BoxRec

crusader wrote:Resume doesn't equal ability.

AJ clearly shouldn't be ranked as the best going by accomplishments, but I think he's shown a package of size and ability that arguably no others can match. Of course he still has to prove himself against higher level opposition, but based on what he's shown, as well as the lack of serious talent at the weight, I expect him to continue excelling as he steps up.

Who cares if he looks great against bums? He's fought no one worth a damn.

Joshua is not even proven at domestic level.

You should know better than this, crusader. Shame on you.

I'm someone who thinks it's important for fighters to prove themselves, but I'm just not seeing the type of standout talent at HW which would make it absurd for someone to already consider AJ the top fighter based on ability.

crusader wrote:I'm someone who thinks it's important for fighters to prove themselves, but I'm just not seeing the type of standout talent at HW which would make it absurd for someone to already consider AJ the top fighter based on ability.

Colin Lynes might be the best welterweight in the world.

Highly unlikely given the type of opponents he's lost several times against, and the fact that he was pushed very close in several other bouts against opponents with domestic-level ceilings.

crusader wrote:Highly unlikely given the type of opponents he's lost several times against, and the fact that he was pushed very close in several other bouts against opponents with domestic-level ceilings.

All opinions are valid, man!

All fighters are equal and they can all claim to be the best.

Who needs to prove anything?

Anthony Joshua is really muscley, he might be the greatest of all time!

It's not the same at all. We can already point out the Lynes has fallen short at a level well below that of the division's pinnacle, and that even in victory against lower-level opponents there often wasn't much in it.

Besides, even if AJ were to wreck Wilder, Ortiz, Povetkin, and Pulev in succession, wouldn't it still be speculation that he's better than Fury? That he'd beat him if they fought?

crusader wrote:It's not the same at all. We can already point out the Lynes has fallen short at a level well below that of the division's pinnacle, and that even in victory against lower-level opponents there often wasn't much in it.

Besides, even if AJ were to wreck Wilder, Ortiz, Povetkin, and Pulev in succession, wouldn't it still be speculation that he's better than Fury? That he'd beat him if they fought?

At least he'd have a legitimate claim.

Joshua is not even clearly a top 10 ranked heavyweight.

He's one of the least credible ABC trinket holders in the world.

He has no claim to being the best heavyweight in the world whatsoever.

Horse wrote:

crusader wrote:Resume doesn't equal ability.

AJ clearly shouldn't be ranked as the best going by accomplishments, but I think he's shown a package of size and ability that arguably no others can match. Of course he still has to prove himself against higher level opposition, but based on what he's shown, as well as the lack of serious talent at the weight, I expect him to continue excelling as he steps up.

Who cares if he looks great against bums? He's fought no one worth a damn.

Nor had Fury until he beat Klitschko. I mean, that is a big victory in the scheme of things, but Klitschko offered so little in that fight. Before that, Fury has looked ... decent... against fighters of a pretty rough calibre.

Horse wrote:

crusader wrote:I'd say that Fury, AJ, Degale, Brook, McDonnell, Crolla, and Flannagan could reasonably be chosen as the best in their divisions (and yes, I know AJ doesn't have the strongest resume yet).

Joshua can not be considered to be the best in his division.

He might not even deserve a top 10 spot.

He is totally unproven at world level. He is not a credible world champion.

And deontay wilder is?

Horse wrote:

crusader wrote:I'd say that Fury, AJ, Degale, Brook, McDonnell, Crolla, and Flannagan could reasonably be chosen as the best in their divisions (and yes, I know AJ doesn't have the strongest resume yet).

Joshua can not be considered to be the best in his division.

He might not even deserve a top 10 spot.

He is totally unproven at world level. He is not a credible world champion.

Remember back in the 80's there was this kid knockin out everyone no credible opponents but still knocking everyone out in style? What was his name again.......oh ye mike tyson was his name and the division back then was a shite as it is now,trevor berbick as the WBC champ,tony coke head tucker as the IBF and old man smith as WBA, the division was crap. As for the here and now apart from the klitschko dance off who has fury fought that makes him proven on the world stage of the heavyweights?

Horse wrote:Joshua punch hard, he must be best!

Fury marginally outpointed statue! He must be best!

kingliam wrote:Nor had Fury until he beat Klitschko. I mean, that is a big victory in the scheme of things, but Klitschko offered so little in that fight. Before that, Fury has looked ... decent... against fighters of a pretty rough calibre.

Fury had a much better record than Joshua has.

thechump wrote:And deontay wilder is?

Wilder is far more credible than Joshua.

Horse wrote:

thechump wrote:And deontay wilder is?

Wilder is far more credible than Joshua.

How? Because he knocked out 31 stiffs before fighting for the title?

Deontay Wilder's (red) and Anthony Joshua's (black) best 10 results compared:

Malik Scott
Bermane Stiverne
Artur Szpilka
Johann Duhaupas
Eric Molina
Charles Martin
Kevin Johnson
Audley Harrison
Nicolai Firtha
Dillian Whyte

Dominic Breazeale
Denis Bakhtov
Michael Sprott
Matt Skelton
Siarhei Liakhovich
Jason Gavern
Jason Gavern
Gary Cornish
Raphael Zumbano Love
Kelvin Price


Wilder is a far more credible world champion than Joshua and Wilder is clearly not the No. 1 heavyweight in the world either.

Tyson Fury is the clear No. 1 at heavyweight.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Horse wrote:Joshua punch hard, he must be best!

Fury marginally outpointed statue! He must be best!

It's Fury that made the clear number one freeze like that.

Horse wrote:

kingliam wrote:Nor had Fury until he beat Klitschko. I mean, that is a big victory in the scheme of things, but Klitschko offered so little in that fight. Before that, Fury has looked ... decent... against fighters of a pretty rough calibre.

Fury had a much better record than Joshua has.

His best wins were a 210 lb Cunningham, Chisora X2, the first being a good win and the second being a washed up version of Chisora and Hammer who is terrible.

lefty wrote:His best wins were a 210 lb Cunningham, Chisora X2, the first being a good win and the second being a washed up version of Chisora and Hammer who is terrible.

And Joshua has done what?

Beat Charles Martin? Wow!

No-One is suggesting he is the next coming of Ali or Tyson, but to write him off completely seems a bit short sighted. He has potential generally, and in my eyes, the potential to be better than Fury in time.

Fury never looked brilliant defeating any of the stiffs he went up against really, but that isn't held against him now. Give him time.

Horse wrote:Deontay Wilder's (red) and Anthony Joshua's (black) best 10 results compared:

Malik Scott
Bermane Stiverne
Artur Szpilka
Johann Duhaupas
Eric Molina
Charles Martin
Kevin Johnson
Audley Harrison
Nicolai Firtha
Dillian Whyte

Dominic Breazeale
Denis Bakhtov
Michael Sprott
Matt Skelton
Siarhei Liakhovich
Jason Gavern
Jason Gavern
Gary Cornish
Raphael Zumbano Love
Kelvin Price


Wilder is a far more credible world champion than Joshua and Wilder is clearly not the No. 1 heavyweight in the world either.

Tyson Fury is the clear No. 1 at heavyweight.

Your list has Malik Scott atop the pile. The fact you don't understand the implications this has for your 'argument' is disconcerting.

Riddick Blowe wrote:Your list has Malik Scott atop the pile. The fact you don't understand the implications this has for your 'argument' is disconcerting.

My 'argument'?

My 'argument' is that Wilder's record is clearly much better than Joshua's.

I suppose you disagree with that?

Horse wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Your list has Malik Scott atop the pile. The fact you don't understand the implications this has for your 'argument' is disconcerting.

My 'argument'?

My 'argument' is that Wilder's record is clearly much better than Joshua's.

I suppose you disagree with that?

There's little enough in it to be almost irrelevant at this point. Everyone on Wilder's record is garbage. You need to grow some eyes, then learn to trust them.

Riddick Blowe wrote:There's little enough in it to be almost irrelevant at this point. Everyone on Wilder's record is garbage. You need to grow some eyes, then learn to trust them.

You are totally clueless.

You should be ashamed to post such utter nonsense as this.

Wilder's record is clearly much, much better than Joshua's.

Horse wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:There's little enough in it to be almost irrelevant at this point. Everyone on Wilder's record is garbage. You need to grow some eyes, then learn to trust them.

You are totally clueless.

You should be ashamed to post such utter nonsense as this.

Wilder's record is clearly much, much better than Joshua's.

Sure thing Horse.

Horse wrote:Deontay Wilder's (red) and Anthony Joshua's (black) best 10 results compared:

Malik Scott
Bermane Stiverne
Artur Szpilka
Johann Duhaupas
Eric Molina
Charles Martin
Kevin Johnson
Audley Harrison
Nicolai Firtha
Dillian Whyte

Dominic Breazeale
Denis Bakhtov
Michael Sprott
Matt Skelton
Siarhei Liakhovich
Jason Gavern
Jason Gavern
Gary Cornish
Raphael Zumbano Love
Kelvin Price


Wilder is a far more credible world champion than Joshua and Wilder is clearly not the No. 1 heavyweight in the world either.

Tyson Fury is the clear No. 1 at heavyweight.

Put all of them in with joshua and i bet he knocks them all out too. Wilder isnt as good as joshua imo