey-Wills never happening in the 20s.Bottom line is it didnt.
I believe Bowe would have had a decent shot in 93 vs Lennox.Didnt happen.
All their resume are thin since they were the only quality in the division.
We could go into detail and dissecting their resumes:the end result would be fairly close either way.

 

I agree mostly with this. It's difficult sometimes as we aren't always privy to what's going on or who's making the decisions.
Agree the Bowe v Lewis fight was really the only big fight from that era that never happened. a few others happened later than desired but that's just life. I'm not sure I agree about resumes of the current lot being the same Joshua has clearly fought far more top 10 guys the other two have a lot of filler and padding. To me a good era isn't just quality it's them all fighting each other that gives it context that's why the 70's and 90's are clearly the best era's for Heavy. The problem with the modern game is too many belts and most happy to sit on one and keep that money coming in. it's why we've had so few undisputed in the 4 belt era. I mean Canelo had an easier run because Super Middle was poor and he's the biggest name in the sport so could bypass the politics with momey. Then we have people like Spence and Crawford two fighters I very much like. and I'm not sure they will fight until one or both are passed prime like May v Pac. At which point I'm passed caring.

 

I’m not disagreeing eith most of that.But it s just common sense.
Regarding the resumes-you say Joshua has a CLEARLY better resume due to more top 10 wins.
Yes he does have more top 10 wins but are a list of Povetkin,Parker,Ruiz,Whyte etc better than Fury’s top 3 really good wins in impressive fashion?Klitschko dimonatiin in Dusseldorf was flawless,Chisora 2 was a schooling until no mas,Wilder 2 was pure domination,Wilder 3 was more of a bang but same end resut.Plus most have him winning Wilder 1.That’s already 4 VERY good wins with 3 of them clearly better than anything AJ has done.
Even if you rate a more consistent body of work better than a shorter burst its not clear by sny means.
You say the problem with modern boxing is the 4 belts(true offcourse) yet you big up this “unified champ” bs?How is that consistent?
Spence and Crawford should be ashamed of themselves.I do t care how history will remember the politica of it.The facts are they were the top 2 WWs in the world and disnt fight eachother shameful.Two frauds.

 

I don't disagree mostly but I think having 4 belts is clearly better than 1.2 or 3 as that generally means taking belts of other champs unless your fighting someone unified already. The problem is when comparing the resumes is you can do a top 10 with Joshua's and there all names. the problem with Fury and Wilder once you do more than a top 3 as you have done for clear reasons both are weak as shite. I will say Fury's win over Vlad is the best win any of the top 3 have. after that it's nearly all Joshua that's just a fact.
Also what has me complaining about the 4 belt era got to do with Joshua having 3 majors? I mean my complaint was people not attempting to unify and sitting on one belt which is exactly what Wilder did. Joshua is the only one other than Usyk who's only goal was to become undisputed. no one else in the division wants that risk. So as I originally said I don't really like Joshua as a person because of his fake persona. but I can't deny that he's in exciting fights and had brought a lot of casuals into the sport which I think is a positive even if I don't buy into it myself.

 

Hype accounts for alot in boxing
I would imagine if you put Joshua's world title resume on an American HW with the hype behind him, some may have a different opinion.


Joshua won his first world title in his 16th pro fight after beating undefeated D Whyte

Wilder won his first world title in his 33rd fight

Let's say that if Wilder had beaten Whyte in his 32nd fight inside the distance and then in a big American HW title fight against undefeated punchers, fights HW champ Martin and wins inside the distance

Wilder would have been an undefeated 33-0 with 33 Kos HW champ

Then let's say he then in another big American HW fight beats undefeated HW puncher Breazeale inside schedule, beats Molina inside schedule, then Wilder beats legend Wladimir Klitschko to win another world title.

Wilder at this time would be 36-0 unified HW champ and rated #1 (Fury wasn't active at this time)

Then Wilder beats Takam and then goes on to win a unification against undefeated HW champ Parker on points.

Wilder would at this point be undefeated WBA, WBO, IBF HW champ and 38-0 with 37KOs

Then beats Povetkin inside schedule


Would you have Wilder as a HOFer at 39-0 with 38KOs, unified WBO, WBA and IBF HW champ
With wins over
Klitschko
Whyte
Takam
Molina
Parker
Breazeale
Martin
Povetkin


I wonder if some would change their opinion here?

 

Here I disagree.I cant for the life of me see how 4 belts is better than 1.Its just not healthy for the sport.
You only have 1 world so you can only have 1 world champ.
Regarding the wins,what win does Joshua have better than Wilder 2?Consider performance aswell as result.
Who wants to be undisputed is neither here nor there.Its all a never ending discussion.

 

Joshua beat mediocre Martin for his first “world title”.The fact that you dont know this tells you all you need to know about the importance of that “world title”.

 

I think your misunderstanding me...despite me explaining it twice already.
So let me clarify I would rather there was 1 belt or 2 at the most like there was before the IBF and WBO came along. I've always said this you can go through my post history which clearly backs my position.
Do you understand that.?
What I said concerning Joshua that your conflating into a different argument altogether...is that the fact we are stuck with the belts I view someone who wins 3-4 belts more than I rate someoe whose won 1 or 2.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
I'm not sure what the problem is as I've already explained this....
I hope this makes my position clear.