How important and relevant has it been in modern boxing to retain that Zero? Is it that important in selling a fighter or has it actually turned a lot of people off watching more evenly matched or challenging opponents dismissed in favour of more predictable outcomes?
Interesting example of how the argument is often misrepresented here
https://www.boxingnewsandviews.com/2...modern-boxing/
In it the author argues that in facing Ortiz and Fury, Wilder faced two of the toughest opponents in boxing. This for the writer, and many who follow boxing ( including the casuals or noobs etc) represents an example of Wilder as now having faced more dangerous opponents than Joshua. Has he really though? An old medication reliant Ortiz and Fury looking far from impressive in his long comeback from inactivity and being overweight. Fury was never going to be a big risk one punch wise and will now be held up as a dangerous opponent again in the rematch.
I don't want to just focus on Wilder and the article but it highlights how the whole debate is often discussed with any real ideas of objectivity thrown out of the window.
Not even going to mention Floyd right now but he can't really be avoided in any meaningful discussion of the big zero.
Bookmarks