Better opponent: Johnson for Joshua, or Molina for Wilder?

[Freedom2013]

All things considered, at this point in their respective careers who is facing the better opponent next, Anthony Joshua or Deontay Wilder?

Joshua is facing Kevin Johnson in his 13th Pro fight. Anthony is age 25 and has been a pro for 19 months (1 year and 7 months).

Wilder is facing Eric Molina in his 34th pro fight. Deontay is age 29 and has been a pro for 78 months (6 years and 6 months). This is a WBC world title defense.

I think the answer is obvious, but some will disagree. I just want to read people's opinions about this.

[Cutman Scabbers]

Johnson for Joshua

[armageto]

Molina, if just for the fact he will attempt to win. Johnson is a walking punching bag.

[crusader]

Molina, if just for the fact he will attempt to win. Johnson is a walking punching bag.

Will he, and for how long? He seemed to give up very quickly against Arreola.

[Lackeos]

Kevin Johnson is much better. He would be Joshua's best professional opponent, extend Joshua 9 rounds further than he's ever gone, test Joshua's ability to go deep, prepare Joshua for more competitive fights that also go deep, and he's just an appropriate level of opponent for Joshua's level of development.

Molina, on the other hand, got dominated by the guy who got dominated by the guy who got dominated by Wilder. Wilder has KO'd many people in the first round, some of which were farces, while Molina's only fight against a top 50 fighter ended with him getting steamrolled in the first round. Wilder - Molina may not end in KO 1 Wilder, because after all, there's a chance that it may end in KO 2 Wilder. It's a huge step backwards for Wilder, it tests nothing, it prepares him for nothing, it's a waste of time. Props to Wilder for schooling Stiverne, but not a single prop given for this travesty.

[crusader]

Kevin Johnson is much better. He would be Joshua's best professional opponent, extend Joshua 9 rounds further than he's ever gone, test Joshua's ability to go deep, prepare Joshua for more competitive fights that also go deep, and he's just an appropriate level of opponent for Joshua's level of development.

Molina, on the other hand, got dominated by the guy who got dominated by the guy who got dominated by Wilder. Wilder has KO'd many people in the first round, some of which were farces, while Molina's only fight against a top 50 fighter ended with him getting steamrolled in the first round. Wilder - Molina may not end in KO 1 Wilder, because after all, there's a chance that it may end in KO 2 Wilder. It's a huge step backwards for Wilder, it tests nothing, it prepares him for nothing, it's a waste of time. Props to Wilder for schooling Stiverne, but not a single prop given for this travesty.

This

[Badhusker]

Both are weak in terms of really testing Wilder and Joshua, but Johnson is at least experienced against good competition. He has lost about 4 out of his last 5 fights though. No risk of losing for Joshua. Molina was picked for Wilder to test his healed hand I think.

Personally, I would have preferred to see them fight each other. Both need quality opponents. Wilder has had about 8 or 9 opponents I would consider decent, at least on paper, but no world beaters. You shouldn't need tune-ups and stepping stones when you get a belt.

One thing I love about heavyweight fights though - no catch weight fights! (wait now, they will start doing it)

[Freedom2013]

In his 13th fight, Wilder fought age 40 former light heavyweight Dan Sheehan (12-39).

Considering the amount of time Joshua has been a pro, Johnson is a very good opponent. He's obviously not easy to KO. I remember Johnson offered to fight Wilder a couple of years ago, but Deontay wouldn't fight him.

Molina however is not an acceptable opponent for a world title defense.

[Lennox]

Kevin Johnson is a great opponent for someone's 13th fight who is 12-0 with 12 KO's. KJ has not been stopped so this is the exact opponent wanted, someone who will hopefully give him some rounds. Anyone thinking differently is clueless about boxing.

Wilder v Molina is a poor match, but fairly typical of first defences.

[Bard of Boxrec]

There is not a human being on this planet that is capable of eloquently articulating a compelling argument justifying the “sporting” reasons for rising stars like Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder to have competed against so many utterly appalling mismatches, without seeing any obvious improvement in the calibre of opposition they are facing.

AJ & Wilder have been persistently matched against weak journeymen for “commercial” reasons, which is to market these fighters to casual boxing observers as the next dominant Tyson-esque heavyweight.

Since when has there been an unwritten rule that states that it’s mandatory for fighters like Joshua and Wilder to have obliterated at least twenty appallingly “weak” opponents before they’re able to be matched against legitimate talent?

People seem to accept this as standard practice and persistently cite this behaviour as acceptable simply “because other heavyweights do it”, whilst failing to comprehend the blatantly obvious fact that fighters like Joshua & Wilder cannot possibly learn anything from these bouts, as the only plus point for these men is to make a quick buck for minimal risk!

It's not Joshua's fault these guys can't stand up to his power. He's too good for them. The quality of his opposition is fine and markedly better than Wilder's early opposition. You'll get your wish soon and he'll step up, then destroy whoever it is, because he's still too good for them. Then you'll probably start complaining again.

And making a quick buck is fine. In this sport people need to maximise their opportunities to make money when they can. Folks will come and watch Joshua bowl guys over. You downplay the marketing side of it but at this stage marketing takes precedent over the 'sporting' reasons you mention.

[Lennox]

There is not a human being on this planet that is capable of eloquently articulating a compelling argument justifying the “sporting” reasons for rising stars like Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder to have competed against so many utterly appalling mismatches, without seeing any obvious improvement in the calibre of opposition they are facing.

AJ & Wilder have been persistently matched against weak journeymen for “commercial” reasons, which is to market these fighters to casual boxing observers as the next dominant Tyson-esque heavyweight.

Since when has there been an unwritten rule that states that it’s mandatory for fighters like Joshua and Wilder to have obliterated at least twenty appallingly “weak” opponents before they’re able to be matched against legitimate talent?

People seem to accept this as standard practice and persistently cite this behaviour as acceptable simply “because other heavyweights do it”, whilst failing to comprehend the blatantly obvious fact that fighters like Joshua & Wilder cannot possibly learn anything from these bouts, as the only plus point for these men is to make a quick buck for minimal risk!

You don't seem to have a clue about how boxing works.

Currently there may be 70 acceptable opponents for AJ. 50% of them price themselves out. I tried to make a 6 rounder once for Riddick Bowe the other side wanted $2,000,000, $10,000 was what was on offer. Opponents at AJs level are probably $20,000.

Of the remaining 50% some will be injured, have another fight scheduled, think they will lose (still thinking they will get a title shot) and risk their ranking......it is this category that may take view that they may take the fight further down the line when the monies better. It is about MONEY, these people fight for it and have managers who get them the best deals, rejecting $20,000 now might be the smart move.

Everyone ranted and raved because FW did not fight Manny....FW was wrong or an asshole or an idiot in the eyes of most people. Ask yourself were you that person. And now having grossed $100+ million for that fight and waiting and building it up...was FW the arsehole?

Deontay faced a lot of weak opponents. Anthony Joshua has faced good ones.

[Bard of Boxrec]

the other side wanted $2,000,000,

I wonder what the largest purse in history was for an 'opponent' in a 6 rounder. Surely it couldn't have even been close to $2m.

[Bard of Boxrec]

So it was perfectly acceptable that the vast majority of the first 32 opponents that Deontay Wilder faced were utterly rancid mismatches and Eric Molina is a fine opponent for him to make his first title defence?

If Anthony Joshua had faced Kevin Johnson twelve months ago, instead of in a couple of weeks’ time, do you really think the outcome would be any different?

Are we (as fans) supposed to applaud Eddie Hearn for matching AJ against the likes of Raphael Zumbano Love, Jason Gavern & Michael Sprott? Forget about these guys "names", in context of their form at the time of their fights against Joshua, they were horrendous mismatches.

I previously claimed that there was “not a human being on this planet that is capable of eloquently articulating a compelling argument justifying the “sporting” reasons for rising stars like Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder to have competed against so many utterly appalling mismatches”… and it seems that you cannot provide any either.

Aside from everything else, how many heavyweights do you think there are? There is a finite supply and like Lennox said most of them don't want to or can't fight for whatever reason. This putrid heavyweight division is polarised between 'prospects/contenders' who don't want to fight each other and trial horses/journeymen only out to make as much money as possible. Considering what's out there, Joshua can't have been expected to do any better on his career trajectory, and everyone, except you, understands this.

Answer me this: If Joshua takes a fight against a guy like Szpilka next and poleaxes him in 2 rounds, would you give him credit or just moan about his 'overmatched opposition'?

[Freedom2013]

There is not a human being on this planet that is capable of eloquently articulating a compelling argument justifying the “sporting” reasons for rising stars like Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder to have competed against so many utterly appalling mismatches, without seeing any obvious improvement in the calibre of opposition they are facing.

AJ & Wilder have been persistently matched against weak journeymen for “commercial” reasons, which is to market these fighters to casual boxing observers as the next dominant Tyson-esque heavyweight.

Since when has there been an unwritten rule that states that it’s mandatory for fighters like Joshua and Wilder to have obliterated at least twenty appallingly “weak” opponents before they’re able to be matched against legitimate talent?

People seem to accept this as standard practice and persistently cite this behaviour as acceptable simply “because other heavyweights do it”, whilst failing to comprehend the blatantly obvious fact that fighters like Joshua & Wilder cannot possibly learn anything from these bouts, as the only plus point for these men is to make a quick buck for minimal risk!

You somehow fail to comprehend that the situation of Joshua and Wilder is very different.

Kevin Johnson would be a poor choice as a WBC title defense for an age 29 2008 Olympian medalist who has been a pro for 78 months (6 years and 6 months) and is 34-0.

But he's a perfectly acceptable (in fact a very good) opponent for an age 25 2012 Olympian medalist with just 12 pro fights and has been a pro for only 1 year and 7 months .

Why can't you understand the difference?

Wilder is in his prime NOW. Joshua is approaching his prime, but not there yet. I think he needs to fight a few crafty defensive guys like Johnson to reach his full potential.

[Tony1244]

Joshua is still on his way up. So Johnson is more acceptable.

You know what's really pathetic?

Molina may be Wilder's 2nd best pro opponent.

[Bard of Boxrec]

It seems that people like to make excuses for their favourite fighters by making claims that opponents “are running scared” or “wanting too much money” to face the likes of Joshua or Wilder without actually being able to justify their theories. All I keep hearing is... “Other people are saying it, so it must be true?”

Knowing you, you probably expect me to come back with a painstaking list of facts and figures proving that Team B was offered X amount but wanted XX amount, and I suspect only then will you be happy.

In the real world though it doesn't take a genius, or reams of quantitative data, for people to know that Joshua's potential opponents often don't fancy the job, and/or will generally want to be paid well for the mauling they would inevitably receive. Just common sense.

Promoters and managers like to pad the records of their fighters for “marketing” reasons, but there aren’t any “sporting” benefits to be gained for men like Joshua & Wilder when they continuously face weak opposition.

So you keep saying. Joshua hasn't been learning much because he's so much better than everyone. It doesn't make the opponents any less suitable. Johnson will hopefully take him rounds and teach him pacing and test his stamina.

Now that Deontay is a 'champ' of sorts he will be expected to step it up after a soft defence. I don't like Wilder's opponent either but what are you gonna do. It's a first defence. I will be among the first to judge if he carries on with soft touches at this stage.

[jujigatame]

KJ is a more "acceptable" opponent given Joshua's experience level, but I'd rather watch Wilder/Molina. Does that make sense?

[jujigatame]

Joshua is still on his way up. So Johnson is more acceptable.

You know what's really pathetic?

Molina may be Wilder's 2nd best pro opponent.

Nah, I think Scott would beat Molina. Hell Audley could have beaten Molina too. Molina's not any better than Rogan or Rossy, both of whom Audley beat in that Prizefighter tournament.

[Tony1244]

Joshua is still on his way up. So Johnson is more acceptable.

You know what's really pathetic?

Molina may be Wilder's 2nd best pro opponent.

Nah, I think Scott would beat Molina. Hell Audley could have beaten Molina too. Molina's not any better than Rogan or Rossy, both of whom Audley beat in that Prizefighter tournament.

Good point. Scott would almost certainly beat Molina. I overlooked Malik. Liakovich is also among one of the all-time greats that Wilder beat. For you kids out there, the all-time great part was sarcasm.

[Horse]

Johnson is a much better opponent than Molina. Johnson would be a better opponent for Wilder as well.

Molina is a joke of an opponent.

[klitoris]

Johnson is a better opponent, which is funny considering Joshua is taking Johnson some 10 fights into his career and Wilder won a belt and has 30+ fights and takes a bum like Molina lol

[CrazyHorse]

At the end of the day, Wilder is a world heavyweight champion. He has got to choose a better fight than Eric Molina for his first defence. What has Eric done to garner a title shot? Enough with these gimme fights. I can see Joshua fighting easy opposition because he is still early into his career. Stuff like this makes me lose respect for Wilder

[Lennox]

Ferg- I don't know how old you are but if you are 15 I will cut you some slack.

Try and understand this;
You are a promoter or manager of a great fighter, lets say you and the guys in the gym know how good but the ROW does not know.
If you tell the ROW future fights will cost a lot more. Often opponents get more than a great fighter.

Lets look at the top 200, each fighter has a value he wants to fight.

Theoretically at heavyweight;
The ones at the top are $x,000,000
top 10 fighters perhaps $x00,000
top 50 fighters perhaps $50,000
top 70 fighters say $30,000
top 80 fighters say $25,000
top 90 fighters say $20,000
top 100 fighters say $15,000
top 150 fighters say $10,000
top 250 fighters say $5,000

As soon as you start beating fighters in these brackets by knock out, these prices go up.
TV companies are on budgets and might give $200,000 for a standard TV show for which they want some sort of fight they can sell to the public, plus a couple of undercard fights. $30,000 for an undercard chief support is a decent budget......THIS IS WHY THESE FIGHTS HAPPEN, ITS MONEY MONEY MONEY fighters are not all like AJ where we think he is top 4 or 5 already, most and probably AJ does to need to learn different skills, gradually upping the anti is what is required, but its not easy with opponents pulling out and late replacements often are not equal to the original.

[Lennox]

Johnson is a much better opponent than Molina. Johnson would be a better opponent for Wilder as well.

Molina is a joke of an opponent.

Molina has fought one top 50 opponent in Tony Grano and the 64th ranked Davarryl Williamson (46 years old at the time). No other to 100 fighters
Molina is Wilders 4th best probably, Stiverne, Harrison and Scott are ahead.

Molina is a crap choice but he is ranked 12 with the WBC. The promoter wants to fight the least likely challenger to beat DT. That is the nature of the sport. Until eliminators mean something and there is one world champion it is not going to happen every single time until money takes over for Fighter A to go in with Fighter B it eliminates the need for a belt aka Floyd v Manny. You have got to get to the point where the value of the two fighters yields the mega money....Manny a champion in 8 divisions, Floyd the king of 6. Back to being a champion again.

go to my website and read all about, theres 25 years of facts and figures, look at the world title fights see the pre fight rankings of the champions and challengers, it has got a lot worse recently but it's always been bad. http://www.independentworldboxingrankings.com

[Lennox]

Ferg- I don't know how old you are but if you are 15 I will cut you some slack.

Try and understand this;
You are a promoter or manager of a great fighter, lets say you and the guys in the gym know how good but the ROW does not know.
If you tell the ROW future fights will cost a lot more. Often opponents get more than a great fighter.

Lets look at the top 200, each fighter has a value he wants to fight.

Theoretically at heavyweight;
The ones at the top are $x,000,000
top 10 fighters perhaps $x00,000
top 50 fighters perhaps $50,000
top 70 fighters say $30,000
top 80 fighters say $25,000
top 90 fighters say $20,000
top 100 fighters say $15,000
top 150 fighters say $10,000
top 250 fighters say $5,000

As soon as you start beating fighters in these brackets by knock out, these prices go up.
TV companies are on budgets and might give $200,000 for a standard TV show for which they want some sort of fight they can sell to the public, plus a couple of undercard fights. $30,000 for an undercard chief support is a decent budget......THIS IS WHY THESE FIGHTS HAPPEN, ITS MONEY MONEY MONEY fighters are not all like AJ where we think he is top 4 or 5 already, most and probably AJ does to need to learn different skills, gradually upping the anti is what is required, but its not easy with opponents pulling out and late replacements often are not equal to the original.

Where are you getting the numbers from or are you only speculating?

I understand what you’re saying, but AJ is either headlining fight cards or he’s competing at the top of the undercard for bouts televised by SKY Sports... and he's nearly always marketed as the main attraction.

Explaining your theory to me and quantifying it are two completely different things.

We’re not discussing fairytales or religion, we’re talking about real events, which means you should be able to provide some real world examples to support your claim.

You know what I mean? Such as who has declined an opportunity to face Joshua, because they wanted more money?

People insult me, because I won’t accept their opinions until they’ve justified their claims.

If there’s a legitimate reason why you’ve “jumped to conclusions”, other than using your own logic, guesswork or opinions of others who try to add two and two together, then you should share it with me and not simply instruct me to abandon my own opinion based on nothing but your pure guesswork!

I am trying to explain it in a simple way so you can understand as I think your a bit dippy.