BoxRec

I have no problem with a retired champion taking an emeritus position.

For me, the second a fighter announces his own retirement (or tests positive for a banned substance), he relinquishes any and all of his titles. That's it. You retire, you're not the champ anymore. Fine, give him a title shot if he returns, just don't call him champ before he wins that fight.

To me, that applies as much to Johnson as it does to Fury. Why the fornicate should someone have to fight a fighter who's been out of the sport for 6 years, in order to be called champion?

Fury both retired, and tested positive. For me, that takes away his claim to the title. Emeritus champion? Fine, I'd be ok with that. But he'd have to beat Wilder AND Joshua to gain back the full title. Anything else, and you discredit the work those fighters did while Fury was busy swallowing kebabs and sniffing Charlie.

The problem with the logic is that IF Wilder beats Fury--- everyone will consider it the biggest win of Wilder's career--- but if Fury isn't the "real champion", then what is he reduced to? A disgraced ex champion with a cocaine problem & not worthy of the title shot to begin with.

Some "great victory" for Wilder if you take away the lineal champion distinction from Fury. Now, if Fury wins, then it only bolsters his claim of being the real champion of the world because so many knock him--- and because most people perceive Wilder as Joshua's greatest threat.

Why is how we view Wilder relevant to whether or not Fury is the lineal champion?

That's crazy. "Fury has to be lineal champion, because if he isn't then Wilder doesn't look as good." What kind of madness is that?

Fury is what he is. A recovering coke addict and PED cheat, who threw away everything he once had. He's looked terrible in both fights since his return. If you want to call him 'Wilder's biggest win', and do a huge disservice to Luis Ortiz in the meantime, then that's your prerogative.

The top 2 at heavyweight right now, are Joshua and Wilder. There is no clear number 1. Wilder beating Fury does not make him ' the man', since Joshua hasn't been beat yet. Fury beating Wilder does not cement Fury's position at the top, since he hasn't beat Joshua either. It would simply be a massive upset, and would leave Joshua and Fury as the new top 2.

- Wilder or Fury cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating Joshua (whoever wins in December).

- Joshua cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating the Wilder/Fury winner.

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 16:52
- Wilder or Fury cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating Joshua (whoever wins in December).

- Joshua cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating the Wilder/Fury winner.

..simple as that

greg wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 16:56

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 16:52
- Wilder or Fury cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating Joshua (whoever wins in December).

- Joshua cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating the Wilder/Fury winner.

..simple as that

Is that you, Tony?

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 17:06

greg wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 16:56

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 16:52
- Wilder or Fury cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating Joshua (whoever wins in December).

- Joshua cannot claim to be the true number 1, without beating the Wilder/Fury winner.

..simple as that

Is that you, Tony?

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Nov 2018, 14:24 The answer is f**k WBA.

That's correct. As Mike Rossman so eloquently put it, (WBA) "World's Biggest Assholes."

Those BS "champions" are in line for a shot at Joshua. That's basically what it means.

If they were honest, which they're not, they'd just rank those names. But 2 out of 3 of those names are too embarrassing for that.

I don't consider Joshua to be "the man", though. I believe in seniority. Wilder has been the WBC champion since 2015 with seven title defenses--- AJ was gifted the IBF belt in 2016 (let's be honest), and he damn near lost to an older, inactive Klitschko in 2017 to pick up the WBA title--- his WBO pick up over Joseph Parker was somewhat controversial with the referee not allowing Parker to really do anything in there. His "wins" over Takam (5'10") and Povetkin (nearly 40 years old & 6'2" compared to AJ's 6'6") are not really that special--- it's safe matchmaking. The very fact AJ & Hearn are SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for the Wilder fight not happening, is indicative to me that they didn't want it to begin with, and the fact that they want to pursue USYK (a fornicating cruiserweight) if he beats Bellew is just more safe matchmaking.

With Fury and Wilder, there's a willingness to prove who is the best in the world. These are the two men the late Emmanuel Stewart said was going to be the future champions. These are the two true giants of the division. These are the two most entertaining guys in the division. These men are undefeated and have greater credentials than Joshua in terms of experience in the sport--- these men are stylistically nightmares for Joshua as well.

No, in my eyes, Joshua is #3 overall. Wilder is #1 and Fury is #2 (because of the layoff). Whoever wins SHOULD fight AJ next HOWEVER I bet the farm right now Hearn shy's away from it. It probably will not happen until 2020. Then again Fury is saying "win, lose or draw" Wilder may be his last fight--- whether that's mind games or not remains to be seen.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 00:17 AJ was gifted the IBF belt in 2016 (let's be honest), and he damn near lost to an older, inactive Klitschko in 2017 to pick up the WBA title--- his WBO pick up over Joseph Parker was somewhat controversial with the referee not allowing Parker to really do anything in there. His "wins" over Takam (5'10") and Povetkin (nearly 40 years old & 6'2" compared to AJ's 6'6") are not really that special--- it's safe matchmaking. The very fact AJ & Hearn are SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for the Wilder fight not happening, is indicative to me that they didn't want it to begin with, and the fact that they want to pursue USYK (a effing cruiserweight) if he beats Bellew is just more safe matchmaking.

With Fury and Wilder, there's a willingness to prove who is the best in the world. These are the two men the late Emmanuel Stewart said was going to be the future champions. These are the two true giants of the division. These are the two most entertaining guys in the division. These men are undefeated and have greater credentials than Joshua in terms of experience in the sport--- these men are stylistically nightmares for Joshua as well.

There's truth in these words, but still Joshua's opposition is the strongest just for the current moment. Fury-Wilder winner should be called a true king. That, by the way, will be The Gypsy King, of course.

DrDuke wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 12:10

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 00:17 AJ was gifted the IBF belt in 2016 (let's be honest), and he damn near lost to an older, inactive Klitschko in 2017 to pick up the WBA title--- his WBO pick up over Joseph Parker was somewhat controversial with the referee not allowing Parker to really do anything in there. His "wins" over Takam (5'10") and Povetkin (nearly 40 years old & 6'2" compared to AJ's 6'6") are not really that special--- it's safe matchmaking. The very fact AJ & Hearn are SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for the Wilder fight not happening, is indicative to me that they didn't want it to begin with, and the fact that they want to pursue USYK (a effing cruiserweight) if he beats Bellew is just more safe matchmaking.

With Fury and Wilder, there's a willingness to prove who is the best in the world. These are the two men the late Emmanuel Stewart said was going to be the future champions. These are the two true giants of the division. These are the two most entertaining guys in the division. These men are undefeated and have greater credentials than Joshua in terms of experience in the sport--- these men are stylistically nightmares for Joshua as well.

There's truth in these words, but still Joshua's opposition is the strongest just for the current moment. Fury-Wilder winner should be called a true king. That, by the way, will be The Gypsy King, of course.

If you take one look at The RING’s ratings at the time AJ & Wilder competed in their last eight bouts, it actually seems kind of bizarre for anyone to rate Deontay’s resume as being either on a par or perhaps more superior than Anthony Joshua's:

Deontay Wilder:

• Bermane Stiverne (3rd)
• Eric Molina (unranked)
• Johann Duhaupas (unranked & tasted defeat two fights prior)
• Artur Szpilka (unranked)
• Chris Arreola (unranked & only won two of his previous six outings)
• Gerald Washington (unranked)
• Bermane Stiverne (7th & had struggled to defeat a journeyman in his only outing since his first defeat to Wilder)
• Luis Ortiz (5th)

Anthony Joshua:

• Dillian Whyte (unranked & unbeaten - he is currently rated 4th though)
• Charles Martin (10th, the IBF champ & also unbeaten)
• Dominic Breazeale (unranked and unbeaten, but was very recently rated 8th though)
• Eric Molina (unranked)
• Wladimir Klitschko (2nd, a future Hall-of-Famer & only tasted defeat once in the 13 years prior)
• Carlos Takam (unranked, but was the IBF's mandatory & a late substitute opponent for Kubrat Pulev)
• Joseph Parker (3rd, the WBO champ & also unbeaten)
• Alexander Povetkin (3rd, the WBA's mandatory challenger, hadn't tasted defeat for five years, with his sole loss in a career spanning 13½ years coming against a dead-cert first-ballot Hall-of-Famer )

Does anybody seriously believe that Deontay Wilder has greater credentials than Anthony Joshua in terms of experience in the sport or the calibre of opposition fought?

WBA Regular Heavyweight is no more.

joshj909 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 07:10 WBA Regular Heavyweight is no more.

Let’s fkin hope

joshj909 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 07:10 WBA Regular Heavyweight is no more.

I give it 4 months before the weather announces a fight for the vacant belt

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Nov 2018, 14:24 The answer is f**k WBA.

WBA=World's Biggest Assholes!
Not to be taken seriously. There is no organization on planet Earth more corrupt than the WBA.

joshj909 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 07:10 WBA Regular Heavyweight is no more.

You have more faith than me.

Give it six months and there will be a Regular champion, a super Regular champion, a mega Regular champion and a partridge in a pear tree champion.

The WBA are a complete joke.

Tony1244 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 12:41

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Nov 2018, 14:24 The answer is f**k WBA.

WBA=World's Biggest Assholes!
Not to be taken seriously. There is no organization on planet Earth more corrupt than the WBA.

I would say the Conservative party (Great Britain) have the WBA licked for corruption.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the WBA HQ.

Also, imagine how awesome a mockumentary sitcom set there could be. Strictly for boxing boffins mind

Tony1244 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 12:41

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Nov 2018, 14:24 The answer is f**k WBA.

WBA=World's Biggest Assholes!
Not to be taken seriously. There is no organization on planet Earth more corrupt than the WBA.

Perhaps in boxing, although Mauricio Sulaimán's WBC are regularly in contention.

However the WBA is not even the smallest fly on the wall compared to the likes of the Rothschild Banks, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Pfizer, Associated Press, Reuters, Apple, Google etc etc.

All of these carefully camouflaged creeps are long time masters of devious manipulation and sickening abuse and we haven't even mentioned the likes of the 2 truly towering global villains - Blackrock and Vanguard.



https://theimpactinvestor.com/unethical-banks/


https://pharmaceuticalfraud.com/2021-03 ... ivity.html#

Thomastearns wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 11:01

Tony1244 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2023, 12:41

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Nov 2018, 14:24 The answer is f**k WBA.

WBA=World's Biggest Assholes!
Not to be taken seriously. There is no organization on planet Earth more corrupt than the WBA.

Perhaps in boxing, although Mauricio Sulaimán's WBC are regularly in contention.

However the WBA is not even the smallest fly on the wall compared to the likes of the Rothschild Banks, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Pfizer, Associated Press, Reuters, Apple, Google etc etc.

All of these carefully camouflaged creeps are long time masters of devious manipulation and sickening abuse and we haven't even mentioned the likes of the 2 truly towering global villains - Blackrock and Vanguard.



https://theimpactinvestor.com/unethical-banks/


https://pharmaceuticalfraud.com/2021-03 ... ivity.html#

WBC's ratings aren't quite as laughable as the WBA's. I can guess that Ayn Rand isn't one of your favorite people. These corporations put profits first, corporations tend to do that. Most of them do have some redeeming value. I actually like some of them, but Wells Fargo is pretty bad.