Joshua says Fury hasn't proven himself against tough competition

I highly doubt DAZN were happy the prize asset was fighting early afternoon in the market they have been trying to crack. I think the sponsors and investors around AJ shat it and went for the money in what could have been a cash out. He is a bit of a laughing stock in America and just another British hype job.

 

I think it was an expression of the power the Joshua camp wielded, even without the belts. Haymon was desperate to get them in the US to the point of threatening not to fulfill Ruiz Jr's contracted rematch.

In past years a British fighter would've had to follow the money but AJ's team didn't need to take the US money, they had options and they picked one that best suited their own interests. They got everything they could've wanted. AJ gets the belts back and a new, very lucrative market is opened up.

Watching Fury getting robbed on the cards in Vegas it's hard to disagree with them. No doubt if that fight had played out as it did in Vegas there'd have been a tame commentary team and experts to tell us that 'you've got to take it from the champ' etc. as to why Andy was the winner and we could look forward to him fighting Wilder after an exciting warm up fight with Eric Molina.

 

I doubt that very much, it would still be a DAZN/Matchroom show with hand picked judges and ref.

Let's be honest, Hearn was dying to crack America and Joshua is the jewel in the crown. His American debut was nothing short of a disaster. Would Hearn pick cracking America for his brand and DAZN to get bigger or the Saudi money for AJ?

It was meant to be a marriage made in heaven, now it's just keep that AJ money train going and figure out a new approach to cracking America

 

We know which he wanted because he had AJ fighting at Madison Square Gardens. I suspect opening a new income stream in Saudi would also have been on his list though.

You need to look at what both fighter and promoter wanted post that defeat however.

AJ's team want to maximise his chances in the rematch. They don't want to concede home advantage again.

Hearn wants his man to recover the belts, once that's achieved all doors are open once again.

In my view both parties were happy to keep the fight away from the US and to minimise Haymon's ability to influence it. They floated Wembley, Haymon threatened to tie them up in court cases for years, so they 'compromised' on earning a shed load of money in Saudi, win or lose. They won, they now have the belts back and a proven and highly lucrative alternative to Vegas. Quite a comeback from that night at MSG.

 

Oh they made money, but imo they tried to conquer, they had an arrogant swagger before that Ruiz fight also, then went running to the dunes. Mission failed.

 

Of course they tried to conquer, showing ambition is not a negative trait. Like many things in life a lot depends on how you frame it. I sometimes think the arrogant swagger, which is exactly the same kind of schtick that Arum and King were throwing out 20 years or more affects some more than others. To me it's all part of the pantomime that is pro boxing. Whether drawing positive applause or negative heat it all helps to fill papers, spawn videos and podcasts, fuel online discussion. Free marketing for your product if you play it right.

If the name of the game is to make money and be relevant, then they're clearly winning. Joshua makes vast sums within the ring and beyond it, Hearn controls 3 of the 4 major belts, in the post coronavirus landscape SA may be the best partner to have in terms of boxing locations etc. It's not conquering the US market but considering how big a setback MSG was, that's probably as good an outcome as could've been written. Having watched Fury getting robbed in Vegas I don't think anyone who understood the sport could question why they took the path they did.

 

Plenty of people were very keen to jump on the idea that the Ruiz loss derailed Joshua enormously, that you wouldn't be able to market him anymore, that it was a doomsday scenario for Matchroom. The reality was that six months after he was once again holding three of the belts, a two-time world champion and had just been in a massive fight and earned a fortune.

I think there are arguments back and forth here, but the concept of it being a failure seem somewhat overblown. I know boxing fans like to over-egg the debate when it comes to a fighter they either like or don't like losing, but I think this one for most is just seen as a more modern-day version of Rahman and Douglas causing a massive upset.

 

You are right to an extent, Tony, however most of us here are boxing fans and not interested in earnings or manipulated revenue figures. 'The reality' was the Ruiz 2 fight was not the Lewis v Rachman type rematch you have alluded to, the performance left a lot of unanswered questions. Looking forward to the Pulev fight where hopefully those 'fears' will be put to rest and Joshua is fully back on track.

 

Never said that at all. That wasn't the back and forth we were having.

 

Joshua's attempt to conquer America was an epic failure. There's no getting away from that fact. Bludgeoned to bits by a fat Mexican *
Fury's attempt to conquer America has been a resounding success.
Irregardless of anyone's low/high opinion of either one of them.
Joshua may yet try again and succeed. I believe he wanted to for the rematch.
But as things stand, it proved beyond him when he first tried.

* (and let's not kid ourselves, Madison Square Garden, New York and the east coast wasn't exactly Ruiz's 'home ground' either ... he was the fat B-side substitute to the Yanks too)

 

Ruiz was a sub anyway after Miller got popped.

As for the Fury comparisons, let’s see what happens when Fury has to sell a fight in America as the A side. Post Wilder he was fighting Wallin in front of about a thousand paying customers with the majority of those attending there on a free ticket given away as a breakfast promo.

 

Attendance for this event was 7500.

Wilder v Fury 2 was the biggest live gate in heavyweight history with over $17 million in revenue, surpassing the previous high set by Lewis v Holyfield 2.

You talk absolute cobblers Hayers.

 

I'm not talking about ticket sales. I'm talking about winning the fights.
Fury's record in the USA is 4-0-1 (most observers have it 5-0).
Joshua is 0-1.

You're the one saying "I don't get why 'going away'/'staying home' matters".
Well, it's the winning that matters.
If every British fighter went to USA and beat their best (top 3 ranked by everyone) fighters, we'd probably not think much of it.
But even a fighter as good as Joshua failed to win out there (against a guy ranked outside most top 10s), so it's valued for that reason.

 

How come Tyson can't do that in England or Ireland?

 

I think when you say things like 'Fury's attempt to conquer America has been a resounding success' you realise that people won't just think of him purely winning. I mean, prior to his last fight I doubt you'd give time of day to anyone who was suggesting Kal Yafai was 'conquering America' by virtue of winning every fight he'd had over there.

Of course Fury winning and doing well for himself is good but talk of him 'conquering America' fits in nicely with the 'schooled Klitschko' theme. It's overstating the case. A guy who conquered America wouldn't have to give away free tickets with a plate of bacon and eggs for his fights.

Of course Joshua's debut was a disaster, but he regrouped, won it all back straight away and so on.