100%. Joshua was the perfect storm from a marketing point of view. Right after the feel good factor of London 2012 too. Fury just isn't that naturally marketable and has had to work much harder in that regard. The fatal flaw with Joshua is that he's painfully uncharismatic and unintelligent. Fury, despite having little in the way of a formal education, is clearly far more naturally intelligent and charismatic.
Boxing was on its arse in the UK before he came along, fact…..TV weren’t interested so less money for promoters which meant less money for fighters. Sky got their interest back and everyone was better off. AJ was responsible for that under Matchroom and with Sky. Unless you see it different….but that’s how I see it.
Chisora. He is just a journeyman but ... He beat Takam and he many people had him beating Parker, who are both in AJ's top 6 or 7 wins. He also deserved a win over prime Helenius, and at least 50% had him beating Whyte (who is in AJ's top 5 or 6) in the first fight.
It's not about looks. Hatton was a chav and was massive. Tyson is mentally unstable, has a history of being a drug user, and had a pikey image. Would you sign that up if you was head of Hugo Boss or Under Armour? Course you wouldn't. I also don't think Tyson is intelligent. Street wise? Yeah, but Miles behind his family.
I think it is more a case of him stepping up in opposition. It is easy to be full of spite and viciousness against punchbag opponents but when he came up against fighters who took his shots and started hitting him back, he naturally became more hesistant. AJ never really stopped being a spiteful offensive machine though, even against Usyk he launched and landed some crushing lefts and rights. But he is not difficult to figure out, so while he might find a way to get his opponent's attention and make an impact, the likes of Usyk can adjust and out-think, contain and counter him. AJ is one of the best in the world but he's not likely to steamroll a fighter like Oleksandr Usyk, or even Joseph Parker.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Joshua's marketability is based almost exclusively on the fact that he's a handsome, 6 and a half feet muscular man of a certain orientation which is very much in vogue. The latter part is even more of a selling point than Hatton and his chav Manc niche, because it's infinitely farther reaching, and as I say, in vogue. I am aware that this ties in with the way he was built up as some destructive knockout artist, but the opportunity for him to have been built up that way would not have been given two minutes' thought if he looked like Ted Cheeseman. He's as thick as mince and as charismatic as a turnip.
But that shouldn't diminish how Chisora gets rated, should it? If he has 3 losses against good fighters where he was unlucky not to be judged the winner, it should be noted.
