-
-
I still haven’t watched mayweather vs pac now. It was big in some areas I’m sure but it wasn’t in others. AJ vs Fury would be the same, clearly america is a huge country so would have huge appeal for mayweather.
But in america it made how many ppv? 3.6 mil? That’s good but it’s against a pop of around 350 mil isn’t it?
In the UK for example; Joshua made 1.6 mil vs Ruiz in the second fight; against a population of 65 mil ish.
Which is better? Which made the country stop? You could argue the latter based on % of sales.
However reality is the super bowl makes viewers around 100 mil in america - so however you do that comparison for mayweather - that isn’t making the world stop at all.
That’s not discrediting him because he’s clearly a huge star and those sales are still remarkable , but it really isn’t the whole country by any means.Comment
-
I meant UK numbers. How the hell are you meant to calculate numbers outside of it considering he fights on DAZN which is a PPV app????
Oh look another one of these bumlickers. I say Fury's record is not that bad because you list guys like Takam, Pulev and Brezeale...these guys are not really much better than the likes of Hammer and Chisora and are all far, FAR worse than Klistchko and Wilder. Joshua has beaten Wlad too but that was nearly four years ago...he's declined massively since then.Your clear bias is just silly when you on one hand claim fury’s resume isn’t that bad but then dismiss joshuas record because he hasn’t fought enough pbc fighters? I mean fury has beaten wilder, klitschoo, chisora and hammer. Joshua has beaten klitschko, Parker, povetkin, takam, pulev, brezeale, whyte and Ruiz. On top of that we know wilder and Ortiz have turned down fight opportunities and to be honest we all expect him to still fight both in the future.
And then, once again, guys like Pulev aren't names. They're not even remotely in the pantheon of greats and never will be. The only opponent Joshua has fought who will be facing ATG status is Wlad (and Fury if it happens). Lewis and Holyfield already had guys like Bowe, Bruno, Ruddock, Morrisson, Tyson, Foreman and a few others. The landscape was insanely more competitive. I say Fury's record is "not that bad" because, when compared to Joshua's it really isn't, but its hardly anything to write home about either.
They're just ****ing not. The 90's heavyweights were objectively better. Hence why the superior Klistchko brother couldn't even beat the out of shape 38 year old in Lewis. The guy you lames bumride struggled to get a 41 year old Wlad out of there. In the early noughties, Wlad was getting KOed by south african journeymen. It was just an objectively era...hence why at least four of the top 10 heavyweight boxers ever competed during it.When you say the heavyweights weaker than the 90.s, what your really saying is that Americans aren’t top of the pile so refuse to believe the possibility others ,synergy better. That is just naive.
You complain about Americans, but at least they actually care for talent. Hence they actually acknowledge the best heavyweight boxer around today.Comment
-
My numbers were all uk. Your quoting a initial estimate then rather than actual numbers because it supports your story better? Bizarre.I meant UK numbers. How the hell are you meant to calculate numbers outside of it considering he fights on DAZN which is a PPV app????
Oh look another one of these bumlickers. I say Fury's record is not that bad because you list guys like Takam, Pulev and Brezeale...these guys are not really much better than the likes of Hammer and Chisora and are all far, FAR worse than Klistchko and Wilder. Joshua has beaten Wlad too but that was nearly four years ago...he's declined massively since then.
And then, once again, guys like Pulev aren't names. They're not even remotely in the pantheon of greats and never will be. The only opponent Joshua has fought who will be facing ATG status is Wlad (and Fury if it happens). Lewis and Holyfield already had guys like Bowe, Bruno, Ruddock, Morrisson, Tyson, Foreman and a few others. The landscape was insanely more competitive. I say Fury's record is "not that bad" because, when compared to Joshua's it really isn't, but its hardly anything to write home about either.
They're just ****ing not. The 90's heavyweights were objectively better. Hence why the superior Klistchko brother couldn't even beat the out of shape 38 year old in Lewis. The guy you lames bumride struggled to get a 41 year old Wlad out of there. In the early noughties, Wlad was getting KOed by south african journeymen. It was just an objectively era...hence why at least four of the top 10 heavyweight boxers ever competed during it.
You complain about Americans, but at least they actually care for talent. Hence they actually acknowledge the best heavyweight boxer around today.
If pulev , povetkin, Parker, Ruiz etc are so easy then I encourage fury to take them on instead of seferi , wallin and co. It’s notable that chisora has a big pull, is on the same network and has never been in the the frame for AJ because he has also been fighting tougher opponents. Chisora could win a one off vs povetkin, Ruiz, etc maybe “ but he’s certainly a level below them.
History always makes you think of the bigger fights etc but not the weaker areas of them. Popularity wise they may have been better but I’m not convinced they were better overall at all. Also Joshua, fury and wilder for that matter still have 3-4 yrs of fights to go so you can’t compare a full career vs a 1/2 career very fairly.
Bruno by the way you included, he really shouldn’t even be in consideration if your talking the best. Would he even be top20 today? All heart doesn’t make you great.Last edited by Kezzer; 01-24-2021, 02:13 AM.Comment
Tweet
Comment