How is Tyson Fury a more skilled boxer than Anthony Joshua when:

[TheBigLug]

Joshua does nothing at all better than Fury except punch power. The good thing for Joshua is that the one attribute he has over Fury is the one that is a real equaliser.

[JK1700]

People need to start respecting Fury's skill level.

Not many people can punch themselves in the face.

[Ray Corso]

"Wladimir Klitschko has the best heavyweight record in history"................................................Ha !

This is whats wrong with this generations fans. They can't realize what fighter has actual skills compared to a record.
When your defeated brutal by fringe contenders and have wins over average talents your not the owner of the greatest
record. He has never defeated anyone that comes close to an ATG status and his defeats are against nobodies.

Fury stinks also, without his height and running ability he would not have gotten by an old weathered Wlad.
He didn't want any part of the rematch in fear Wlad might make it a 6 round fight. Fury has NO Power! That's why he runs, he is a 6'7" 255lb man VOID of punching power.

He'll run from Anthony, the interesting match up will be with Wilder who prefers to counter. Both will look for the other to lead. Again Fury's lack of power can get him KO'd.

Problem is only Wilder is willing t5o fight any of them. I'll give Parker credit also I think he's willing too.

Ray

[IraqiSword]

Your clearly beyond repair. Your telling me wlad had 3 fights in 10 years?

Put that crack pipe down son. Wipe your mouth. dust yourself off and do some research .

Tommy morrison would of beat wlad hahaha have another toke on what you smoke.

Do you want me to go to more detail??? for his ten year reign

Byrd - Decent win but was KO'ed twice in row after fighting him

Brock - C Level Win

Austin - D+ Level Win

Brewster - Avenging a horrible loss to a D Level fighter

Ibragov - Horrible fighter who arguably lost to a 46 year old Holyfield

Thompson - D Level Win

Rahman - Very old and at this time D Level Win

Chagaev - B- Level Win, a f**king midget but was undefeated at the time so I'll give him that

Chambers - Just a horrible fighter a man who is so bad recently lost to Washington

Peter - Out of prime, out of shape, no longer in the top 10 and his brother's left over

Haye - Best win of his career against a cruiserweight who has done absoultley nothing at heavyweight, best win was John f**king Ruiz

Mormeck - A very old Crusierweight, a true cherry pick

Pineata - A true bum, was KO'ed by a fat midget named Chagaev in one round and was recently KO'ed by Kevin f**king Johnson

Povetkin - Good win on paper but his should have been DQ'd, he literally was throwing the guy around and clinching for 12 straight rounds, a truly disgraceful performance

Leapeai - A true bum who anyone can KO, but I can't blame him cause he was mandatory for the WBO I think

Pulev - A decent C Level win, but he has no power or speed

Jennings - A horrible performance against a guy who was KO'ed in his very next fight

[Mr Objecitivity]

Fury won rounds

Aj was losing until the ko to any neutral observer. Corrupt scorecards were in play once again though

Fury won rounds

Aj was losing until the ko to any neutral observer. Corrupt scorecards were in play once again though

Fury won rounds against Wladimir Klitschko? Well so did Anthony Joshua. Point is, how exactly did Fury show better overall skills in those rounds that he won? Sure, Fury did better DEFENSIVELY than Joshua did in his 25th bout against Wladimir Klitschko than Anthony Joshua did in his 19th bout against Wladimir Klitschko. However, he certainly didn't show better offensive skills than Joshua, despite having more professional experience.

Fury was struggling against low level opposition early on in his career (before he even had 20 bouts). Such as the likes of Neven Pajkic and Kevin Johnson. The type of opposition Joshua never had trouble against when he faced similar opposition with similar level of experience.

Point is, you can't objectively infer that Tyson Fury is more skilled than Anthony Joshua because of how he performed against Wladimir Klitschko after having 25 fights compared to how Anthony Joshua performed against Wladimir Klitschko with only 19 fights. Let us compare apples to apples instead. In just 20 fights, Joshua's record is more impressive than Fury's was in 20 bouts. There's no dispute with that!

If you want to argue about corrupt score cards. Then we can also apply the same criticism to Tyson Fury. His controversial stoppage victory over Neven Pajkic was actually corrupt. He knocked out Steve Cunningham with an illegal move (whilst holding and hitting). That was a corrupt victory. So we can point to the corruption of Fury's victories too.

[Mr Objecitivity]

This doesn't imply much about skills, unless you think that skills alone dictate the timing of fights.


Tyson Fury never came close to being dropped (superior defensive skills) whilst AJ got dropped and was holding on dear life (inferior defensive skills)... what's your point?

see point 2. AJ gave more but took more, he went life and death. AJ v Klit was exciting but could easily have gone either way.

You must remember that Fury was hoping to make a big splash on his US debut; he was overly-aggressive and got caught out trying to draw his opponent on. On the other hand, Joshua was spitting out his mouthguard, breathing heavy, and took a big right from an old man. Fair play to Joshua, he showed heart but I think most would also say that Klit seemed to take his foot off the gas at that point in the fight.

Vitali went 12 rounds too... are you saying AJ is therefore a superior boxer to Vitali aswell?


One must admit that Joshua has had the backing of Sky, etc., throughout. I should think it is easier to make the right fights happen when money is available. the Charles Martin fight, for example, was a joke. Reports of Martin eating pot noodles at the venue on the day of the fight. A bought belt. I mean, you really need to explain how AJ's record is so superior to Fury's, because it's not obvious to me. Besides, resumes are not a great indicator of skills, unless you know what you are looking at.


Audley Harrison. There are question marks over the legitimacy of Joshua's medal also

Joshua has crap head movement, admires and relies on his power, plods with his feet, can't fight going backwards... and that's just for starters. ONE THING I'VE ALWAYS SAID (on top of this) IS THAT JOSHUA DOES NOT HAVE COLD POWER

This doesn't imply much about skills, unless you think that skills alone dictate the timing of fights.


Tyson Fury never came close to being dropped (superior defensive skills) whilst AJ got dropped and was holding on dear life (inferior defensive skills)... what's your point?

see point 2. AJ gave more but took more, he went life and death. AJ v Klit was exciting but could easily have gone either way.

You must remember that Fury was hoping to make a big splash on his US debut; he was overly-aggressive and got caught out trying to draw his opponent on. On the other hand, Joshua was spitting out his mouthguard, breathing heavy, and took a big right from an old man. Fair play to Joshua, he showed heart but I think most would also say that Klit seemed to take his foot off the gas at that point in the fight.

Vitali went 12 rounds too... are you saying AJ is therefore a superior boxer to Vitali aswell?


One must admit that Joshua has had the backing of Sky, etc., throughout. I should think it is easier to make the right fights happen when money is available. the Charles Martin fight, for example, was a joke. Reports of Martin eating pot noodles at the venue on the day of the fight. A bought belt. I mean, you really need to explain how AJ's record is so superior to Fury's, because it's not obvious to me. Besides, resumes are not a great indicator of skills, unless you know what you are looking at.


Audley Harrison. There are question marks over the legitimacy of Joshua's medal also

Joshua has crap head movement, admires and relies on his power, plods with his feet, can't fight going backwards... and that's just for starters. ONE THING I'VE ALWAYS SAID (on top of this) IS THAT JOSHUA DOES NOT HAVE COLD POWER

1) In regards to the correlation between the timing of a bout and skills. Actually, yes. As a matter of fact, a boxer who boxes against elite opposition earlier than another boxer in their career can be attributed to have more 'skills' since it takes more 'skills' to step up in competition earlier. Hence, we have examples of boxers like Vasyl Lomachenko and Oleksandr Usyk who have already stepped up in competition and became champions in around just 10 bouts due to being more skilled than the likes of Deontay Wilder who have taken around 30 bouts to achieve the same feat.

2) As for Tyson Fury never coming close to being dropped against Wladimir Klitschko and therefore showing better defensive skills. My point is, Anthony Joshua showed better offensive skills against Wladimir Klitschko in 19 bouts and Tyson Fury showed better defensive skills against Wladimir Klitschko in 25 bouts. Therefore, if we don't take into account their experience and number of bouts they had when they fought Wladimir Klitschko, then neither's victory was more impressive than the other's. Since Joshua offensively > Fury against Wladimir Klitschko and Fury defensively > Joshua against Wladimir Klitschko. However, if we also account for the fact that Joshua only had 19 bouts to accomplish the feat he accomplished against Wlad whilst Fury had 25 bouts to accomplish his feat, then it makes Joshua's victory more impressive.

3) In regards to AJ taking more whilst also giving more to Wladimir Klitschko. Well Fury took less whilst also giving less. So it works both ways. As already stated, if we ignore their experience and number of bouts they had when they fought Wlad, then their performance against Wlad was equally impressive. However, Joshua accomplishing his feat in merely 19 bouts is more impressive than Fury accomplishing his feat in 25 bouts.

4) As for AJ vs Klit could've gone either way according to you. Likewise, the same can be stated of Fury vs Wlad. Fury didn't win a single round decisively in their bout. He only landed roughly 1 or 2 more INEFFECTIVE punches (taps) on Wladimir Klitschko in the rounds that he won whilst both landed equal number of EFFECTIVE punches on each other in most rounds. Wlad simply didn't bother attempting to land the same ineffective taps which Fury landed on him. Otherwise, a case can be made that the bout could've been a draw.

5) As for your justifications in relation to Tyson Fury's performance against Steve Cunningham where he suffered from things he shouldn't have perhaps suffered from (getting dropped by Cunningham). I can use a similar justification for Joshua's performance against Wladimir Klitschko as to why he suffered from the things he did. Such as the fact that it was Joshua's first ever paper view bout against the greatest heavyweight of all time when he fought Wladimir Klitschko in his 19th bout. Works both ways! Point is, getting dropped and having difficulties against a feather fisted natural cruiser weight in Steve Cunningham in 21st bout is worse than getting dropped by the most powerful punching heavyweight in history in Wladimir Klitschko in 19th bout.

6) As for Vitali Klitschko going 12 rounds against Kevin Johnson and whether Anthony Joshua is a superior boxer to Vitali Klitschko as a result. Overall, I'm not claiming Anthony Joshua is the more skilled boxer. However, Joshua's performance specifically against Kevin Johnson was superior and was a more skillful display than Vitali Klitschko's or Tyson Fury's performance against the same Kevin Johnson.

7) As for how Joshua's record is superior to Fury's. Well, for starters, he has lost fewer rounds than Tyson Fury overall in his career. Secondly, he has stopped every one of his opponents unlike Fury. Thirdly, if we compare both by the level of opposition both fought in the first 20 bout, Joshua's is better + his performances have been more impressive because offensively he has been better (got more stoppage wins) and defensively just as good, if not better (got hit as little as fury if not even less - excluding the Wladimir Klitschko fight).

If two boxers compete against similar level of opposition or against common opposition, then the boxer who wins more bouts by knockout whilst losing fewer rounds whilst needing less time to win whilst getting hit less would have the better record if those combined feats are in their favor. This is the case with Anthony Joshua whilst Tyson Fury is inferior in those meaningful / relevant departments related to evaluating one's record.

8) As for question marks over Joshua's Olympic medal. I do believe that he didn't deserve the gold medal. So if that's your view, then I agree. However, he no doubt at the very least deserved a silver medal which is better than any of Fury's amateur accomplishments.

9) As for the comparison between Anthony Joshua and Audley Harrison. Audley Harrison was a decent amateur boxer whilst relatively a poor professional. Which isn't the case with Anthony Joshua who is proven at both stages. So it's a false equivalence logical fallacy!

10) As for your subjective assessment of Anthony Joshua's skills. Such as the criticism over his head movement, footwork and style. All of those things are either irrelevant or marginally relevant. What matters are actual results and quality of record. If he has such inferior skills as you're alluding to from a subjective perspective but still wins more bouts by knockouts, gets hit less overall, loses fewer rounds overall and needs less rounds overall to win his bouts compared to Tyson Fury against similar level of opposition or common opponents, then Joshua would OBJECTIVELY be proven to be the more SKILLED boxer. Offensively, there isn't even any dispute as to who the more skilled boxer is between Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury. Hence, Joshua's 100% knockout record where he consistently drops his opponents or has them damaged more than Fury does. Defensively, Fury looked only better in his 25th fight against Wladimir Klitschko than Joshua did in his 19th bout against Wladimir Klitschko. However, if we compare them both by their performances in their first 20 bouts, Anthony Joshua has shown the better defense as well as better offense.

In other words, Anthony Joshua is more 'skilled' and superior in practically every meaningful department. Has better offense (due to a higher knockout percentage and due to inflicting more damage on his opponents on a consistent basis). Has better defense (because he has taken fewer punches or suffered less damage than Fury has). Those irrelevant stuff such as better head movement, more fluidity and better footwork may belong to Tyson Fury though. However, they are all meaningless if they don't lead to superior to results / record.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Your an idiot!! 😂😂😂😂
Ali, Holmes, Foreman etc all have way better resumes.
Your riddled with L's 😭😭😭
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Can you actually prove / substantiate those claims. Since I can actually substantiate my claim for why Wladimir Klitschko is the greatest heavyweight in history. I can show you a record of Wladimir Klitschko's achievements in heavyweight boxing that no other past boxer has matched or surpassed.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Can you actually prove / substantiate those claims. Since I can actually substantiate my claim for why Wladimir Klitschko is the greatest heavyweight in history. I can show you a record of Wladimir Klitschko's achievements in heavyweight boxing that no other past boxer has matched or surpassed.

HAHAHAHAHA������������ Riddled with L's!!!
Joe Louis had more defenses and had a longer reign in terms of years. Wlad never matched or surpassed that.
Keep choking on those L's ******!������

[iamboxing]

AJ has the better boring Textbook boxing skills, but Fury has the swagger of Naseem Hamed and the flash which is prettier to watch. Fury fights like Frankenstein.

[Mr Objecitivity]

HAHAHAHAHA������������ Riddled with L's!!!
Joe Louis had more defenses and had a longer reign in terms of years. Wlad never matched or surpassed that.
Keep choking on those L's ******!������

Joe Louis doesn't have more title defenses than Wladimir Klitschko against real heavyweights (boxers weighing 200 pounds or more). If we exclude all sub-heavyweight opponents of Joe Louis (boxers weighing below 200 pounds), then Wladimir Klitschko has more title defenses.

If we're being realistic, Joe Louis wouldn't even be a heavyweight by modern standard. Instead, he'd be a cruiserweight or perhaps even a light heavyweight. The times for ancient 'heavyweights' are over because they won't qualify as heavyweights today and we go by modern standards when things get updated / upgraded if we want to avoid living in the past.

Also, having a longer reign in terms of years is totally irrelevant.