Rob3_142 wrote:Blimey! You guys!
I almost feel well out of line posting while you guys are mid-flurry!
First and foremost, Riddick, stop feeding the troll.
Objectively speaking, and I am a fan of both Fury and Joshua, I'm kinda siding with Riddick. Although we all accept that Fury is the linear champ, and definitely number one, prior to that Klitchko victory, it wasn't exactly a glowing record. We all know where the bookies had that fight, and anyone who was anyone was backing Klitchko to embarrass Fury in the ring. Fury won, deservedly too. I'm still undecided if it was because Fury was so good, or if Klitchko was so bad, or a bit of both. I guess we'll know more when Fury fights someone else.
To be honest, and this has already been alluded by all, is that records are not always relevant (although not completely useless to gauge someone). I think Joshua's record is actually very good for only 16 fights in. He had a dozen pro fights where he wasn't ever going to be troubled, and then since then he's been slowly gradually stepping up the opposition. The same with Fury. It doesn't really matter if the records aren't great, it's all about - have they got you where you need to be? The answer for both, is yes.
They'll meet in good time, hopefully sooner rather than later. When they do, I'm backing Joshua for the win.
This is a really good post. I'd like to meet you and shake you by the hand.
One thing I'd like to add. Obviously I'm not saying records aren't important. Often they are the most important thing in judging a fighter;things like common opponents can be used as benchmarks, there are known yardstick fighters for example. Heart and chin need to be tested, strategy needs to be challenged by someone who is proven to be able to fight back, against other proven opponents. In shallow divisions, however, you can learn a lot from the manner of victory without obsessing over statistics.
Take Golovkin for example. Most can appreciate he is one of the best p4p in the world. He is, but in order to classify him as such there did need to be a certain leap of faith on the part of onlookers. His relatively weak opposition does not mean you can't extrapolate and make predictions. Huge puncher, offensive juggernaut, volume, variety, accuracy, toughness. Just like Joshua. And yes, he did show toughness against Whyte.
By Horse's reckoning, it would be nigh on impossible to predict who would win if GGG were to step into the ring vs a prime middleweight Jermain Taylor, for instance. 'But Taylor twice beat the great Hopkins!' Horse might cry. 'There is nothing on Golovkin's record to suggest he can beat a fighter of that calibre!
While everyone else is able to extrapolate and ascertain that GGG would possibly be the worst matchup possible for Taylor.
Which brings me on to Joshua/Fury. I personally don't believe that throwing one or two punches more than the Covent Garden Street Mime in front of you automatically erases a catalogue of fistic bumblings, involving getting decked by cruiserweights, and losing to a British title level opponent (admittedly early in his career, but unforgivable for someone who is being touted by some as a longstanding heavyweight champion. Can you imagine a young Lennox Lewis, or even a young Frank Bruno, losing to John McDermott?)
Joshua will use his superior artillery to dispose of Fury in short order.
