You are very patient to give such a rabid, illogical fanboy a reasonable response. There are a handful of AJ fanboys on this forum who think everyone he didn't fight ducked him. They discount the careful maneuverings of Hearn and insist that Joshua "done the hard yards" to get undisputed. In their minds, Joshua has defeated Wilder.
Wilder only has KO losses to Fury and Zhang respectively. His chin, while not granite, is still pretty solid. Compare that to AJ who got pasted by Ruiz and Dubios. Idk man, in the chin department that edge is going to Wilder. Be interesting to see how the forum reacts if Wilder blasts out Chisora
Getting stopped twice by Fury, who isn't the biggest puncher, hints strongly at a fairly mediocre chin - not necessarily glass, but certainly not brilliant. Ruiz isn't really the biggest puncher either... Dubois and Zhang were much, much bigger punchers than Ruiz and Fury. The difference is Joshua had been in with some guys who could crack and got through it - Wilder not so much, certainly not guys who proved they could bang on Wlad/Pov level... If there's an edge, it's Joshua's way - neither is super durable, neither is pure glass. Mmm... It'll go one of two ways...
That plus... The less popular one on here is the one ducking, even if it's obvious it's the other fighter that doesn't want it.
What was the reasonable compromise when AJ was making 20 million a fight and Wilder's biggest payday was 2.8 million fighting Ortiz in 2018? Wilder first declined 6x his biggest payday in 2018, then in 2019 declined 60/40 and then declined 100 million for 3 fight DAZN deal and even admitted it. Sure, it was probably Shelly Finkel protecting Wilder from AJ, but still, Wilder's camp is at fault.
I don't think you're taking "Kronk" Fury into context for his stoppage wins over Wilder, and this is the same Fury that had Usyk in serious trouble (Usyk himself acknowledges this) and a much fresher Chisora stopped 3 times, along with KOing Whyte faster than AJ did. While he might not have Foreman level power, Fury can clearly pop off when he wants to. Compared to Ruiz, who's only notable KO appears to be AJ? Doesn't look great, especially with how lackluster the rest of Ruiz's career turned out. Yes, AJ has been in with a few heavy hitters himself, but let's not forgot his best one was a 41 year old Wlad who he almost lost to. Povetkin was around 39 years old as well IIRC. I maintain that neither hold an edge. It's important to note both fighters limitations and weaknesses, which when coming to AJ I think you gloss over yet hyperfocus on Wilders.
Come on, do I really need to explain boxing promoter politics to you? And even if we accept the "100m deal" which is disputed, that requires signing over to a different promoter which is clearly negotiating in bad faith. Do you think AJ would have accepted the same deal by switching promoters? Absolutely not, so why expect the other party to?
And, with respect, that's bull. I've been clear on this thread that both have limitations... I don't gloss over it with Joshua, but I do not buy nonsense narratives that Wilder was the more durable or that it was a 50/50 - nor do I buy into nonsense narratives that Joshua was the duck in that instance when the evidence of their careers shows one with a solid champions resume and the other with a poor resume and self-admitted ducking. There's no question they're both limited in certain ways, but to suggest my views are the result of bias is beneath you. You're not dumb, don't post like it.
How is it disputed, when even Wilder and Finkel said the deal was genuine and legit, but they decided to go in another direction? And no, that wouldn't mean signing with another promoter. It was a network deal.
Respectfully, I disagree and I gave fair examples which you did not address in your reply. It's not an attack on you as a poster to point out you might have a slight bias towards AJ (we all have bias to some degree, it's part of being human). Generally, we agree on a lot of things and disagree on some other areas which is fine. I think you can be a bit harsh towards Wilder at times, and I'm certainly guilty of the same attitude towards other fighters. FTR I don't think either fighter really "ducked" each other in the general sense. I blame the promoters for being greedy, unreasonable and unable to compromise. At the end of the day they're the guys who can make the fights happen.
Looking at the fact that it would be by far the best of his career and the deals he took, yeah. Wilder fired a guy who negotiated it, lol.
To be honest, I was so pissed with the unjustified accusation that I skipped the unimportant part. The issue is that I just don't - you can disagree, but to suggest its a bias problem on my part because I'm one of the few that doesn't just give Wilder the benefit of the doubt on things that haven't been proven just rubs me up the wrong way... There's far too much bias in Wilder's favour on basically every discussion of this - which irritates me no end, given he had ample opportunity to prove more and chose not to. Broadly, we agree on plenty and we disagree on little things. But no, I'm not harsh on Wilder - what isn't proven is assumption, and Wilder basically never beat a definite contender... There are those that will insist Ortiz was (evidence of that is limited) and then, just like you did, will pull the "yea but they were old" card when Wlad or Pov get mentioned - and yes, they were old, but Wlad was the era defining fighter and Povs win over Whyte AFTER Joshua was far better than Ortiz's best win against Jennings several years BEFORE Wilder... It's having the cake and eating it. At the end of the day, there are clear levels between their resumes - it's not bias, it's as clear as the nose on your face - and yet it still gets pushed on here as if it's completely reasonable to think they were equivalent and it was a 50/50 when the evidence could not be clearer that that was never the case... And it's been there all along. And there's the equivocation again - as if the two are on the same level or even the same page on this... When Wilder has as good as admitted to the duck. And has a history/pattern of ducking other fighters too, also pretty much straight up admitted to. But we're supposed to say there's nobody more to blame than the other in this? On the one hand you have a fighter who has an objectively better resume, by a long way. Who has, as a matter of cold hard fact, chased after unification bouts and won them. Who pulls in far, far bigger numbers of views and with it a crazy amount more cash. On the other, you have a fighter who has objectively made no zero unification bouts. Has swerved their orgs top challenger for quite a long time. Has made lots of defences against quite poor opponents for a champion holding a major belt. And we're supposed to pretend these guys are basically the same level and there's no reason to believe that one was ducking the other?! And you think I'm the biased one given the facts?! Cmon...