Wilder hits about as hard as Fury, nothing more

Current Aj does.

 

Have a word!

It was FOTY due to one fighters lack of skill?
Makes sense

And AJ could easy hang with Vlad at 30
Might not win but he would do fine
I mean Eddie Chambers was stopped in the 12th god damn it

 

Don't forget, AJ got dismantled and destroyed by Ruiz. I know fighters are entitled to a bad night from time to time, so those poor performances could be forgiven. But I still believe a prime Wlad whoops AJ.

 

You have huge problems with maturity, are abusive from a safe anonymous distance (vicious & cowardly)...
And while fighting with many & calling names, you project "grow up" on others? Delusional.
You are lucky that we have not bothered to have you banned yet.

 

Yeah, I'd agree that Fury has pretty average power for a HW his size. Thing is he's so quick and awkward for such a huge guy that it makes it almost a nightmare to do anything against. One shot of his wouldn't necessarily KO you, but it's probably going to buzz you or at least shake you up a bit. But it's not just one shot he's hitting you with but multiple, at speed, and you have no idea where they're coming from or when. It's no wonder so many fighters get disheartened and end up quitting or getting TKOed because of it.

Wilder's a lot more explosive and sells out on his shots by throwing his whole body into them, but it's really only the right he's able to do that with effectively. Every other shot he throws is far down the list in comparison. He's more likely to score highlight reel knockouts on fighters too slow or crap to avoid it like Breazeale but against fighters able to take that away from him and he looks helpless. His right hand alone is capable of massive damage if it lands, but it's only due to his poor level of opposition thus far that he's been able to land it with the frequency he has.

 

He wasn't 'much better' against Joshua, or arguably better at all. For all this talk about Wlad throwing barely any punches and barely landing anything, I challenge these Fury advocates to find me more than a minutes worth of highlights of Fury landing meaningful punches himself on Wlad.

I mean, if we're being objective and rational, Fury was god awful, trash and dreadful against Wladimir Klitschko, considering the historical age of Wladimir Klitschko at the time of their fight and the historical record of how much more impressively young future top heavyweights have regularly demolished 39+ year old past-prime heavyweight great champs in the past. Only Fury managed to land such few punches and was as inaccurate against a 39 year old past heavyweight great champ. Go back in history and you'll find past top heavyweights in Fury's shoes around his age against a past-prime champion opponent of similar age to Wladimir Klitschko absolutely demolishing their much older opponent in dominant fashion.

Mike Tyson against Larry Holmes is an example. Larry Holmes vs Muhammad Ali is another example.

But guess what? Fury looked the least spectacular out of pretty much any top heavyweight of any era during their prime years at beating a past-prime 38+ year old opponent. Why was that? Either Wladimir Klitschko is greater and more special than all those past heavyweights that were even inferior in comparison at an old age or Fury himself is inferior to all those past heavyweights who were more dominant against an older, past-prime former great champion. Something has to give here!

What needs to be said, without any question, is that Fury beating Wladimir Kltschko, even the way he did, was nothing special in a historical since. He did nothing out of the norm! He did what had always happened in the past, a younger, fresher and an in-prime top heavyweight beating a past-prime former great heavyweight champion pushing his 40's. So I don't get why Fury is so overhyped based on a rather insignificant win.

I mean, these same Fury fanboys were previously discrediting both Wladimir Klitschko and Deontay Wilder and now all of a sudden, Fury's an all-time great based on beating both those guys who were previously discredited? Laughable at best!

 

Eddie Chambers was literally never knocked out, or even dropped by anybody ELSE. So claiming "mean Eddie Chambers was stopped in the 12th god damn" doesn't mean anything. Unlike Eddie, Joshua has been stopped by far lesser guys repeatedly.

 

He was a bit rubbish though
Thats more my point
If a very, very average guy like Edfie is hanging in there, AJ has a fantastic chance

 

Repeatedly?
Who else has stopped Joshua?

 

But Eddie Chambers wasn't 'rubbish' though, or at least not any more 'rubbish' than some of the scrubs Joshua has faced and struggled against, such as Carlos Takam and Andy Ruiz Jr. Heck, an argument can even be made that Eddie Chambers was better than those guys and probably would have beaten them.

Wladimir Klitschko simply made Eddie Chambers look rubbish (in that fight) by dominating him, by winning every round and by knocking him out the round he wanted to knock him out in. Knocking out a guy who has never even touched the canvas in any other fight, much less got knocked out in at any round is impressive and can't be used for discrediting. But Joshua failing to cleanly KO Carlos Takam and requiring a premature stoppage over a guy who has been knocked out before and after, can be used to discredit Joshua though.


Repeatedly?
Who else has stopped Joshua?

This content is protected

Mihai Nistor! Albeit it might have been in the amateurs, but that guy was a near, if not a total carbon copy of Andy Ruiz Jr, in terms of style and physique and both of them stopped Joshua in a very similar fashion. Heck, it even looks like Ruiz Jr followed the same blueprints as Nistor did to stop Joshua.

 

Oh your including amateurs
So twice, id argue that still not repeatedly

And sorry we will have to agree to disagree on Chambers
A very dark period for US boxing when a just about average boxer is the best shot at a World title

He is or was rather average at best
Ruiz would hsve bested him imo and id go out on a limb and say Takam would outpoint him

 

Where do you rank Fury's win over Wilder? Because it's either #1 or #2 on paper.

I did not use the term incorrectly. Your entire thread is incorrect so you have no room to talk.

 

Two stoppage losses in dominant fashion by 2 different opponents of the near same exact style and body shape? That to me is the definition of a repetitive loss! He lost both fights against both those guys in nearly the exact same way.

As a basis for comparison, Eddie Chambers gave Povetkin (one of Joshua's best wins) a far tougher fight than Takam did. Heck, an argument could be made that Chambers deserved a draw and Povetkin got a questionable win over Chambers. Whilst Takam got totally smoked, obliterated and nearly had his head launched off his body by Povetkin. Chambers also landed way more punches and busted Povetkin up massively whilst Takam barely did any damage on Povetkin:

This content is protected

This content is protected

Compare the performances!

You might say "styles make fights", but we can analyze both their styles independently and Chambers has Takam beat in pretty much every department. From hand-speed, to elusiveness, to defense, to counter-punching and even chin. Takam does nothing better than Chambers. Chambers is literally a faster and a more skilled version of Takam, which was why Povetkin struggled significantly more against Chambers than against Takam. It'd be like comparing windows 10 (Eddie Chambers) to windows XP (Carlos Takam).

Andy Ruiz Jr also only has the durability advantage over Eddie Chambers, but Chambers is more elusive which makes up for his slightly lesser durability and is better in every other department. Chambers was even faster and even more skilled than Andy Ruiz Jr.


If you're going to call Eddie Chambers 'average', then you're gonna have to call the likes of Takam and Ruiz Jr below average, along with some of the other opponents Joshua has faced, as they look even worse.