Official: Anthony Joshua VS Deontay Wilder Master Thread

--- How about some credit due guys. Deyonce is on track to become the greatest ever TBA heavy in history. C'mon now!!!

I wonder which bum Wilder will face, while Joshua faces another genuine contender in Povetkin... How can there be Parker, Whyte, Fury and even bloody Belles our there, and Wilder would continue to duck all of them... Let’s face it, he’s all talk, he refused to sign the contract to fight in the UK. He’s now being raised to die at the right moment, so let him keep knocking over bums, because when he is tired of pathetic paydays, he’ll sign away his life and get knocked into the next millennium.

So the poll (so far) is 51% Wilder, 3% draw, 46% Joshua. This is on a pro-wilder forum so you would suggest that Joshua being a circa 65%-70% favourite that the bookies have him is about right!

At this point the polls should be closed, after all the evidence that is out there and with AJ's actions plus with him recently telling the fans to go and fight Wilder, it shouldn't be a debate anymore! The man is mentally defeated and would crumble with the first solid punch Wilder lands! In all my year's watching the sweet science I've never seen a champion let alone a professional fighter do nearly everything possible to avoid a fight and then tell fans they should go and train fight his biggest rival themselves!

Wilder was quiet yesterday Must have realised Joshua was in the country lolNo, he was quiet because he was contemplating whether or not to slap him for being a bitch ass coward.

Wilder was quiet yesterday Must have realised Joshua was in the country lol Yeah that Alabama nobody was just that yesterday. He should of been there causing a scene but he let big Baby get that shine instead

So what happened to ... don't believe what Hearn says, Hearn is a liar Hearn was telling the truth about the situation with Stevenson, Froch and Kessler ... and I have no doubt at all that he is also telling the truth about Povetkin, AJ and Wilder. More lies. Hearn had been given until 15th Jan (2013) to finalise a unification fight with Kessler before the purse bid for Froch/Stevenson was ordered. Kessler and Froch signed contracts the day before the purse bid was ordered. https://s33.postimg.cc/er8my50fz/UMx_Yn_Fya_FXMKb_XL-800x450-no_Pad.jpg

Wilder was quiet yesterday Must have realised Joshua was in the country lol

I'll do you one better, I'll give you an example that actually involves Hearn and the IBF before the IBF made their rule different from everyone else. Purse bid had been ordered for Froch to defend against Stevenson. Which bought time for Hearn to keep negotiating with Kessler. Quote from Hearn: "The Kessler fight has to be made by Tuesday or we will have to do the purse bid for the Stevenson fight instead." Hearn signed the Kessler fight the day before the purse bid and the purse bid was canceled. So what happened to ... don't believe what Hearn says, Hearn is a liar Hearn was telling the truth about the situation with Stevenson, Froch and Kessler ... and I have no doubt at all that he is also telling the truth about Povetkin, AJ and Wilder.

I'll do you one better, I'll give you an example that actually involves Hearn and the IBF before the IBF made their rule different from everyone else. Purse bid had been ordered for Froch to defend against Stevenson. Which bought time for Hearn to keep negotiating with Kessler. Quote from Hearn: "The Kessler fight has to be made by Tuesday or we will have to do the purse bid for the Stevenson fight instead." Hearn signed the Kessler fight the day before the purse bid and the purse bid was canceled. More lies. Hearn had been given until 15th Jan (2013) to finalise a unification fight with Kessler before the purse bid for Froch/Stevenson was ordered. Kessler and Froch signed contracts the day before the purse bid was ordered.

You keep saying this .. so how about you post some evidence to back it up? Give us an example of the WBA ordering a purse bid for a mandatory defence ... then cancelling the bid after it has been ordered to allow a ununification to take place. I'll do you one better, I'll give you an example that actually involves Hearn and the IBF before the IBF made their rule different from everyone else. Purse bid had been ordered for Froch to defend against Stevenson. Which bought time for Hearn to keep negotiating with Kessler. Quote from Hearn: "The Kessler fight has to be made by Tuesday or we will have to do the purse bid for the Stevenson fight instead." Hearn signed the Kessler fight the day before the purse bid and the purse bid was canceled.

Unification still takes priority over mandatory, even if the mandatory has been ordered to bid, in every organization except the IBF. Simply not true. Only the IBF has that rule. Any fighter in any org can demand an immediate purse bid and if that blocked a unification, we'd almost never get unifications. Thankfully 3 of the 4 orgs do the exact opposite of what you're claiming. You keep saying this .. so how about you post some evidence to back it up? Give us an example of the WBA ordering a purse bid for a mandatory defence ... then cancelling the bid after it has been ordered to allow a ununification to take place.

So let’s just suggest Joshua goes elsewhere for a moment. LEts says he does Potvetkin , then April against Whyte rematch. Then faces Fury and then moves onto Ortiz early 2020. That’s all if and buts but just interested , if that happened - or something similar - what or who does Wilder go after? To most people his 50-0 means very little , more the opponents he’s faced/facing; so who does he need to face to be given better credit? Ortiz - ok Parker? Fury? Whyte? Povetkin? I’m struggling beyond that at moment to be honest!

The WBC, WBA and WBO only say that they will give priority to unification if they think it will be for the good of boxing to do so. But they all follow the principle that once a purse bid, or the final deadline to reach a deal before a bid, has been issued, that's it, there is no going back. Simply not true. Only the IBF has that rule. Any fighter in any org can demand an immediate purse bid and if that blocked a unification, we'd almost never get unifications. Thankfully 3 of the 4 orgs do the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

Unification still takes priority over mandatory, even if the mandatory has been ordered to bid, in every organization except the IBF. That's another lie. The truth is this: The IBF is the only sanctioning org who have definite rules about whether unification gets priority over a mando or not. The WBC, WBA and WBO only say that they will give priority to unification if they think it will be for the good of boxing to do so. But they all follow the principle that once a purse bid, or the final deadline to reach a deal before a bid, has been issued, that's it, there is no going back.

A purse would not be cancelled once it was ordered, unless the 2 sides involved agreed terms and called it off. That's bull****. Unification still takes priority over mandatory, even if the mandatory has been ordered to bid, in every organization except the IBF.

And the worst thing that would have happened is that they'd order a purse bid, which could then be canceled when the Wilder fight was signed. The order was meaningless because Wilder was willing to sign that week and a purse bid couldn't have been ordered and held that quickly. Unification takes priority over mandatory, and even in the Stiverne situation, Wilder still found a way to delay so he could fight King Kong. It was only when King Kong failed a test that Wilder ended up having to fight Stiverne next. The contract didn't reflect the terms agreed to. The terms agreed to was that the fight would be NEXT. The contract conveniently left out any language guaranteeing the fight would be next. A purse would not be cancelled once it was ordered, unless the 2 sides involved agreed terms and called it off. That's bull****. Whether the contract explicitely stated that the fight would be next is irrelevant. Hearn told Finkel and the WBA it would be next and the WBA kept Povetkin and Ryabinski hanging around waiting for over a month on that basis. The contract would be void and Hearn would probably have been sued by the Russians if he'd been lying. Whatever you think about Hearn, he has come a long way in a short time and made multi-million $/£ deals with fighters, managers and promoters all over the world. Unlike Shelly Finkel, Hearn has never been accused of lying or ripping off any of the people he has dealt with.

Irrelevant. The WBA didn't tell Hearn he had to sign contracts with Povetkin within 24 hours, they told him this: "It appears the Wilder team have not returned the contract for the fight and therefore we are requesting a date for the Joshua versus Povetkin fight with immediate effect." And the worst thing that would have happened is that they'd order a purse bid, which could then be canceled when the Wilder fight was signed. They told Hearn to give them a date, and he gave them a date. You can't just dismiss a mandatory order from a sanctioning organisation to one of their champions as "meaningless" - simply because it doesn't fit your agenda. The order was meaningless because Wilder was willing to sign that week and a purse bid couldn't have been ordered and held that quickly. Why did Wilder fight Stiverne again? Because the WBC ordered him to? Unification takes priority over mandatory, and even in the Stiverne situation, Wilder still found a way to delay so he could fight King Kong. It was only when King Kong failed a test that Wilder ended up having to fight Stiverne next. Wilder could have fought AJ next, all he had to do was sign the contract he asked for, on the terms he had already agreed to. The contract didn't reflect the terms agreed to. The terms agreed to was that the fight would be NEXT. The contract conveniently left out any language guaranteeing the fight would be next.

That doesn't make any sense because even according to Hearn's own story, extensions were granted before he ever sent a contract. The idea that the extensions were being granted based on the WBA reading the contract to make sure it guaranteed the fight was next is absolutely ridiculous. That's not how it works. Finkel says the contract didn't guarantee the fight was next and Hearn has never denied that. Hearn has never ever claimed that the contract guaranteed the fight was next. Hearn's own version of events was that he was working on getting a date and ran out of time. Which is still a lie as he didn't run out of time, but it also shows the contract never guaranteed the fight was next. That's simply not true. Hearn's own version of events show that isn't true. Wilder couldn't "lose his pen" because he never had a contract stating the fight was next. Hearn said he needed a few more days ands when those few days were up, Hearn said he was going with Povetkin, but was willing to do the fight in April. You can't say the WBA forced his hand because clearly the 24 hour deadline was meaningless since days later Povetkin's side said nothing was signed yet. Meaning there actually was time to allow Wilder to sign that Friday, Hearn just didn't want him to. Irrelevant. The WBA didn't tell Hearn he had to sign contracts with Povetkin within 24 hours, they told him this: "It appears the Wilder team have not returned the contract for the fight and therefore we are requesting a date for the Joshua versus Povetkin fight with immediate effect." They told Hearn to give them a date, and he gave them a date. You can't just dismiss a mandatory order from a sanctioning organisation to one of their champions as "meaningless" - simply because it doesn't fit your agenda. Why did Wilder fight Stiverne again? Because the WBC ordered him to? So what, doesn't mean he had to do it ... See how that works? Wilder could have fought AJ next, all he had to do was sign the contract he asked for, on the terms he had already agreed to.

Fckn half-wit omega maggot. still didn't refute what I stated why dont you at least try