Joshua is probably a top 30 all time heavyweight. His 4 losses, 2 of them quite horrendous, ensure he doesn't rank any higher than that.
Joshua has great victories and his retirement will be a great loss for boxing, his courage and bravery have always been unquestionable but only if one were to lie, Joshua could break into the Top 100...
What an interesting thread. It has really got me thinking. Could I name 30 heavyweights who would definitely beat AJ? 10 times out of 10? What about 50? 60? The kid was decent and significantly better than many claim, trying to retrospectively insert him into a niche usually reserved for fighters like Valuev, Carnera etc...is incredibly unfair and typically revisionist. I'd still take him to beat the likes of Zhang, Bakole and today's Fury. He could beat Dubois in a rematch. It's only really Usyk who has his number in today's heavyweight division. Even now. I've not made a list, not analysed it or over analysed it, but I suspect AJ would make my top 30...I'll go give this some more thought.
It's notable that these sorts of threads usually breaks down into people talking about two different things. Most historical rankings are based on accomplishment within an era, not head-to-head.
Yup, I do think however we can play the same game. Could I name 30, 50, 100 heavyweights whobaccomplished more within their era than AJ? I've still not tried using my parameters but I'd struggle...
I chose top 30, but it feels slightly too high for me. On the one hand he was considered at points the number #1 heavyweight, but when the dust settled he was more likely 2 (based off resume) or 3 (based on I think Fury was marginally better). On the other hand, boxing has had many eras, yet not every era had three or four stand out guys at the top. So, Joshua would likely just edge into the top 30 (though maybe more like the 30 to 40 range if it were an option).