Is Anthony Joshua overrated?

Overrated by some, underrated by others. He isnt a monster heavyweight hes just a very good one in an average era at the weight.

 

I will, if Fury wins against Wilder in his third comeback fight after what he's been through it will have to go down as one of the most remarkable wins in heavyweight history. He will make my top 11, maybe even higher. I don't think he will though.

 

Ali nearly KOed Shavers in the final round and outpointed him and successfully defended his title for the 10th time in that second reign FOUR MONTHS before he lost to Spinks.

Who did Wlad beat four months before Joshua stopped him? Who did Wlad beat eight months before that? Who did Wlad beat a year before that? Who did Wlad beat 16 months before that? Who did Wlad beat 20 months before that? Who did Wlad beat two years before that? (Oh yeah, Bryant Jennings by decision.)

Leon Spinks in his eighth fight beat Muhammad Ali to win THE WORLD title.

Joshua beat Charles Martin, and Joseph Parker, and Wlad - who hadn't won in two years - by his 20th fight to win "some" of the titles.

Bravo!

If you can't see the difference, you are totally lost.

 

Here's a fantasy match for you, the Ali that lost to Leon Spinks vs The Klitschko that lost to Joshua. Who wins? I know who I would have my money on.

 

Let me guess, you'd take the guy who hadn't won a fight in years and got outpointed by someone who averaged six punches a round the last time he had fought? I'm sure that pick would work out fine for you.

Welcome to the nuthouse.

I'm sure you'll do fine.

 

Correct, I don't know how you figured it out. Because the more obvious choice was clearly the guy who was clearly suffering from Parkinson's and was increasingly spending most of his fights lying on the ropes like a human punching bag.

 

And Spinks's second loss inside those first 20 fights?


Are you some Wilder fanboy that is offended that I stated he has the 3rd best resume of active HW's?

Because you need to look at Wilder if so, and ask him why his resume is so weak....Instead of trying to downplay a man who has achieved far more in half the fights.

 

First of all, Wlad didn't have any titles (he lost them all two years earlier) when he came out of retirement and Povetkin hasn't held a title for years, either.

The only "titleholders" Joshua beat were Charles Martin and Joseph Parker.

The other two were two of the oldest people to ever challenge for a heavyweight title. They were/are both SO OLD that they would be the SECOND-oldest man to win the title if they beat Joshua.

But FOUR TITLEHOLDERS makes Joshua sound better, so naturally go that route in this situation. Because you "overrate" him.



And you are proving yourself a "casual" by floating the laziest argument someone can make.

You're simply taking one boxer's record and demanding to see who did exactly the same thing in the same order and if others didn't do it "exactly" the way he did and how he did it then they are - "in your casual mind" - a lesser fighter.

It's the weakest argument you can make because you can do that with anyone.

Who has the highest KO percentage among heavyweight champions ever? There's Deontay Wilder at 98% and ... Hmm. So, best puncher all-time then? Obviously. Can't name anyone higher, after all.

How many heavyweight champions went 40 fights undefeated (no KO losses, no decision losses)? There was Rocky. And Foreman. And Wilder. Ummm ... so are we all in agreement Wilder is one of the greatest ring tacticians and has one of the greatest chins ever? Do I see a unanimous show of hands?

It's comical.

You're touting the stats of one boxer ... and then taking the monumental leap and saying "so if no one else did this the same way, then this guy is 'clearly' one of the best ever" at whatever you decide you want him to be.

But the truth is, beating Charles Martin and Joseph Parker and a 42-year-old retired Wlad wouldn't make ANYONE one of the best ever.

Think seven years ago Tomasz Adamek would've preferred to fight the Charles Martin and Joseph Parker who Joshua beat for their "titles" instead of taking on Vitali Klitschko for his?

Think Dillian Whyte likely would've beaten Parker and Martin and a two-years retired Wlad, too?

Does that make Whyte the 11th best heavyweight ever, too?

It is so nonsensical.

You're giving me a headache.

Joshua is overrated. Your posts SCREAM that.

 

He kos GJ in 2 rounds. Kaiser boxes his ears off for a few rounds but then gets ko`d. I think Piston HOnda would be a better match up and likely favored. The guy from Istanbul would also be a serious threat.

 

Wilder the most overrated fighter ever in HWs & as it stands he's a paper champion WBC.
It's comical reading your posts putting AJ down & not Wilder I don't get it.

 

Someone else in this thread has already said it, but I feel it needs repeating. Not really sure how you can bash Joshua whilst praising Wilder. Joshua has unified 3 of the belts in 21 fights whilst step by step clearing out the HW division. The guy has been a breathe of fresh air in terms of fighting a high level of competition very quickly and not being coddled and protected.

Remember Wilder's run of five voluntaries and not a single one of them was against a top 10 opponent?

Imagine if Joshua's next 5 fights were against non-top 10 opponents and didn't take a single mandatory. Yeah.

 

@Dubblechin

"Does that make Whyte the 11th best heavyweight ever, too?"

Is this what you usually do when you realise you're wrong? Completely make something up? Where on earth has this '11th best heavyweight' come from?


Charles Martin and Joseph Parker may not be 'Amazing wins'......

But they certainly would be far higher ranked wins on Wilder's resume than Joshua's.



In 40 fights Deontay Wilder hasn't faced a World Champion who has defended their belt......
Just think about that.

 

I'm not praising Wilder. I believe the only time I brought him up, I did so to show how easy it was to exaggerate his accomplishments ... like people are doing with Joshua.

I said Joshua was overrated and gave examples. Then others brought up Wilder, because that's what they ALWAYS do when you don't praise Joshua right along with them.

Joshua hasn't fought Wilder, so Wilder isn't a factor in how Joshua is rated.

I rate Joshua on who he's fought. And I don't rate him among the best ever for who he's beaten so far.

Like I said, the top guys now - Fury, Joshua, Wilder - need to fight each other and the next wave of guys coming up (like Usyk and Joyce and Yoka, etc.).

Those fights will tell us how these guys will end up being rated.

The wins over guys whose primes were years ago won't.

 

LOL.

In 40 fights, Wilder hasn't fought a guy whose first name starts with C and last name ends in M.

THINK about that.

You just can't help yourself can you?

I guess knocking out Tyson Fury won't matter, because Fury didn't defend against Razvan Cojanu first.

Stop already.

 

See, this is the irrational, reductionist stuff I'm talking about. You name Povetkins' worst trait, that he is old, but you can demean anyone by naming their worst trait. The fact is he is a consensus top 5 HW. Nothing personal, half the time I think you are a decent poster, and you can certainly have some good takes, but you are wrong on this one. Let's compare AJ's would be record to a few other consensus top 25 HWs:

AJ's (would be) accomplishments: A. Beating Wlad, a (past prime) ATG, who was still regarded as the best active HW in the division at the time of the fight
B. Beating a concensus top 5 HW in Povetkin, who is probably a top 50 HW ATG and the best non Klitscko of the second half of the Klitschko era
C. Beating another belt holder in Parker, who was also considered a consensus top 5 HW at the time of the match,
D. 6 consecutive successful HW title defenses
E. All told, beating about 3 top 5 hw's, about 4 more top 10-15 hws, and doing it undefeated, and with one of the best KO rates of all time.

Floyd Patterson's record
A: Best win against Johanson, who was only well regarded because he had already beat Patterson. No single win nearly at the level of even old Wlad.
B. 8 Losses, two before the end of his title reigns
C. 6 total successful title defenses, non consecutive. Those defenses included several sub top 20 HWs, including a HW who had never fought professionally before.

Riddick Bowes record:
A. 2 wins against a prime ATG, one loss (although admittedly, I thought that should have been a draw)
B. 2 (or 3, if you could WBO) successful title defenses, none of them against HW's even considered fringe top 10.
C. Best non controversial wins against someone other than Holyfield were Donald and Hide. Povetkin and Whyte are significantly better wins than that.
D. Next best wins of Tubbs, Sheldon, Thomas, Cooper, significantly worse than wins over Parker, Brazaele, Takam, Martin.

Ken Norton
A. One win, two (debatable) losses against an ATG (admittedly one of the two best HW ATG's of all time, but also arguably already in decline). Lost to both other ATG's he faced, albeit one in a classic that added to his resume, imo.
B. No successful title defenses
C. 7-4-1 in his record against other top 20 HWs.

If you are looking for single big win(s) against an ATG, then maybe you go with Bowe or Norton. But on that standard, AJ would clearly be above Patterson. If you are going for depth of top 5-10ish wins, Patterson and Norton might compare with or exceed AJ, but since they soaked up 8 and 4 losses while doing it, AJ would clearly beat them by that measure, and Bowe wouldn't even come close.

So, there are a few ways to look at resume, what you value more matters a lot, there's no perfect answer and there is plenty of room for debate. But it's clear that under my hypothetical (AJ beats Sasha and then retires undefeated) he would be right up there in the conversation with these three (and I could have easily named many others).