BoxRec

I still don't fully understand why Showtime wouldn't reject Molina as an opponent. Why would they want to televise this? Is it just to keep a good relationship with Haymon?

This is a rare occasion where we all agree. Yes, Molina is a lousy opponent. Some blame Haymon, the WBC, whatever.

First, this is not unprecedented. Evangelista, Jack Roper, Jean Pierre Coopman. Sadly I could go on.

Secondly, this is obviously being done for one reason and one reason only; if Deontay Wilder remains, undefeated
Wlad Klitschko VS. Wilder will be HUGE.

On the slight chance, Fury beats Wlad, Fury VS. Wilder would be even Huger!

There is no objective reason why Eric Molina is number 12 in the WBC rankings. That is where the real problem lies. If he was 12 by merit he would be deserving for someones first defence. 41 by the IWBR.

Yeah Wilder and his people are complete jokes. People were complaining that Arreola might be the opponent...now the opponent is the chump Arreola tooled in less than three minutes

Wilder is a joke.

Tony1244 wrote: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.

Wilder has boxed about 2 years longer than Joshua. Both had good pedigrees in the amateurs. Wilder's first 25 opponents were not a challenge, but he was brought along slow on purpose because of his limited amateur experience.

Go on box rec, read about Wilder's bio, and you will see there were 8 or 9 guys that you could consider credible considering his limited experience.

They would be smart to keep bringing Joshua along slow too. There are a lot of washed up 35+ heavys with plenty of experience (like Johnson) that are good experience for guys like Joshua and Wilder.

I do agree whole-heartedly that Molina does not deserve a title shot though. That is a fornicating joke. If they want a match to test Wilder's hand, make it a non title fight.

punchoutsb wrote:Yeah Wilder and his people are complete jokes. People were complaining that Arreola might be the opponent...now the opponent is the chump Arreola tooled in less than three minutes

Wilder is a joke.

Yes, Arreola was considered too dangerous.

That says a lot about how much faith Wilder's management has in him.

Freedom2013 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Yeah Wilder and his people are complete jokes. People were complaining that Arreola might be the opponent...now the opponent is the chump Arreola tooled in less than three minutes

Wilder is a joke.

Yes, Arreola was considered too dangerous.

That says a lot about how much faith Wilder's management has in him.

It also says something about the boxing business in general. Wilder vs Wlad, or Wilder vs an undefeated Fury would be so freaking huge, that they don't want to risk blowing it. Of course, all us fans want to see risk in a fight.

fergusg wrote:Perhaps I'm being unreasonable, but when the Zumbano Love fight was announced, I was utterly outraged, because I knew it was going to be a mismatch of epic proportions... and it was.

It kept him busy, you don't seem to understand he's fighting twice in one month.

fergusg wrote:I think AJ is already a world-rated top-ten heavyweight who should be facing men ranked (at least) in the top 20... not unrated or those ranked in the forties or fifties.

You're being unreasonable about this. Like everybody else, Joshua needs some pro experience before fighting top people.

Joshua is being brought along perfectly. I'm sure he'll be fighting top contenders before he reaches twenty fights and three years as a pro, and he'll fight for a world title before twenty-five fights and four years.

He's the heir apparent to Wladimir Klitschko, the best up-and-coming heavyweight in the world.

An opponent who will actually try to win the fight is always a more credible opponent than anybody who shows up to collect a check, put in rounds while making no attempt at all to win the fight.
This is regardless of where anybody is in there a career or if the guy who shows up to win has far less skill than the guy who shows up to go the distance.

Perseus wrote:An opponent who will actually try to win the fight is always a more credible opponent than anybody who shows up to collect a check, put in rounds while making no attempt at all to win the fight.
This is regardless of where anybody is in there a career or if the guy who shows up to win has far less skill than the guy who shows up to go the distance.

My same thought process on why I think Molina is the better opponent. Johnson, whenever he has stepped up, becomes a shell and just goes rounds. Molina might not be the greatest guy out there, but he'll at least make an attempt to win. Don't get me wrong, he's still a terrible title challenger.

In all honesty, I think Molina outworks Johnson and takes a decision if they fought, as well...

I'm not sure why you think Molina will actually try to win, at least for long, as in his only bout with a top 25 opponent he gave in at the first signs of trouble. Based on the loss to Arreola I can see him capitulating as soon as Wilder lands his first decent right hand, which I expect to come in the opening round, and even if he doesn't give up as such I think his poor durability (two first round KO losses and down in other fights) will prevent him from doing much once he's cleanly hit. I find it hard to see how Wilder benefits as a fighter from yet another quick and easy KO, which I think is by far the most likely outcome, but I can see how Joshua would benefit from going significantly more rounds than he's used to against a negative but crafty and durable opponent.

An opponent who will actually try to win the fight is always a more credible opponent than anybody who shows up to collect a check, put in rounds while making no attempt at all to win the fight.

This is regardless of where anybody is in there a career or if the guy who shows up to win has far less skill than the guy who shows up to go the distance.

There's no credibility to an opponent who tries winning, which isn't a given with Eric "one flurry and that's enough for me" Molina, if they don't deserve the fight and lack ability to trouble the person they're facing or at least offer important issues that the person hasn't faced before. Going by your facile logic a powerless and glass-chinned 0-10 (10) strawweight who at least always tries their best to win would be a better opponent than a 'take you rounds' mode Johnson, which is absurd.

I am somewhat surprised Wilder is fighting so soon after a broken hand. I would think most fighters in his position would wait at least 8 months to allow extra time to heal then fight the mandatory.

crusader wrote:
There's no credibility to an opponent who tries winning, which isn't a given with Eric "one flurry and that's enough for me" Molina, if they don't deserve the fight and lack ability to trouble the person they're facing or at least offer important issues that the person hasn't faced before. Going by your facile logic a powerless and glass-chinned 0-10 (10) strawweight who at least always tries their best to win would be a better opponent than a 'take you rounds' mode Johnson, which is absurd.

Molina will make an attempt to win, Johnson will not. Johnson is a good opponent for Joshua at this stage of his career. If I had to pick between Johnson or Molina fighting Wilder, I'd take Molina. After getting KO'd by Arreola, he came back with OK wins against Love, Williamson, and Grano. Since packing it in against Vitali 6 years ago, Johnson has beaten Leapai. A fight he almost was stopped in.

Johnson will give Joshua some rounds, but the only question is if he will stop him. If you had to bet, who would win between Johnson or Molina in these upcoming fights, who would you pick? If they both fought each other next, who would you pick to win?

I agree Molina is a terrible title defense. I do feel that at least he has some microscopic chance to win, while Johnson lost at the weigh in. 1% is better than 0% in my mind. A strawweight with no power would also have 0% chance to win. Arguably, and sadly, Molina is Wilder's 3rd best opponent on his resume, in 34 fights.

I wonder if Deontay Wilder will step up and fight a real top 25 HW after Molina, or will he hold the WBC HW title hostage?

armageto wrote:
Johnson will give Joshua some rounds, but the only question is if he will stop him. If you had to bet, who would win between Johnson or Molina in these upcoming fights, who would you pick? If they both fought each other next, who would you pick to win?

Johnson with one hand beat Molina.

IOddsmakers peg Johnson a 100-1 underdog to Joshua. They smell a sham of a fight.

In contrast, Molina is only a 50-1 'dog to get bounced around by Wilder.

So oddsmakers and myself agree that Molina is the better opponent.

At least he'll be trying to win during the 4 or 5 minutes the bout lasts.

Johnson is going to Jolly Ol' England to merely lay down to a rising ex-Olympian.

SenorPipino wrote:IOddsmakers peg Johnson a 100-1 underdog to Joshua. They smell a sham of a fight.

In contrast, Molina is only a 50-1 'dog to get bounced around by Wilder.

So oddsmakers and myself agree that Molina is the better opponent.

At least he'll be trying to win during the 4 or 5 minutes the bout lasts.

Johnson is going to Jolly Ol' England to merely lay down to a rising ex-Olympian.

Where are you getting those odds? Oddschecker has both fights with roughly the same odds.

http://www.oddschecker.com/boxing

Horse wrote:

SenorPipino wrote:IOddsmakers peg Johnson a 100-1 underdog to Joshua. They smell a sham of a fight.

In contrast, Molina is only a 50-1 'dog to get bounced around by Wilder.

So oddsmakers and myself agree that Molina is the better opponent.

At least he'll be trying to win during the 4 or 5 minutes the bout lasts.

Johnson is going to Jolly Ol' England to merely lay down to a rising ex-Olympian.

Where are you getting those odds? Oddschecker has both fights with roughly the same odds.

http://www.oddschecker.com/boxing

I use Bet365.com.
Odds there are still the same as reported. However, it is a Brit-based site so that might explain why Joshua is such an inflated favorite.

Thanks for the link to Oddschecker. A very interesting betting site offering a lot of theoretical matchups that may or may not happen.