BoxRec

The problem I have with this forum is shit posters like you!

One of the greatest middles ever, and his career is even more impressive (and tragic) when you consider that he died at 24.

Too right. Devastating and could of gone on to dominate for many years. Just seen highlights of his fight with Jack Johnson, unbelievably he knocks the 40 1bs heavier Johnson down!

Inside the ring AJ is amazing, outside of the ring, he's stunning, but actually quite boring, I've never heard him making a joke that made me think, ah if I made that joke everybody would have laughed as well! If I compare that to Ali for example, AJ is a kind of boring ;).

Nevertheless, I've said ages ago that AJ is the best of the division, but every single time some guys put Wilder and even Stiverne ahead of him, and they weren't the only ones, it was pathetic.

The problem with this thread is the notion that Joshua is talented, but still unproven, and that we need to watch how his career progresses against other top fighters of his era before we can truly rank him among other great champions of the past, is considered a decidedly non-expert opinion.

jas80s wrote:The problem with this thread is the notion that Joshua is talented, but still unproven, and that we need to watch how his career progresses against other top fighters of his era before we can truly rank him among other great champions of the past, is considered a decidedly non-expert opinion.

But who does he have to beat to proof himself? And which guys have proven themself according to you?

asdfjkl wrote:Inside the ring AJ is amazing, outside of the ring, he's stunning, but actually quite boring, I've never heard him making a joke that made me think, ah if I made that joke everybody would have laughed as well! If I compare that to Ali for example, AJ is a kind of boring ;).

Nevertheless, I've said ages ago that AJ is the best of the division, but every single time some guys put Wilder and even Stiverne ahead of him, and they weren't the only ones, it was pathetic.

... that reads like you've got a crush on him. Has he surpassed Briggs as your favourite?

IT wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Inside the ring AJ is amazing, outside of the ring, he's stunning, but actually quite boring, I've never heard him making a joke that made me think, ah if I made that joke everybody would have laughed as well! If I compare that to Ali for example, AJ is a kind of boring ;).

Nevertheless, I've said ages ago that AJ is the best of the division, but every single time some guys put Wilder and even Stiverne ahead of him, and they weren't the only ones, it was pathetic.

... that reads like you've got a crush on him. Has he surpassed Briggs as your favourite?

I have no real favorit actually, I just look at them as random boxers.
I support Tyrone Spong a bit, and Rico Verhoeven, but that's it.

the problem you have with this forum is
that you don't accept that statements like
"A Josh ist the best heavyweight ever" are
challenged.

the thing is not that he has a short record,
it is that he didn't fight a single meaningful
opponent. george foreman was 25 when he
faced ali. at that time he held the title and
had defended it twice, so he had as many
title fights as AJ has now. the difference
being that he had fought two top ten heavies
one of them being undefeated and undisputed
champion at the time they met.

what i am trying to say is that one has to be
careful with untested records, since even the
tested ones can be misleading.

regarding the superheavy reference and your
indication that AJ being not only big but skilled
makes him GOAT. it is a good argument, but
if you look at the most successful super heavies,
lennox and wlad, you will see that they had quite
a share of trouble in their prime with much smaller
men, like evander or brewster. so being skilled and
big is a good thing but far from a guarantee for
success.

Jip wrote:The amount of non experts in here. Its crazy.

I don't have much respect for you or your troll nonsense. I think your belief that you are an expert and others are not is irony of the first order. However, the fact that you have turned your troll shtick into a punchline, I have to respect. Well-timed delivery.

"The problem I have with this forum........ all of the non-experts. Ah cha cha cha cha."

You could turn this into a whole act. "I don't get no respect, let me tell you. I told the forum that the current top 10 p4p is better than the all-time top 10 p4p, and they said 'Are you a retarded infant?' No respect."

Lackeos wrote:

Jip wrote:The amount of non experts in here. Its crazy.

I don't have much respect for you or your troll nonsense. I think your belief that you are an expert and others are not is irony of the first order. However, the fact that you have turned your troll shtick into a punchline, I have to respect. Well-timed delivery.

"The problem I have with this forum........ all of the non-experts. Ah cha cha cha cha."

You could turn this into a whole act. "I don't get no respect, let me tell you. I told the forum that the current top 10 p4p is better than the all-time top 10 p4p, and they said 'Are you a retarded infant?' No respect."

You funny lackeos...iam laughing. Realy good

But 100 % honesty. I aint no troll.

What i say makes sense and is the truth. What many say makes no sense and more disney than reality.

The final misunderstanding thata lot of people have is that dont understand the difference between rare elite abilty and record. They dont understand that a big record isnt needed to determin if a boxer is very good or not. Than the non experts are angry and jeleaus at me cause i can see atg talent right away after couple of pro fights and they need 8 years and 40 plus pro fights.

After roys first pro fight i knew right away what kind of rare talent he was and that at this time a p4p top 3 guy like toney wouldnt have a chance against that high speed boxer. And i was right. So i was when rigo had few fights and beat p4p top 3 donaire etc...

asdfjkl wrote:

jas80s wrote:The problem with this thread is the notion that Joshua is talented, but still unproven, and that we need to watch how his career progresses against other top fighters of his era before we can truly rank him among other great champions of the past, is considered a decidedly non-expert opinion.

But who does he have to beat to proof himself? And which guys have proven themself according to you?

If you want someone who has proven himself you need to look no further than Joseph Parker.
Before his 25th birthday he had won a world title eliminator and a world heavyweight championship beating top ten ranked boxers in the process as well as staying unbeaten.

Joshua at that point in his career was fighting people like Gary Cornish.
And he's still only faced one top ten heavyweight.

Happy for people to be Joshua supporters but the problem with this forum is posters who totally disregard facts.

Ossyrules wrote:If this is a reaction to my response to you on the AJ Lewis thread, it's damn funny! Btw I'm a big Joshua fan! Love what he's doing.

As for Lennox Lewis being boring, watch:

Vs Vitali

Vs Mercer

Vs Briggs

Vs Razor

Vs Bruno

Now Lennox Lewis isn't Mike Tyson granted, but to place him in the same sentence as Wlad as boring, you show a lack of knowledge.

Only my non expert opinion

Hmmm... How'd you like the Lewis-Mavrovic fight??? ... Pretty memorable right? Or maybe not... His Holyfield fights were better, but still tedious.. And his David Tua fight was something I knew just wasn't going to cut it.. When they signed I knew the match-up had STINK-FEST written all over it.

BTW... From a spectator's viewpoint I think EVERY boxer fights stinkers.. Dempsey had the Tommy Gibbons fight.. Tyson had the James Smith fight.. I just think Anthony Joshua is probably the least likely Heavyweight Champion in History to produce one of these eye glazers.. If any opponent had the potential for a real letdown -- especially for a wildly anticipated match-up -- it would be Wladimir Klitschko.. But I think AJ has something planned for this guy.

Mexi-Box wrote:The problem I have with this forum is poo posters like you!

Why thank you

BillW wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jas80s wrote:The problem with this thread is the notion that Joshua is talented, but still unproven, and that we need to watch how his career progresses against other top fighters of his era before we can truly rank him among other great champions of the past, is considered a decidedly non-expert opinion.

But who does he have to beat to proof himself? And which guys have proven themself according to you?

If you want someone who has proven himself you need to look no further than Joseph Parker.
Before his 25th birthday he had won a world title eliminator and a world heavyweight championship beating top ten ranked boxers in the process as well as staying unbeaten.

Joshua at that point in his career was fighting people like Gary Cornish.
And he's still only faced one top ten heavyweight.

Happy for people to be Joshua supporters but the problem with this forum is posters who totally disregard facts.

Look... Joshua tried to get the Parker fight okay??? But he had to settle for Eric Molina. He probably learned nothing from Molina and possibly Parker would have lasted 8 or 9 rounds and got a few shots in. Parker's team is very smart. After they called Joshua out they did everything possible to avoid the match-up... However, even Molina was Top-10 ranked because of his KO of Adamek.. And so were Breazeale, Martin (ranked World Champion), and Klitschko who AJ is fighting tomorrow (EST and GMT).. So AJ fought 4 World ranked Heavyweights.. And lets face it, if you look at the ranked Heavyweights of almost any era, a lot of them were terrible Heavyweights.. Who was excited about watching Ali-Bugner??? OMG!! Anyway, Marvis Frazier beat the guy who had all the moves of a telephone pole. At least Cornish was 6'7" X 256 and undefefeated.

Joshua only had 13 fights when he fought Gary Cornish anyway.. It was appropriate.. Funny thing is, Cornish was fighting much better fighters before he fought AJ than he has since.. The man doesn't want to get hit like that again, but come on -- at least fight bums who have winning records.. Now Cornish is fighting Sam Sexton, who ever since he was knocked out by David Price 5 years ago has been fighting the worst Heavyweights in the world.. So these 2 record padders deserve each other.

BillW wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jas80s wrote:The problem with this thread is the notion that Joshua is talented, but still unproven, and that we need to watch how his career progresses against other top fighters of his era before we can truly rank him among other great champions of the past, is considered a decidedly non-expert opinion.

But who does he have to beat to proof himself? And which guys have proven themself according to you?

If you want someone who has proven himself you need to look no further than Joseph Parker.
Before his 25th birthday he had won a world title eliminator and a world heavyweight championship beating top ten ranked boxers in the process as well as staying unbeaten.

Joshua at that point in his career was fighting people like Gary Cornish.
And he's still only faced one top ten heavyweight.

Happy for people to be Joshua supporters but the problem with this forum is posters who totally disregard facts.

I like Parker for that, he's one of the, if not the, most active boxer of the past few years. And he barely does any political boxing trics like Wilder does all day long. I don't ignore facts, but look at Parker in the 7th round and compare that to AJ in the 7th round AJ still got much more speed. Also note, just by the looks, AJ looks superior, AJ is taller, more muscled, similar skilled, got more speed and seems to have a better stamina as well, that's why I consider AJ to be better as Parker for example. Despite AJ never passed the 7th round.

True enough... Takam and Ruiz were tagging Parker up like crazy.. They would fall to AJ and so would Parker... who's defense is lacking.

Kalan wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:If this is a reaction to my response to you on the AJ Lewis thread, it's damn funny! Btw I'm a big Joshua fan! Love what he's doing.

As for Lennox Lewis being boring, watch:

Vs Vitali

Vs Mercer

Vs Briggs

Vs Razor

Vs Bruno

Now Lennox Lewis isn't Mike Tyson granted, but to place him in the same sentence as Wlad as boring, you show a lack of knowledge.

Only my non expert opinion

Hmmm... How'd you like the Lewis-Mavrovic fight??? ... Pretty memorable right? Or maybe not... His Holyfield fights were better, but still tedious.. And his David Tua fight was something I knew just wasn't going to cut it.. When they signed I knew the match-up had STINK-FEST written all over it.

BTW... From a spectator's viewpoint I think EVERY boxer fights stinkers.. Dempsey had the Tommy Gibbons fight.. Tyson had the James Smith fight.. I just think Anthony Joshua is probably the least likely Heavyweight Champion in History to produce one of these eye glazers.. If any opponent had the potential for a real letdown -- especially for a wildly anticipated match-up -- it would be Wladimir Klitschko.. But I think AJ has something planned for this guy.

Something's been lost in translation here. My post is against the OP stating Lennox was boring. I have nothing against Joshua being boring, cos he's not

asdfjkl wrote:

jas80s wrote:The problem with this thread is the notion that Joshua is talented, but still unproven, and that we need to watch how his career progresses against other top fighters of his era before we can truly rank him among other great champions of the past, is considered a decidedly non-expert opinion.

But who does he have to beat to proof himself? And which guys have proven themself according to you?

i'm not one for making pronouncements about all time great status. I suspect that the guys I think are great are a lot of the same guys you believe are great. What does he have to do to prove himself to me? That is a fair question. As I am impressed with Joshua from what I have seen, here are the things I am interested to see.

1. How will he react when he gets hit hard by a guy who can legitimately punch?
2. How will he react if he loses some rounds, maybe goes into the 2nd half of the fight behind on the cards? In other words, how does he respond to
adversity in the ring?
3. How will he respond to a loss? How will he do in a rematch?
4. How does he fare in his match ups against other opponents who go on to notable careers? In other words, against opponents who become
contenders for the hall of fame for example?

To be fair, ti's not like he has to crush all of these questions; no fighter is perfect and every man can be beaten. But, I don't have much of an answer to those questions right now and I consider someone's metric on these types of questions to be relevant in comparing them to other great fighters of the past. I don't consider waiting for answers to these types of questions before deciding just how good a fighter is to be the tell tale sign of someone who doesn't know anything about boxing.

To answer your questions.

He has chin and everybody has a problem and a big puncher no matter if your name is ali lewis or aj. Frazier. Rahman showed us. Everybody is vulnerable.

His condition is made for 12 rounds. He is training on an high level.

How will he far against atg great opponents. Well only wlad left. Ortiz is atg on talent not on record. Povetkin. Wilder dont stand a chance against aj.

hagler81 wrote:
So you are the outmost authority are you on boxing who is an expert?

You've been here 10 minutes and you've got it sussed already

Jip knows all, that's all you need to know

If you disagree with him.... you're wrong, even when you're right because he is an expert

davie wrote:

hagler81 wrote:
So you are the outmost authority are you on boxing who is an expert?

You've been here 10 minutes and you've got it sussed already

Jip knows all, that's all you need to know

If you disagree with him.... you're wrong, even when you're right because he is an expert

Greetings Davie

Kalan wrote:True enough... Takam and Ruiz were tagging Parker up like crazy.. They would fall to AJ and so would Parker... who's defense is lacking.

You're probably right on the predictions but AJ is no defensive wizard himself.

But yes, he probably would KO all 3 listed above

Jip wrote:To answer your questions.

He has chin and everybody has a problem and a big puncher no matter if your name is ali lewis or aj. Frazier. Rahman showed us. Everybody is vulnerable.

His condition is made for 12 rounds. He is training on an high level.

How will he far against atg great opponents. Well only wlad left. Ortiz is atg on talent not on record. Povetkin. Wilder dont stand a chance against aj.

It's true everybody CAN be hurt by a big punch, but does that mean punch resistance is the same for every fighter across the board? I think what I am driving at is how WELL does he take a punch? How does he survive? Does he stay on his feet? How does he come back in subsequent rounds? Every fighter is the same in this area because technically speaking, everyone CAN be hurt by a punch? Not so sure I agree with your characterization of what it means to take a punch.

You kind of missed my point, I am not taking about conditioning per se, but adversity, how does he respond if someone is out boxing him? Or pushing the pace and taking some rounds? Can he adjust? What if a guy takes everything he throws and fires back at him? Does he wilt? If something like that never happens in his career, that would certainly say something, but you have to think that somewhere along the line it will happen.

The other fighters in a given era is always tricky. Personally, I believe there are excellent fighters in every era, if he cleans out the division, that will say something to me. I am not one to say this guy's era sucked so everything he did means jack. If you beat the other top guys, it says something about your ability to fight. I look forward to seeing him in there with other talented fighters.

Thanks for responding.

jas80s wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jas80s wrote:The problem with this thread is the notion that Joshua is talented, but still unproven, and that we need to watch how his career progresses against other top fighters of his era before we can truly rank him among other great champions of the past, is considered a decidedly non-expert opinion.

But who does he have to beat to proof himself? And which guys have proven themself according to you?

i'm not one for making pronouncements about all time great status. I suspect that the guys I think are great are a lot of the same guys you believe are great. What does he have to do to prove himself to me? That is a fair question. As I am impressed with Joshua from what I have seen, here are the things I am interested to see.

1. How will he react when he gets hit hard by a guy who can legitimately punch?
2. How will he react if he loses some rounds, maybe goes into the 2nd half of the fight behind on the cards? In other words, how does he respond to
adversity in the ring?
3. How will he respond to a loss? How will he do in a rematch?
4. How does he fare in his match ups against other opponents who go on to notable careers? In other words, against opponents who become
contenders for the hall of fame for example?

To be fair, ti's not like he has to crush all of these questions; no fighter is perfect and every man can be beaten. But, I don't have much of an answer to those questions right now and I consider someone's metric on these types of questions to be relevant in comparing them to other great fighters of the past. I don't consider waiting for answers to these types of questions before deciding just how good a fighter is to be the tell tale sign of someone who doesn't know anything about boxing.

1: Like Dillian Whyte?
2: He has lost one round against Dillian Whyte, somehow I don't see any fighter out there beïng able to make him lose rounds except for Tyson Fury.
3: Except for injuries, I don't see any better boxer out there. At max he could get cuts in his face like Vitali/Lennox, in where Vitali was clearly better, but lost the fight anyway.
4: Like Klitschko? I expect it to be a KO win in like the 6th round for AJ.

asdfjkl wrote:

jas80s wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: But who does he have to beat to proof himself? And which guys have proven themself according to you?

i'm not one for making pronouncements about all time great status. I suspect that the guys I think are great are a lot of the same guys you believe are great. What does he have to do to prove himself to me? That is a fair question. As I am impressed with Joshua from what I have seen, here are the things I am interested to see.

1. How will he react when he gets hit hard by a guy who can legitimately punch?
2. How will he react if he loses some rounds, maybe goes into the 2nd half of the fight behind on the cards? In other words, how does he respond to
adversity in the ring?
3. How will he respond to a loss? How will he do in a rematch?
4. How does he fare in his match ups against other opponents who go on to notable careers? In other words, against opponents who become
contenders for the hall of fame for example?

To be fair, ti's not like he has to crush all of these questions; no fighter is perfect and every man can be beaten. But, I don't have much of an answer to those questions right now and I consider someone's metric on these types of questions to be relevant in comparing them to other great fighters of the past. I don't consider waiting for answers to these types of questions before deciding just how good a fighter is to be the tell tale sign of someone who doesn't know anything about boxing.

1: Like Dillian Whyte?
2: He has lost one round against Dillian Whyte, somehow I don't see any fighter out there beïng able to make him lose rounds except for Tyson Fury.
3: Except for injuries, I don't see any better boxer out there. At max he could get cuts in his face like Vitali/Lennox, in where Vitali was clearly better, but lost the fight anyway.
4: Like Klitschko? I expect it to be a KO win in like the 6th round for AJ.

1. Exactly! And he did manage to survive that and comeback and win the fight which speaks well for him. I have concerns about how he handled that moment, but he showed toughness in there and he responded so he definitely passed the test. But, there are even harder punchers and better finishers out there and AJ will get hit again. A career is a long time. Klitschko is a major test in this department, it will be interesting to see if he gets there with something big. Unlike Whyte, nobody in there right mind could question Wlad's punching power or his ability to finish a hurt opponent, even at 41.

2. And I believe that eventually there will be opponents that present problems. If nobody ever does present a problem than I would have little trouble placing him in the category of truly great fighters, in any era. I expect he will fight for quite awhile, so let's hope he finds some competition.

3. I expect he will have a loss at some point, or at the least some major adversity. But, maybe he never will, we'll see.

4. Yes, like Kltischko. Obviously, Wlad is 41 so there will always be some question as to how much he had left. But, despite his high number of fights, I think he has not been in a lot of wars and he takes care of himself generally, so I think he still has something left in the tank. I hate dumping on fighters resumes with angled arguments like "he was shot" when they fought. That argument has some merit, but it is so often misapplied just to"win" an online argument. Anyway, I am inclined to give AJ credit here if he gets the win. On the other hand, I am not one to put a guy in the all time great category off of one win.

But, your opinion on him is very clear and more power to you for having a take, hell you could be proven totally right. I look forward to watching.