BoxRec

Rob3_142 wrote:First and foremost, Riddick, stop feeding the troll.

Stop feeding himself?

Rob3_142 wrote: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.

Objectively speaking, I consider what you just wrote to be offensively stupid.

Rob3_142 wrote: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 have not alluded to that at all. Records matter greatly.

Rob3_142 wrote: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.

You'll be backing the plodding, unproven, muscular guy?

Horse wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:No, I brought up that Horse brings up records. Look back over the course of the thread. You can do it.

You do keep trying to big up Joshua's record.

Please, stop making a fool of yourself.

Good example of ad hominem. It's not classly and reflects badly on you in such debates.

Try and deal with the fella's argument rather than trying to make it personal and attempt to ridicule.

Nobody is the fool. There is no right or wrong. It's only opinion and perception

liamlion wrote:Good example of ad hominem. It's not classly and reflects badly on you in such debates.

Try and deal with the fella's argument rather than trying to make it personal and attempt to ridicule.

Nobody is the fool. There is no right or wrong. It's only opinion and perception

Oh, do please bugger off if you aren't joking.

I assume you are joking, so it is okay.

liamlion wrote:

Horse wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:No, I brought up that Horse brings up records. Look back over the course of the thread. You can do it.

You do keep trying to big up Joshua's record.

Please, stop making a fool of yourself.

Good example of ad hominem. It's not classly and reflects badly on you in such debates.

Try and deal with the fella's argument rather than trying to make it personal and attempt to ridicule.

Nobody is the fool. There is no right or wrong. It's only opinion and perception

No that's an insult. There's a difference, an ad hominem is where you try and "refute" someone's argument by attacking the person, there he just said something and followed it with an insult. Ad hominem arguments aren't always invalid anyway, if your argument relieson your own credibility, then attacking that is perfectly valid.

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.

Whatever Joshua goes onto achieve in his career, he will never have a better win on his record than dethroning the long standing undisputed champion in his home country. Fact.

mickey1975 wrote:Whatever Joshua goes onto achieve in his career, he will never have a better win on his record than dethroning the long standing undisputed champion in his home country. Fact.

Not even if he beats the man who beat the man?

Horse wrote:

liamlion wrote:Good example of ad hominem. It's not classly and reflects badly on you in such debates.

Try and deal with the fella's argument rather than trying to make it personal and attempt to ridicule.

Nobody is the fool. There is no right or wrong. It's only opinion and perception

Oh, do please bugger off if you aren't joking.

I assume you are joking, so it is okay.

Are you ok Horse? You seem to get incredibly agitated when Joshua is discussed, perhaps you should give these threads a break for a while.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Whatever Joshua goes onto achieve in his career, he will never have a better win on his record than dethroning the long standing undisputed champion in his home country. Fact.

Not even if he beats the man who beat the man?

No. It's going to be in this country and within the next ten years if he does.

mickey1975 wrote:Whatever Joshua goes onto achieve in his career, he will never have a better win on his record than dethroning the long standing undisputed champion in his home country. Fact.

Good point. I agree with the sentiment. Is Germany Wlad's home country now, maybe?

mickey1975 wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Whatever Joshua goes onto achieve in his career, he will never have a better win on his record than dethroning the long standing undisputed champion in his home country. Fact.

Not even if he beats the man who beat the man?

No. It's going to be in this country and within the next ten years if he does.

What if he beats Fury in America? Albania? How about Antartica?

Strange viewpoint, with no basis in logic. How is it more commendable for Fighter A to beat Fighter B in Fighter B's homeland, than it is for Fighter C to beat Fighter A anywhere??

Fury was better than Wlad. He still wasn't very good in my opinion, but he proved he was the better man. So Joshua beating Fury would automatically be a better win than Fury over Wlad (and the manner he does it will make it better still). The location had no impact on that fight. The right man won. The other guy didn't fight. That's all there is to it.

Besides, how can you predict how strong a win can be down the line? For all we know, Ortiz and Joshua, or Joshua and Parker could run parallel dismantling everyone before they met for a superfight a couple of years later. Who's to say Joshua winning that wouldn't be better than Fury bumbling to a win against a man who threw no punches in one of the worst heavyweight fights of all time?

Stranger things have happened...

They will only fight in England. Use your brain.

Sklar wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Whatever Joshua goes onto achieve in his career, he will never have a better win on his record than dethroning the long standing undisputed champion in his home country. Fact.

Good point. I agree with the sentiment. Is Germany Wlad's home country now, maybe?

His boxing home? I'd say so.

mickey1975 wrote:They will only fight in England. Use your brain.

And?

How is it more commendable for Fighter A to beat Fighter B in Fighter B's homeland, than it is for Fighter C to beat Fighter A (by early KO) anywhere??

Riddick Blowe wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:They will only fight in England. Use your brain.

And?

How is it more commendable for Fighter A to beat Fighter B in Fighter B's homeland, than it is for Fighter C to beat Fighter A (by early KO) anywhere??

It's pretty well known home fighters get certain advantages, especially when champion, plus there's the risk of home town decisions. But that's really a minor point, the real issuue is that for beating Fury to be on the level of beating Wlad, Fury would need to be an ATG, because Wlad was an ATG. Now his career could top Fury's, but there just probably just isn't going to be a win on that level for him. About the only way I could see it is if Fury unified the division, had a couple of solid defences, maybe Ortiz, then got stopped in a rematch to Joshua.

BitPlayer wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:They will only fight in England. Use your brain.

And?

How is it more commendable for Fighter A to beat Fighter B in Fighter B's homeland, than it is for Fighter C to beat Fighter A (by early KO) anywhere??

It's pretty well known home fighters get certain advantages, especially when champion, plus there's the risk of home town decisions. But that's really a minor point, the real issuue is that for beating Fury to be on the level of beating Wlad, Fury would need to be an ATG, because Wlad was an ATG. Now his career could top Fury's, but there just probably just isn't going to be a win on that level for him. About the only way I could see it is if Fury unified the division, had a couple of solid defences, maybe Ortiz, then got stopped in a rematch to Joshua.

Ok, you think wlad is an all time great. That's fine, I don't. does it become a better win if Joshua stops fury in the fourth? The third? After all, fury was capable of beating the immortal wlad! By all rights it would take a great effort to achieve such a thing, no?

Riddick Blowe wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: And?

How is it more commendable for Fighter A to beat Fighter B in Fighter B's homeland, than it is for Fighter C to beat Fighter A (by early KO) anywhere??

It's pretty well known home fighters get certain advantages, especially when champion, plus there's the risk of home town decisions. But that's really a minor point, the real issuue is that for beating Fury to be on the level of beating Wlad, Fury would need to be an ATG, because Wlad was an ATG. Now his career could top Fury's, but there just probably just isn't going to be a win on that level for him. About the only way I could see it is if Fury unified the division, had a couple of solid defences, maybe Ortiz, then got stopped in a rematch to Joshua.

Ok, you think wlad is an all time great. That's fine, I don't. does it become a better win if Joshua stops fury in the fourth? The third? After all, fury was capable of beating the immortal wlad! By all rights it would take a great effort to achieve such a thing, no?

Name me 10 heavyweights who achieved more than Vlad.

Listen, I am not a fan of his, but you won't be able to do it.

Fat Git wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

BitPlayer wrote: It's pretty well known home fighters get certain advantages, especially when champion, plus there's the risk of home town decisions. But that's really a minor point, the real issuue is that for beating Fury to be on the level of beating Wlad, Fury would need to be an ATG, because Wlad was an ATG. Now his career could top Fury's, but there just probably just isn't going to be a win on that level for him. About the only way I could see it is if Fury unified the division, had a couple of solid defences, maybe Ortiz, then got stopped in a rematch to Joshua.

Ok, you think wlad is an all time great. That's fine, I don't. does it become a better win if Joshua stops fury in the fourth? The third? After all, fury was capable of beating the immortal wlad! By all rights it would take a great effort to achieve such a thing, no?

Name me 10 heavyweights who achieved more than Vlad.

Listen, I am not a fan of his, but you won't be able to do it.

I'm sure there are at least 34 threads in which I put the case forward for wlad not being a great. I'm going to try not to do it any more.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: Ok, you think wlad is an all time great. That's fine, I don't. does it become a better win if Joshua stops fury in the fourth? The third? After all, fury was capable of beating the immortal wlad! By all rights it would take a great effort to achieve such a thing, no?

Name me 10 heavyweights who achieved more than Vlad.

Listen, I am not a fan of his, but you won't be able to do it.

I'm sure there are at least 34 threads in which I put the case forward for wlad not being a great. I'm going to try not to do it any more.

Well, you will be able to name 10 heavyweights - of all time - that did more than Wlad, I can't do it and I am as less of a fan of his than anyone you care to meet.

I tried it, found out I couldn't. He has a really impressive CV. Is he boring and more or less killed off the heavyweight division? Yes, that's true, did he achieve a lot of things? That is true as well.

Fat Git wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Fat Git wrote:
Name me 10 heavyweights who achieved more than Vlad.

Listen, I am not a fan of his, but you won't be able to do it.

I'm sure there are at least 34 threads in which I put the case forward for wlad not being a great. I'm going to try not to do it any more.

Well, you will be able to name 10 heavyweights - of all time - that did more than Wlad, I can't do it and I am as less of a fan of his than anyone you care to meet.

I tried it, found out I couldn't. He has a really impressive CV. Is he boring and more or less killed off the heavyweight division? Yes, that's true, did he achieve a lot of things? That is true as well.

If i respond, this thread becomes about wlad, guaranteed. Let's not debase a Joshua thread like that

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: I'm sure there are at least 34 threads in which I put the case forward for wlad not being a great. I'm going to try not to do it any more.

Well, you will be able to name 10 heavyweights - of all time - that did more than Wlad, I can't do it and I am as less of a fan of his than anyone you care to meet.

I tried it, found out I couldn't. He has a really impressive CV. Is he boring and more or less killed off the heavyweight division? Yes, that's true, did he achieve a lot of things? That is true as well.

If i respond, this thread becomes about wlad, guaranteed. Let's not debase a Joshua thread like that

I knew you couldn't name 10 heavyweights better that Wlad.

You brought his 'greatness' up - he is a top ten of all time heavyweight. I would steer clear of that conversation the next time if I was you, just sayin'.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: And?

How is it more commendable for Fighter A to beat Fighter B in Fighter B's homeland, than it is for Fighter C to beat Fighter A (by early KO) anywhere??

It's pretty well known home fighters get certain advantages, especially when champion, plus there's the risk of home town decisions. But that's really a minor point, the real issuue is that for beating Fury to be on the level of beating Wlad, Fury would need to be an ATG, because Wlad was an ATG. Now his career could top Fury's, but there just probably just isn't going to be a win on that level for him. About the only way I could see it is if Fury unified the division, had a couple of solid defences, maybe Ortiz, then got stopped in a rematch to Joshua.

Ok, you think wlad is an all time great. That's fine, I don't. does it become a better win if Joshua stops fury in the fourth? The third? After all, fury was capable of beating the immortal wlad! By all rights it would take a great effort to achieve such a thing, no?

No because Fury has a single great win, but his CV isn't close to Wlad's, built from being at the top for years,

Fat Git wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Fat Git wrote:
Well, you will be able to name 10 heavyweights - of all time - that did more than Wlad, I can't do it and I am as less of a fan of his than anyone you care to meet.

I tried it, found out I couldn't. He has a really impressive CV. Is he boring and more or less killed off the heavyweight division? Yes, that's true, did he achieve a lot of things? That is true as well.

If i respond, this thread becomes about wlad, guaranteed. Let's not debase a Joshua thread like that

I knew you couldn't name 10 heavyweights better that Wlad.

You brought his 'greatness' up - he is a top ten of all time heavyweight. I would steer clear of that conversation the next time if I was you, just sayin'.

I can, but I'm not going to. This thread isn't about wlad.

If you're that interested, I'm sure there was a poll on boxrec that had the average user all time rating for him somewhere between 15 and 20.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote: If i respond, this thread becomes about wlad, guaranteed. Let's not debase a Joshua thread like that

I knew you couldn't name 10 heavyweights better that Wlad.

You brought his 'greatness' up - he is a top ten of all time heavyweight. I would steer clear of that conversation the next time if I was you, just sayin'.

I can, but I'm not going to. This thread isn't about wlad.

If you're that interested, I'm sure there was a poll on boxrec that had the average user all time rating for him somewhere between 15 and 20.

I find it very hard to rate Wlad. He has to get props for his longevity, but he was around in an era of fractured belts and very weak contenders. He lacks a win over a single all time great opponent, not even a past their prime one, and was able to maintain a long run against very very medicore opposition. I could make a case for him being top 10, or not, depending on how you weight different aspects of his career. On balance I'd probably rate him somewhere around 10-15, as there aren't many heavyweight champs who had lengthy reigns.

ok, i'll do a short version, and then hopefully we can get the thread back on track.

plus points, powerful, good jab, dominant albeit over a substandard era of heavyweights.

negative points: beaten 4 times, stopped 3 times by substandard foes. down around 10 times, nearly lost to sam friggen peter. best win povetkin??? limited punch artillery (jab right hand, very occasional left hook but not so much latterly), no inside game, low workrate, reliance on fouling by pushing and grabbing (see his best win), only avenged one defeat and it was when the guy was shot.

That's quite a collection of detriments for an all-time great, but I'm sure they don't matter to a lot of people