Pulev has a better resume than Wilder or Ortiz. What does that make Wilder and Ortiz? Takam - Robbed a win against Perez who was robbed a draw due to controversial point deduction against Jennings. Ortiz only notable win was against Jennings. Povetkin far better resume than Wilder let alone Ortiz. Came off a far more impressive career win than Wilder has after he fought AJ. Ruiz - best career win in the dvison let alone better than Wilders or Ortiz. Parker- Better resume than Wilder. If these aren't top quality opposition then the likes of Wilder and Ortiz certainly aren't.
Thought he was considering attendance as part of being a big fight. It can't be quality as AJ has beaten half dozen guys with better resumes than Wilder.
Not convinced @Mitch87 is necessarily trolling here, more he is a good example of the modern breed of boxing fan who have been conditioned (largely by Eddie Hearns) to equate commercial success with in-ring talent. Perhaps, ultimately he is right, since boxing is first and foremost the entertainment business. Perhaps beating a ten day prepared carlito Takam in front of 78,000 fans at home, grossing £10m is a better win for the resume than beating the hardest punching heavyweight in history away from home in front of 15,000 fans, grossing £8m or whatever the actual numbers are, the point I am making remains a watertight one.
So he's Tyson Fury but with a better chin. Bloody hell, how's he lost to Pulev, Parker and Povetkin with all that going for him?! [url]https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/45616241[/url] - actual BBC report of Joshua v Povetkin mentions the attendance by the way, not some phoney website.
The only similarities really is they’re both good pure boxers and are related. Doesn’t take a genius to work out that Tyson is clearly a lot better, stronger, rangier and with better ring IQ. It’s a pretty lazy comparison really.
That's exactly it. Madness really that someone can be that blinded by their loyalty to one promoter but oh well.
Beating Takam isn't a better win then beating a very limited fighter with paper thin resume, as Wilder has beaten more average Euro level opposition. However beating Povetkin,, Parker, Whyte, Ruiz, Pulev is a better win than beating him. I'm not part on the boxing fan base that shits on everything match room fighter because they don't like Hearnn and have agenda. That I don't consider beating fighters the level Spzilka, Ortiz Washington (despite struggling against them unlike Martin, Chisora etc ) make Wilder to be a "top quality fighter".
Doesn't bother me who a fighter is promoted by, plenty of Matchroom fighters I like. It's only Matchroom FC who are bothered by that. Same one's replying to every tweet about Queensberry or Frank Warren with 'thats why Eddie is number 1!!!!'. As for not liking Hearn, he's just a salesman doing his job at the end of the day and fair play to him, somehow getting people like you to hang off his every word. Takes some doing.
It seems if anyone is of the opinion that AJ can beat Fury their accused of being a matchroom fan boy.
It's when people start slating Wilder to discredit Fury then talking up the likes of Pulev and Takam just because Joshua has beaten them.
Not the case at all. My instinct on this board is it’s about 60/40 (perhaps as much as 70/30) in favour of Fury. That’s not unreasonable considering that Joshua has been defeated and has quite obvious weaknesses. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if Joshua beat Fury though. He’s powerful and a very effective finisher. Besides, it’s HW boxing so anything can happen. I will want Fury to win but I’m not so emotionally invested that I’m deluded about Joshua’s obvious ability.
Yes, and that's where these wins against "top 10" boxers mean next to nothing. Does beating a Parker, Povetkin and Pulev indicate that Joshua can beat Fury? No. But Joshua has other things going for him in terms of attributes (power, fast hands, good combinations) and experience (having boxed on big shows - he must be able to deal with pressure to a certain degree, although boxing an actual top dog brings about a different type of pressure). There are a few different considerations that you can approach to assemble an argument that Joshua stands a good chance, and I would agree with them. I think he has a good chance to win against Fury, but lazily resorting to crappy Matchroom FC arguments based on sleazy marketing like the overhyping of crap or mediocre opposition is not a good way to convince anyone who is objective. I think you often make good points, Mitch, and have made me rethink some of my beliefs, but I can't get behind this one based on their respective records.
Agreed. What I like about Mitch is he’s always polite. I don’t like the dishonesty in lots of what he says and the removal of all context however. He should know better than that IMO and is clearly eloquent enough to make his points without doing that.
