Why does AJ pick on old men

You guys can't keep cherrypicking the very small handful of good 40+ year old fighters and then conflating that like its the norm. Its just not. Its extremely rare and a couple of examples can't be used to represent the whole.

 

I didn't say it was the norm... I said you have to take it into account - and acknowledge when there are exceptions.

A 40+ year old ATG who's declined (but not shot) will be a better win than a 38/39 year old gatekeeper on heart meds 99.9% of the time.

Yes Wlad was old, yes Pov was old... BUT - they were serious fighters when they were in their primes.
Ortiz was old when Wilder fought him, but it's not primarily his age that's the problem, it's his poor resume and his poor health by that stage that makes it a mediocre win - not a bad one, but not close to the same level as Pov at the same age.

 

I thought Povetkin really did look his age there though. Started really well then got tired like an old man and shortly after got knocked out. I don't think its unfair to place an asterisk next to that win for that reason. Just imagine if Joshua was 39 and he had to fight a peak prime Povetkin. Think of how unfair and disadvantaged Joshua would suddenly be if the roles were reversed. Imagine if he was 41 years old and had to fight peak prime Wladimir Klitschko. Think of how unfair that would be to him. Age definitely matters it can't just be swept under the rug like it doesn't.

 

I don't think that's a fair assessment of that fight... Pov looked good, made the bulk of the running before Joshua took hold of things and timed him.

It's the way Joshua often fights - it's more obvious now, perhaps, but he's always had a tendency to box and measure up an opponent before committing to big shots.


You're right that in their prime Wlad would definitely beat him (and Fury) and prime Pov probably would've done better and quite possibly won.

It doesn't change that these are better wins against fighters in better condition and with better resumes and more ability than Luis Ortiz - you cannot simply write them all off as old men and therefore irrelevant, which appears to be your position?

 

Deranged

 

Let me just submit this for thought:

The whole entire reason sanctioning bodies exist in the first place is the curb the power of financial backers and popular champions in order to force them into defending their titles against athletes whose only merits are pugilistic ability.

You're telling me because they rate people you don't like that makes their ratings less legitimate than personal fantasy ratings.

So the question is more layered than it seems. Are you an educated boxing martial art fan or an easy mark for the financial industry that is boxing? The you there is rhetorical, I didn't mean you personally.

 

No I don't think beating guys past best should count for a lot. Maybe if they were still beating all the top guys of the division you could maybe stretch it and make a case but that isn't the case here either.

 

Shift what blame? Please explain

Once again
As Klitschko was rated #1 by The Ring magazine, who did you propose Joshua should have fought instead and who was available?

Who are the alot? I think there was 2 and they were number 1 & 3 respectively

 

You can blame Ring magazine or whoever you want but that still doesn't excuse fighting 40 year olds. Like I said you can't just sweep it under the rug like that. Klitschko was 41, coming off a 2 year layoff, and didn't have a notable win in a long time. All he really had left at that point was his name. And maybe somebody can chime in for me but don't act like Joshua was being forced to fight guys like Kubrat Pulev or Robert Helenius. Nobody has a gun to his head forcing him to fight old guys.

 

Joshua haters before the Ngannou and Wallin fights: Joshua's gonna get destroyrd/outboxed
Joshua haters after the Wallin and Ngannou fights: Wallin and Ngannou are crap and worthless

 

No that will always be Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Dubois is a good chance but probably not 50-50. If (and it's a huge if) he can take Joshua's head shots Dubois's relentlessness will give him hell.

 

Who exactly have I blamed for anything?

Once again... The same question you keep ducking
As Klitschko was rated #1 by The Ring magazine, who did you propose Joshua should have fought instead and who was available?

sweep what under the rug?
I haven't said Wladimir wasn't 41

He wasn't coming off a 2 year layoff
He had fought less than a year and a half previously and wasn't on a lay off.
He had been in camp preparing to rematch Fury

that doesn't remove the fact he was still rated at number 1 or Fury's win over him. As Fury was his last fight you must feel he hadn't a noticeable win for a while but that doesn't detract from Fury beating him

You also don't note that Joshua also hadn't even had 20 fights at this time

I doubt he was forced but can't see what the complaint is?
One was a tune up the other a mandatory
Why have a title stripped for not defending it?


Now try not to keep ducking the questions

 

Superficially, perhaps.

In truth, we all know that money (not pugilistic ability) is what matters most to the orgs, though.

With that in mind, if an org can see the potential to get more money from a particular fighter, it might just pay them to protect that fighter a bit - if they're very active with regular voluntary defences, the org skims off more often... If they're massively hyped (or overhyped) and there's a potential megafight coming, the org might protect that fighter to skim off that massive pie.

At the end of the day, if a particular fighter wants to build a good resume they'll have to seek out good fights - the orgs may or may not provide mandatories that help.

Yes and no.

The fact they all disagree means their rankings clearly aren't objective.
Their rankings show who they favour - there may be multiple different reasons as to why... And some of those might be difficult to fathom.

Whether justified or not, who holds each other strap is seen as legitimate - but that doesn't necessarily mean they're a championship level fighter, as one particularly prominent org-protected fraud at heavyweight level quite recently demonstrates.

 

Saying he was rated #1 by Ring magazine when he didn't have a notable win in years is a joke. Realize you're saying he earned a #1 spot in 2017 by beating Bryant Jennings in 2015. Thats ridiculous. Bragging about Ring magazine doing that is ridiculous. After looking totally shot against Tyson Fury, and his compubox numbers for that fight completely back this statement up, he is out of the ring for 17 months and 31 days so really 18 months. Excuse me for just saying 2 years from 2015 to 2017 and not typing all of that every single time. Thats still a really long layoff. Thats still a lot of ring rust for a 41 year old. Theres no other way to slice it. Theres no way to clean it up to look nicer. Its a 41 year old, which is already bad, on a really long layoff and ring rust, which is even more bad.

If he couldn't fight anyone else then ok, although you have to go back and look at the old rankings to really see if thats true or not, it might be might not be, but either way realize that regardless of any rankings or ratings it doesn't sweep under the rug all of the problems that come with trying to brag up a win over a 2017 version of Wladimir Klitschko. You can't just point to a bogus rating and act like thats going to excuse it all away.