Tweet
Does Anthony Joshua deserve credit for beating Alexander Povetkin if Vasyl Lomachenko doesn't for beating Guillermo Rigondeaux? If yes, why?
On fight night, Lomachenko weighed 137 pounds whilst Rigondeaux weighed 130 pounds. That's merely a 7 pound weight difference. That's also only a 5.38% weight difference in terms of percentage. Not to mention, both Lomachenko and Rigondeaux have roughly the same amount of functional weight (both have relatively a similar amount of body fat percentage).
Meanwhile, Povetkin's average weight is 227 pounds (also consisting of non-functional weight such as greater fat percentage than Joshua) whilst Joshua's average weight is 249 pounds. That's a 22 pound weight difference. That's also a 9.69% weight difference in terms of percentage.
So the size difference between Joshua and Povetkin is significantly / astronomically greater than the size difference between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux.
Also, Joshua is about 5 inches taller than Povetkin whilst Lomachenko was only 2 or 3 inches taller than Rigondeaux. And Joshua has a 7 inch reach advantage over Povetkin (82 > 75) whilst Lomachenko had the shorter reach than Rigondeaux.
So in every which way in terms of size. Whether it's based on weight difference in terms of pounds, weight difference in terms of percentage, height difference and reach difference. The size difference between Joshua and Povetkin is astronomically / significantly greater than the size difference that was between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux. In other words, Joshua has a SIGNIFICANTLY / ASTRONOMICALLY greater size advantage over Povetkin than Lomachenko had over Rigondeaux. Lomachenko and Rigondeaux are closer in size than Joshua and Povetkin are.
So all things considered in terms of size differences. Does Joshua deserve as much credit, less credit or more credit for beating Povetkin than Lomachenko does for beating Rigondeaux?
Even when it comes to age, the age difference between Joshua and Povetkin is far greater than the age difference between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux. Joshua is 10 years younger than Povetkin whilst Lomachenko is only 7 years younger than Rigondeaux. So even there, Joshua has the greater age advantage over Povetkin than Lomachenko had over Rigondeaux.
I ask this question because many people decided to take away credit from Lomachenko for beating Rigondeaux due to his size advantage. However, doesn't that mean we should also apply this very same standard to every other boxer for their wins? If we do, then how much credit do we give Joshua for beating Povetkin?
It may not seem like a foregone conclusion to some, but it's obviously INEVITABLE and a GUARANTEED outcome that Joshua beats Povetkin if Joshua comes in ideal condition. Povetkin would have 0% chance of winning if that's the case. Since he is too feather fisted and light hitting in terms of punching power to hurt, never mind KO the much bigger, stronger and more durable Anthony Joshua. And he is also too small to win on points because of Joshua's insane size, strength and punching power advantages. And he is also too small, weak, feather fisted and lacks durability to even survive the distance against a relatively monstrous creature like Joshua.
On fight night, Lomachenko weighed 137 pounds whilst Rigondeaux weighed 130 pounds. That's merely a 7 pound weight difference. That's also only a 5.38% weight difference in terms of percentage. Not to mention, both Lomachenko and Rigondeaux have roughly the same amount of functional weight (both have relatively a similar amount of body fat percentage).
Meanwhile, Povetkin's average weight is 227 pounds (also consisting of non-functional weight such as greater fat percentage than Joshua) whilst Joshua's average weight is 249 pounds. That's a 22 pound weight difference. That's also a 9.69% weight difference in terms of percentage.
So the size difference between Joshua and Povetkin is significantly / astronomically greater than the size difference between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux.
Also, Joshua is about 5 inches taller than Povetkin whilst Lomachenko was only 2 or 3 inches taller than Rigondeaux. And Joshua has a 7 inch reach advantage over Povetkin (82 > 75) whilst Lomachenko had the shorter reach than Rigondeaux.
So in every which way in terms of size. Whether it's based on weight difference in terms of pounds, weight difference in terms of percentage, height difference and reach difference. The size difference between Joshua and Povetkin is astronomically / significantly greater than the size difference that was between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux. In other words, Joshua has a SIGNIFICANTLY / ASTRONOMICALLY greater size advantage over Povetkin than Lomachenko had over Rigondeaux. Lomachenko and Rigondeaux are closer in size than Joshua and Povetkin are.
So all things considered in terms of size differences. Does Joshua deserve as much credit, less credit or more credit for beating Povetkin than Lomachenko does for beating Rigondeaux?
Even when it comes to age, the age difference between Joshua and Povetkin is far greater than the age difference between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux. Joshua is 10 years younger than Povetkin whilst Lomachenko is only 7 years younger than Rigondeaux. So even there, Joshua has the greater age advantage over Povetkin than Lomachenko had over Rigondeaux.
I ask this question because many people decided to take away credit from Lomachenko for beating Rigondeaux due to his size advantage. However, doesn't that mean we should also apply this very same standard to every other boxer for their wins? If we do, then how much credit do we give Joshua for beating Povetkin?
It may not seem like a foregone conclusion to some, but it's obviously INEVITABLE and a GUARANTEED outcome that Joshua beats Povetkin if Joshua comes in ideal condition. Povetkin would have 0% chance of winning if that's the case. Since he is too feather fisted and light hitting in terms of punching power to hurt, never mind KO the much bigger, stronger and more durable Anthony Joshua. And he is also too small to win on points because of Joshua's insane size, strength and punching power advantages. And he is also too small, weak, feather fisted and lacks durability to even survive the distance against a relatively monstrous creature like Joshua.
Comment