Joshua should of been better than he was..

Good post. Boxing is one of the worst sports for revisionism.

 

I recall there being a 1a(Klitschko), 1b(Joshua), 1c(Wilder), 1d(Parker) situation. But it was already a 1abd, 2c situation before Fury reemerged.

 

Rankings are not based on hypotethicals. He might have beaten him, but ducked him, so it's irrelevant. AJ was universally ranked number 1 across the board, these are facts.

 

Naz was a genuine elite level fighter and far far superior to AJ.

 

I always hold fighters across generations to the same standards. Lewis destroyed Rahman in the rematch for example, meanwhile joshua outpointed a version of Ruiz who was 20 pounds fatter in the rematch. So Lewis had by far the superior bounce back and a hilariously better record

Pulev was 39 and his best wins came 7 years prior. Ruiz wasn't ranked before he beat joshua, and hasn't beaten any ranked fighters since. Wallin beat nobody in the top 15. Takam was old, and who is Takams best win anyway ? Ngannou is a 37 year old mma fighter. Franklin beat no one. Breazeale beat no one. Helanius was a shot gatekeeper who hasn't fought since. Martin is the worst world champion in history and beat no one.

Why are you sugar coating this guy's resume.

 

Being the 1a among 1b and soon 1c (Fury) HW is FAR different than, as you put it "the best HW in the world for two years". He had a looming mega fight to see who the best was. It didn't happen. You say Wilder ducked him, but you're a know nothing fan. The superfight got overcooked. Just because you're a big fan of one fighter doesn't mean it was never a superfight. He was never clearly the best when undefeated Wilder was hanging around.

Call him the 1a fighter for two years, sure. He was never the best.

 

There were no 1a, 1b, 1c. Nobody rated Wilder as equal or above AJ at the time. Being a fan has nothing to do with facts, as your case shows, lol. He was universally recognized number 1 in all the independent rankings. Plus he held 3 out of 4 alphabet belts, defeating number 3 HW twice, while being number 1. Your mental gymnastics won't rewrite history. AJ was the best heavyweight in the world from April 2017 to 2019. Wilder ducked AJ and admitted it himself. According to your logic there was no number 1 heavyweight in the world from 2016 to 2024, which is BS.

 

Joshua-Wilder was a superfight. There is STILL demand because it was seen as a pick em undisputed heavyweight clash. I have no interest in your emotional attachment to a fighter and how you feel one fighter was out of the others league. The fight was billed as a mega fight because both fighters were undefeated champions, it's not complicated. Go look up historical odds.

Wilder didn't duck Joshua. Again, you have no idea what happens behind the scenes. What we know is that Wilder was insistent on fighting Fury after Wilder-Fury II and a prolonged beating. Wilder signed to fight Povetkin in Russia. Wilder signed to face undefeated Cuban puncher Ortiz, twice. Joshua didn't rematch Dubois.

 

True we don't know everything but we know enough.

Wilder agreed to fight Joshua initially for a flat fee in 2018, everything was agreed all he had to do was sign...we waited, we waited some more and then we got the 50/50 split demand which was ludicrous considering Wilder had just made a record $2.1 million purse against Ortiz and Joshua was making £20 million against Parker and Povetkin. That's like Juan Manuel Marquez asking for a 50/50 split to fight Mayweather.

We know Wilder turned downed the biggest guaranteed purse is heavyweight history.

We also know Joshua and Hearn made multiple offers to Wilder and his team. Only offer from Wilder's side was an email from Wilder offering Joshua $50 that Finkel refused to meet Hearn to discuss the details off an when details did come to light the offer forced Joshua to basically violate his contract with Sky meaning it was an offer he could never take.

The fight was never a pick'em fight, only people who thought it was a pick'em fight where Wilder fans or Joshua haters the general consensus at the time was that Joshua was the big favourite. You only have to look at polls at the time, they were all hugely in favour of Joshua. Just because you thought it was a pick'em fight doesn't make it true just like me thinking at the time Joshua would do Wilder early means that was true. But the general perception was one fighter was the big favourite and that was seen for a good reason. Joshua was crushing everyone but Wlad, the same Wlad Wilder's team refused to fight after he won the belt, in contrast to Joshua who chased the Wlad fight as soon as the options Haymon had on Joshua were fulfilled.

It's easy enough to read between the lines to know who wanted the fight and who didn't even if we don't have all the facts.

 

I think that seems a bit harsh and unfair in that if someone constantly takes on big fights and top opponents on a regular basis rather than having gaps between fights and filler fights, they are more likely to have a slip up.
From Dec 2015 to June 2019 (So around three and a half years), Joshua fought Undefeated Whyte, Undefeated Martin, Undefeated Parker, Undefeated Breazeale, Povetkin, Wladimir, Ruiz
In the 3 1/2 years he fought the Undefeated WBA champ, Wladimir in a IBF unification, Undefeated WBO champ Parker
That's 3 different title fights to won the 3 separate titles. Throw in Povetkin in that time as well.
Having so many tough big fights in such a short time I think can be wearing. Some fighters take longer breaks between big fights and I think that can be to sometimes be psychologically prepared.
Joshua actively seemed to go out seeking the big fights
When I point this out people instantly call me a fan, yet that is not the case, but credit where it is due
I can't think of a HW in the time he was champion who did more?

 

You can't be trusted because you called aj an all time great

 

It was ridiculous enough at the time that anyone seriously thought the two were equals, or that Joshua was the reason that fight didn't happen...

With a bit of hindsight now it's even more obvious - not only has Wilder admitted that he swerved it, and not only was that part of a pattern with him, but he'll retire having never beaten an actual contender.

Claims that some transparently hype and/or prejudice driven narratives at the time meant it wasn't an obvious mismatch in the moment (honestly, it pretty much was) are crazy enough, but then you have some morons who will say that hindsight is irrelevant because they knew in their **** at the time it was a pick'em...

... And just as crazily, they'll still pick the fraud even now.


I guess all I can say is thank God for the ignore function - it's obvious you're replying to someone, I'm quite happy not seeing which of the elite group of morons it is.