Recent comments by Joshua, is he being dishonest here? Wlad is old, way over the hill, coming off a loss and a year lay off. I expect AJ to win but it will be a decent scalp, not a great win.
Beating Wlad will legitimize AJ. He will have a more legitimate claim as being "the man" at HW than guys like Wilder, Parker or (gulp) Shannon Birggs. Make him a legend? No.
who they fought and WHEN is the only way to assess a fighter's career wins. that'll put things in perspective.
It's hyperbole, he's just trying to sell the fight. Legends are not made from one fight, otherwise guys like Kirkland Lang, Sanders, McCall, Douglas, L Spinks etc who did little other than have one great win would be legends. But it's the first step for AJ towards that status, he needs a signature win and beating the former dominant champ is the best name he could have at the moment.
It lays the groundwork. Anyone who claims Rocky beating Louis, Holmes Ali, Tyson Holmes, Lewis Tyson didn't improve their appearance and perceived legitimacy despite being shot and or unprepared for the fight is either lying or fooling themselves. If AJ goes on to be a dominant hw, it's the first win people will mention, especially casuals, but even on the boards. Only difference is, on the boards it will provoke an argument with some people saying "Wlad was shot!" ( and Dino chipping in to say Wlad was always bad so it doesn't matter).
Truth is, it doesn't matter what we think, if the sporting casuals buy into the AJ myth, that'll do nicely for him and Hearn. 'Fast car' makes no apology for not giving a toss about 'hardcore' boxing fans, partly because we can see though his BS and partly because we are vastly out-numbered by the 'Ohhh Anthony Joshua' chanters who shell out big bucks to watch him live or on PPV. People who know that Wlad is past his prime and any victory over him is devalued for this very fact alone, irritate the hell outta Matchroom.
Even a young prime Vlad (when he got caught Juicing) was never a legend and still isn't. AJ knows this but is hyping him up for his win. To be a legend, you have to beat a legend, and except to UFC fans, Vlad ain't no legend.
there was an iFL video after AJ/Molina with Hearn and Froch, and Froch said pretty much exactly that...should've seen his face
You realize this logic collapses under its own weight, right? Following it to its logical conclusion, there has never been a legend. The first real hw boxing champ would by definition have been unable to beat a legend, since he was the first one. The person beating him therefore wasn't a legend, since he didn't beat a legend, and so on and so on. Even fast forward it to Marciano. He retired without a loss, so Patterson never beat a legend to become champ. Thus Liston wasn't a legend for beating him, Ali not a legend for beating Liston. No one's a legend under that logic, that's why it's not good logic. Your legendary status should be primarily derived from your overall career. The best opponents you beat should be a part of that, but usually not the most important part.
