Tweet
They're not nobodies. Both are/were ranked in the top 10 by one of the world organizations. They're tall, undefeated and YOUNG.
You gotta start somewhere right? Like Andy Ruiz got his shot, and turned out to be a durable, skilled heavyweight whose 32-1 record was not a fluke. This was and (and is for Wallin) their first chance.
People are quick to dismiss Joshua for losing, rather than elevating the guy who beat him, which was Ruiz. Same with Fury fighting two tall, young and undefeated heavyweights who aren't as known as the handful of HW's (Whyte, Pulev, Ortiz) who are all sitting on top contender spots they wanna cash in.
If you step back even further, people do this with today's heavyweights as a whole in comparison to the "Golden Era" heavyweights. But they do this from a position of HIND-SIGHT now that all these Great HW's are long retired and you can look at their whole body-of-work.
There is also a bit of built-in nostalgic/fetish-ist bias when doing so, where these guys get overrated while today's heavyweights get underrated since they're still active and years away from retirement.
But where was Joe Frazier in 1969 before he got his first shot. Should we have dismissed Ali for getting his ass handed to him at that time, rather then Hind-sight elevating both guys for fighting each other two more times. Maybe dismiss Frazier after getting dominated by Foreman and losing 2 out of 3 to Ali? Even tho in hindsight he is correctly judged as a ATG. Suppose this were to happen to Andy Ruiz? Beat Joshua but goes on two lose two more in a triology, and gets KO'd by Wilder (similar to how frazier got owned by Foreman).
In foresight, he will get dismissed as a nobody, while the built-in bias for the past through HIND-SIGHT elevates Frazier.
This is the type of LOW IQ simpleton analytical thinking that permeates NSB. And yet there is nothing we can do about it other than point out that today's athletes are bigger, stronger and more efficiently trained due to better nutrition, equipment, supplements/vitamins.
You gotta start somewhere right? Like Andy Ruiz got his shot, and turned out to be a durable, skilled heavyweight whose 32-1 record was not a fluke. This was and (and is for Wallin) their first chance.
People are quick to dismiss Joshua for losing, rather than elevating the guy who beat him, which was Ruiz. Same with Fury fighting two tall, young and undefeated heavyweights who aren't as known as the handful of HW's (Whyte, Pulev, Ortiz) who are all sitting on top contender spots they wanna cash in.
If you step back even further, people do this with today's heavyweights as a whole in comparison to the "Golden Era" heavyweights. But they do this from a position of HIND-SIGHT now that all these Great HW's are long retired and you can look at their whole body-of-work.
There is also a bit of built-in nostalgic/fetish-ist bias when doing so, where these guys get overrated while today's heavyweights get underrated since they're still active and years away from retirement.
But where was Joe Frazier in 1969 before he got his first shot. Should we have dismissed Ali for getting his ass handed to him at that time, rather then Hind-sight elevating both guys for fighting each other two more times. Maybe dismiss Frazier after getting dominated by Foreman and losing 2 out of 3 to Ali? Even tho in hindsight he is correctly judged as a ATG. Suppose this were to happen to Andy Ruiz? Beat Joshua but goes on two lose two more in a triology, and gets KO'd by Wilder (similar to how frazier got owned by Foreman).
In foresight, he will get dismissed as a nobody, while the built-in bias for the past through HIND-SIGHT elevates Frazier.
This is the type of LOW IQ simpleton analytical thinking that permeates NSB. And yet there is nothing we can do about it other than point out that today's athletes are bigger, stronger and more efficiently trained due to better nutrition, equipment, supplements/vitamins.
Comment