Thread: Did Joshua win a title too early?

I think Joshua won a title too early in his career. He still had a lot to learn when he beat Martin, and now that he's a champion, there's a lot of pressure on him to perform well in every fight. The Parker fight showed that he's still a work in progress.

I think that fighters these days are rushed into winning a title before they've fully grown as a fighter.

I know what you are saying. He won when still a work in progress but as I said in another thread the current heavyweight landscape makes that possible so hardly his fault and once he'd won it he can go ppv and sell out stadiums as he is doing.

So wtf. Let him get on with it. We'd do same.

Wouldn't have been possible twenty years ago but that was then....

Nope, if you are good enough you are old enough, it is down to the rest of the division to take the belts off him regardless of if he is a work in progress.

Also what is it saying about the rest of the division when the man who has all but one of the belts is still seen as a work in progress.

He’s 28 years old! If he’s good enough to win the title and lucky enough that his team can get him a shot, how can it be too early? I don’t think his bank balance thinks it’s too early. When did Floyd win a title,was it his 9th fight?

It would have been early in the oldern days when there were better fighters and you had to earn your way to the title.

Now AJ had to go for the title with the piss poor champions holding the belts.

Mckraken said the Wlad fight was 3 fights too soon.

Anyway he has the title, selling out stadiums, earning millions and beating poor challengers. Better him than anyone else doing it.

Better question is how easy is it to win a title. He took a title from Martin who himself was unproven and won it on a bogus "KO" over a guy with a torn ACL. A literal belt warmer and easy mark to import for a star waiting in the wings with huge push. AJ has all the comforts of home and if there is a hang up that hinders him it may be that rather than any gift wrapped trinket. His skillset is there and was shined up in his real title win vs Wlad a year later. That was his proving ground. It unfolded as a championship battle should and there's no going backwards after that.

For gawds sake shut the funk up about "the good old days." The heavyweights are rubbish today was the spiel in the 80s, then the 90s, then the Wlad era, now today. Always someone waffling about when boxing was better.

7-0-1 Leon Spinks (WBC)
19-5 Bonecruser Smith (WBA)
21-9 Mike Weaver (WBA)
10-1 Michael Bentt (WBO)
Berbick, Thomas, Douglas, Tubbs, Morrison, Hide, Seldon, Akinwande, Rahman, Norris, etc, etc, etc. The fighters back then were no better than today. What made them so good apart from you saw your heroes twat them?

You'd think it was April Fools if most were wheeled out for AJ today. Fury, Ortiz, Povetkin, Wilder, Fury, Miller, Whyte, Takam, Pulev, Del Boy, Breazeale etc? Do you honestly think they couldn't compete with the men Tyson, Holmes, Holyfield, Lennox beat? Laughable.

Originally Posted by Fenster

For gawds sake shut the funk up about "the good old days." The heavyweights are rubbish today was the spiel in the 80s, then the 90s, then the Wlad era, now today. Always someone waffling about when boxing was better.

7-0-1 Leon Spinks (WBC)
19-5 Bonecruser Smith (WBA)
21-9 Mike Weaver (WBA)
10-1 Michael Bentt (WBO)
Berbick, Thomas, Douglas, Tubbs, Morrison, Hide, Seldon, Akinwande, Rahman, Norris, etc, etc, etc. The fighters back then were no better than today. What made them so good apart from you saw your heroes twat them?

You'd think it was April Fools if most were wheeled out for AJ today. Fury, Ortiz, Povetkin, Wilder, Fury, Miller, Whyte, Takam, Pulev, Del Boy, Breazeale etc? Do you honestly think they couldn't compete with the men Tyson, Holmes, Holyfield, Lennox beat? Laughable.

Depending what era you are talking about. The first list you had are people from the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s. And they aren’t the best ones from the eras either. You just picked some random people. The HW division has admittedly been notoriously weak throughout history with some random good times.

I think the 90’s and early 2000’s were definitely better than today. I don’t think it’s that debatable. 90”s was pretty strong while early 2000’s were decent. Just looking at the top fighters in the 90’s with Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe, they are head and shoulders above what we have now. Bowe was just a bit insane but talent wise still much better. Even an old Foreman I don’t at all see losing to AJ or Wilder. Too good of a chin and hit too hard. I think that AJ and Wilder would be relevant in that era but relevant like Tommy Morrison was relevant.

But to answer the OP, AJ didn’t win the title too early. If you are good enough to win it, it isn’t too early. That’s boxing. You take what you get. If I walked in the ring tomorrow and beat a champion then I was ready.

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Originally Posted by Fenster

For gawds sake shut the funk up about "the good old days." The heavyweights are rubbish today was the spiel in the 80s, then the 90s, then the Wlad era, now today. Always someone waffling about when boxing was better.

7-0-1 Leon Spinks (WBC)
19-5 Bonecruser Smith (WBA)
21-9 Mike Weaver (WBA)
10-1 Michael Bentt (WBO)
Berbick, Thomas, Douglas, Tubbs, Morrison, Hide, Seldon, Akinwande, Rahman, Norris, etc, etc, etc. The fighters back then were no better than today. What made them so good apart from you saw your heroes twat them?

You'd think it was April Fools if most were wheeled out for AJ today. Fury, Ortiz, Povetkin, Wilder, Fury, Miller, Whyte, Takam, Pulev, Del Boy, Breazeale etc? Do you honestly think they couldn't compete with the men Tyson, Holmes, Holyfield, Lennox beat? Laughable.

Depending what era you are talking about. The first list you had are people from the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s. And they aren’t the best ones from the eras either. You just picked some random people. The HW division has admittedly been notoriously weak throughout history with some random good times.

I think the 90’s and early 2000’s were definitely better than today. I don’t think it’s that debatable. 90”s was pretty strong while early 2000’s were decent. Just looking at the top fighters in the 90’s with Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe, they are head and shoulders above what we have now. Bowe was just a bit insane but talent wise still much better. Even an old Foreman I don’t at all see losing to AJ or Wilder. Too good of a chin and hit too hard. I think that AJ and Wilder would be relevant in that era but relevant like Tommy Morrison was relevant.

Yes I picked "world" champions at random from the 80s/90s/00s who were poor (had poor records), that was the point.

You think old slow as molasses Foreman, who got outboxed by Morrison (who changed his style to simply protect his chin), Schulz, Steward and arguably Lou Saverese (lol), and lets not forget was being whooped by Moorer too, would have no trouble with AJ or Wilder? Have you ever seen him fight? Serious? Do you think those men would have beat AJ and Wilder too?

Blimey!!! However, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I'm not arguing whether or not today's champions are better than those of the past, i'm arguing the strength in depth per era barely ever changes, if at all. So Joshua and Wilder could have been champions in any era, depending on circumstances, likewise the standouts from the past (Lewis, Bowe, etc) could have been champions in this. And the weak "champions"/challengers would have been the same regardless of the era (dependent on circumstances)

Just to make it perfectly clear - I'm arguing Wilder/Joshua (2017) would have beat Berbick or Bonecrusher (1986), therefore could have been "world" champion in Tyson's era, i'm not arguing either beat prime Tyson. Likewise they could have beaten Morrison, Bentt, Seldon, Akinwande, etc in the 90s, not that I think either are better than Lewis or Bowe.

It's all due to circumstance.

Ray Mercer, that fought Morrison, would beat Wilder and I think Witherspoon that fought Holmes/Bruno would have overcome AJ at this point.

Originally Posted by Fenster

Just to make it perfectly clear - I'm arguing Wilder/Joshua (2017) would have beat Berbick or Bonecrusher (1986), therefore could have been "world" champion in Tyson's era, i'm not arguing either beat prime Tyson. Likewise they could have beaten Morrison, Bentt, Seldon, Akinwande, etc in the 90s, not that I think either are better than Lewis or Bowe.

It's all due to circumstance.

Don’t disagree with that. I’m just arguing that Wilder and AJ wouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination be the two top guys in the 90’s. I’m not surprised about anybody being a belt holder. There have been absolutely awful belt holders in every division. Like I said in my previous post, they would both be relevant but not top guys. Being a belt holder doesn’t make you a top guy in the division.

Funny how this type of argument (almost) never happens in any other division other than HW. That's because HW is open-ended, and is the only division where an out-of-physical-shape, hard-punching behemoth talks himself into having a puncher's chance against other heavyweights. In every era you have your sprinkling of fat, big-bellied, sometimes over-the-hill wannabes, who have only their huge punch going for them. In HW is where you sometimes get fights where both fighters are afraid to touch each other's chins, for fear of the one-punch KO.

When people start to compare today's HW fighters with yesterday's, the size difference can't be forgotten. Back in Ali's day, 220 was a huge heavyweight. Now it's fairly light. Today's AJ's, Wilder's, Ortiz's, are huge as compared to Ali, Frazier, and others. Lennox and Wlad are better comparisons in size to our current champions. Heights of 6'-6", 6'-7" were unheard of back then. Now they're commonplace. A huge advantage for a HW.

What sets apart eras is the competitiveness of the top fighters. Ali had Frazier, Foreman, Norton, and others. Holmes came around a little later and probably lacked in the competition department. Plus he was a whiner and people didn't like him. Tyson had little competition at first, but had some memorable opponents in Ruddock, Holyfield, and unfortunately for him... Douglas.

Wlad had some good opponents... some bad. His style is what screwed up the division for over a decade. And now, we have competitiveness again..... and the willingness to engage. The great (and confounding) thing about the division is that it's difficult to pick winners with much accuracy sometimes, because any fight can be ended with one haymaker.

On another thread I said AJ needs one or two more fights under his belt. On the other hand would you risk that and lose out on a major payday. Wilder has twice as many fights. We point to the big win over WK who was 40 years old and loss his last fight to Tyson Fury. AJ is still a work in progress. I not saying Wilder is unbeatable believe me he is not. It takes a well schooled fighter to beat him.