Re: Wilder vs Joshua: who will be better?
Posted: 20 Jan 2015, 08:17
Bring Charlie Zelenoff over...... if Joshua can spark Zelenoff out while he sits on his arse, we have our answer 
I also think that AJ is a better boxer but wilder has improved. his right still is relatively wide but his jab is now really short and snappy. he also seems to be a Little faster and more athletic than AJ but I still think AJ is a better boxer.danamba7 wrote:At least AJ throws proper shots and has a good punch variety. I know there's a lot more to it than that but apart from his jab/right hand, Wilders punches can be embarrassing. It's much more enjoyable watching AJ go to work (albeit against average opposition). I'm looking forward to see what AJ can do against better opposition who open up more and leave openings for Joshua to exploit.Chepppaaa wrote:aj is an overrated body builder. wilder kos him within 9
Thanks for getting to the question, but nothing that Chisora has done puts him in the category of Stiverne, who while also quite slow and chubby like Chisroa, he can actually punch very hard while Chisora is a sluggish plodder without real power. And who did Haye dominate in the HW division who was actually a legitimate contender? 38yo Ruiz? Or perhaps the 37yo Barrett who had already been stopped a few times the year before? He squeeked by Valuev which was a good win, but Wilder moved and actually threw punches for 12 rounds while dominating one of the best HW in the world. And Haye isn't an active fighter right now.fergusg wrote:In terms of your questions, who else (apart from Wladimir) has done something remotely comparable to Deontay’s efforts on Saturday, well Tyson Fury did when he beat Dereck Chisora in similar fashion and I’m convinced that Alexander Povetkin and David Haye have both dominated world-rated contenders.
Chisora isn't a big puncher but he has sufficient pop to breakdown decent opponents. He also has a higher and more consistent workrate than Stiverne, puts his punches together better, is less prone to lackluster showings, and to me has shown against good opposition that he is at least on Stiverne's level. I think his weaker inclination toward lackluster showings in particular is a strong reason why he hasn't had mediocre results at a fairly low level, such as Stiverne's TKO loss to a journeyman, draw with a journeyman, and a 5-3 x2 decision over--you guessed it--a journeyman.Thanks for getting to the question, but nothing that Chisora has done puts him in the category of Stiverne, who while also quite slow and chubby like Chisroa, he can actually punch very hard while Chisora is a sluggish plodder without real power.
I understand your point but I think that Haye is clearly much better than Stiverne--faster hands and feet, at least as good a puncher, more elusive, and far less inclined to plod into shots and not punch like Stiverne did for long periods against Austin and Wilder. I also believe that Valuev would've beaten Stiverne, who seemed to struggle significantly with the height of the latter pair.And who did Haye dominate in the HW division who was actually a legitimate contender? 38yo Ruiz? Or perhaps the 37yo Barrett who had already been stopped a few times the year before? He squeeked by Valuev which was a good win, but Wilder moved and actually threw punches for 12 rounds while dominating one of the best HW in the world. And Haye isn't an active fighter right now.
If a 29-year-old Wilder fought a 25-year-old Joshua, Wilder may win. But if a 25-year-old Wilder fought a 29-year-old Joshua, Wilder would get completely wrecked. Neither of those apples-to-oranges comparisons have any relevance to the topic of who will have the greater prime.gertpacu wrote:People are talking like Wilder is like Michael Grant or something. Wilder is the better HW now. Maybe after AJ gets another 10-15 fights we will say otherwise. If they were to fight right now Wilder would win by UD or KO.
So you're saying British boxing is of a poor standard??SenorPipino wrote:Naturally the Europeans, especially the Brits, put their Euros on Joshua in a showdown with Wilder.
But a scant few years ago, they were also fantasizing about the unlimited future of another Olympic medalist, Audley Harrison.
We know how that worked out.
I'll take Wilder to have a cakewalk performance against Joshua, just as he'll have against Fury.
The only good Brit heavy was Lewis, but that was probably because of the Canadian upbringing.
So your logic is Wilder is better than Joshua because Joshua is British, and because Joshua is British, he must be assessed in line with Audley Harrison.SenorPipino wrote:Naturally the Europeans, especially the Brits, put their Euros on Joshua in a showdown with Wilder.
But a scant few years ago, they were also fantasizing about the unlimited future of another Olympic medalist, Audley Harrison.
We know how that worked out.
I'll take Wilder to have a cakewalk performance against Joshua, just as he'll have against Fury.
The only good Brit heavy was Lewis, but that was probably because of the Canadian upbringing.
I was just commenting on how the Brits stunningly seem to fancy Joshua by a big margin. They were also highly enamored of Harrison even though in his early pro stages he only blew away tomato can opposition, just like Joshua.Riddick Blowe wrote:So your logic is Wilder is better than Joshua because Joshua is British, and because Joshua is British, he must be assessed in line with Audley Harrison.SenorPipino wrote:Naturally the Europeans, especially the Brits, put their Euros on Joshua in a showdown with Wilder.
But a scant few years ago, they were also fantasizing about the unlimited future of another Olympic medalist, Audley Harrison.
We know how that worked out.
I'll take Wilder to have a cakewalk performance against Joshua, just as he'll have against Fury.
The only good Brit heavy was Lewis, but that was probably because of the Canadian upbringing.
Cool insight there bro.