Comments Thread For: Anthony Joshua in talks for two-fight deal, Jared Anderson and Dillian Whyte 'discussed'

[Toffee]

You are correct but you can be brave and not have any dog in you. They are not the same. I give him credit for being brave for just getting in the ring. Look at his reaction once he gets caught with a good shot. Whether he is hurt or not he cannot push through. He appears to be content with just giving up. That is lack of having dog in him.

I think you're being a bit unfair to him there. Against Dubois he was being caught with huge shots and he dug his heels in and traded. Absolutely went out on his shield trying to catch Dubois with a knockout punch.

I thought he was next level brave in that fight. It was deserving of a bit of respect. He just got beaten by the better man.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing him fight again. He's lost to some good fighters but this is a step back down - it will be interesting to see how he looks in that company. Remember that he's only 35; that's not ancient for a big heavyweight boxer/puncher.

[IronDanHamza]

No he wasn't a belt holder, he won a fight against some elevated email champion but he didn't keep the belt nor did he defend it, it was immediately vacated because he moved right back down to 40.

So then he was a belt holder. He held a belt, at 147. He beat Collazo and won the belt he was holding at that time. That's a fact. He then vacated it.

Nope.

What do you mean, "nope"? Are you a child?

He was #2, and highly regarded at the time. Just a fact.

No one denied he was an underdog, you said he was a "massive underdog" which is a gross misrepresentation of the truth, in fact the betting he wasn't too far of being even money...

Well, you kind of did when you laughably tried to claim that Ortiz was coming off a "terrible performance" when he was coming off objectively the opposite of that.

Funny how you accuse me of moving goalposts and making excuses and you've literally went from odds to "media opinion".

I never said anything about "betting". I said he was a massive underdog which he absolutely was. Next to no one in boxing gave him a realistic chance of winning that fight.

I didn't mention Vargas once, you did.

Actually you said;

"Who cares if he was #2 context matters, Bradley should've been stopped against Vargas if not for that ret@rded ref"

So you did mention Vargas. To which I said he beat both of them anyway. Also claiming he should have been stopped vs Vargas is plain dumb.

And what is your point about Marquez and Pac? I know they're great fighters, so is Cotto.

The point's quite clear mate, you're saying just because they lost to one another that makes then "vulnerable" which is stupid. Fighters lose. If that's the standard then the 4/5 Kings from the 80's all fought each other after showing vulnerability since they all lost to one another during those string of fights so barely any of those wins they hold over each other are good. It's a brain dead argument.

But that doesn't change the fact Floyd choose to fight them after they'd looked increasingly vulnerable.

It doesn't have to be directly after the fight showing said vulnerability or slowing down but it does indicate a propensity to do so.

Except he didn't do that and fought all 3 of them when they were ranked #2 P4P (in Marquez and Pacquaio's case) and #1 JMW in Cotto's case and all 3 had either impressive wins and performances before and after losing to Floyd also.

That's the reality.

Same as Fury with Usyk and him believing he'd seen reaffirmed a weakness to the body with the Dubois fight, Whyte and the Povetkin fight so on and so forth.

Oh yeah, of course, Fury cherrypicked Usyk in your backwards mind I take it

You are a straight up fucking retard mate.

[kprestore]

I think you're being a bit unfair to him there. Against Dubois he was being caught with huge shots and he dug his heels in and traded. Absolutely went out on his shield trying to catch Dubois with a knockout punch.

I thought he was next level brave in that fight. It was deserving of a bit of respect. He just got beaten by the better man.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing him fight again. He's lost to some good fighters but this is a step back down - it will be interesting to see how he looks in that company. Remember that he's only 35; that's not ancient for a big heavyweight boxer/puncher.

He knocks out to easily, he gives up to easily. I've seen many fighters who give way more effort than AJ. Life's not fair and I call it as I see it. I do not dislike AJ he's just not a Heavyweight who is capable of getting back to the top of the division and it appears that they are using his name to make money.

[IronDanHamza]

Hatton relinquished it all but immediately, Collazo hadn't won the title nor had he defended it, so he wasn't no "champion" to be winning no belt from in the first place.

it's absolutely farcical to claim he (Hatton) is or was a belt holder at the time - "a "belt holder" is a boxer who currently possesses a championship belt or belts, signifying that they are the champion in their respective weight class or division"

I never said he was a belt holder "at the time". I said he was a belt holder at 147 which, he was.

Nope like I said being ratings are irrelevant, Pulev was rated #3-5 for years in the heavyweights, Povetkin, Ortiz so on and so forth ratings are often farcical.

And particularly when you can achieve said rating coming off the back of wins that mean nothing also it's not just the case with heavyweights it's just a recent poignant example.

You can make excuses if you want to that's fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that you've comically tried to say Ortiz was coming off a "terrible performance" which is just plain dumb and objectively not true.

Also Oscar De La Hoya owned The Ring and promoted Floyd for like 8 or 10 fights. I forget how many after he left TR.

And on some occasions he'd be promoting both fighters...

You don't see any conflict of interest here or any reason why all of his opponents just happen to be rated highly?!

Oscar didn't do the rankings and some of those fighters mentioned weren't even GB fighters.

I only mentioned Vargas after you mentioned him so it's not really pertinent, particularly when it comes AFTER the Floyd fight as I pointed out and despite the fact I said Vargas would've stopped Bradley if not for the Ref it's debatable just to reiterate AFTER you mentioned him...

So you did mention him then. Outside of the time I did. Nice one.

Do you not understand the clear delineation between choosing to fight someone when you feel it's reaffirmed they're weak to the body and cherry picking....

Cherry Picking would be people intentionally fighting opponents who are perceived as easier to beat, often those who are older, less skilled, or have poor records, to enhance their own wins and maintain a perceived invincibility, essentially record padding.

Right so you seem to be doubling down on Fury cherrypicking Usyk Says it all about your level of retardation.

Don't compare Floyd to the likes of the "4 kings" SRL came back from years out of the ring to fight Hagler immediately they aren't even in the same league.

I mean, why not?

According to your logic, Leoanrd beat Duran after a "terrible performance" over Estban DeJesus, beat Hagler after a bad performance vs Mugabi

Hearns has almost no good wins, beat Duran after a terrible performance vs Leonard 2, Laing Benitez, Hagler, Benitez after a terrible performance vs Leonard

Hagler more of the same, Hearns after a terrible performance vs Leonard, Duran after a terrible performance vs Laing and Benitez

Duran, Palomino after a terrible performance vs Benitez, Buchanan after terrible performances vs Vasquez and Laguna.

By your logic, basically all of the 4 kings and 5 if you include Benitez, had barely any good wins. Since losing a fight in recent memory is deemed a terrible performance and thus invalidates the win.

That's obviously stupid, but that's the logic you're using.

The long and short of it here is, you're talking shite. Mayweather made a habit of figthing #1 ranked-top 5 ranked fighters, and alos P4P Top 10 fighters, coming off impressive wins. That's what actually happened. The narrative you're trying to push that it was actually the other way round is comical and just obejctively wrong.

[IronDanHamza]

It's definitionally what a "belt holder" is, you can't be a "belt holder" without holding a belt...

Like I said being bounced off the ring twice against a mediocre opponent like Berto isn't impressive feat regardless of your spin.

Don't really care about your opinion about ODLH and his affects on ratings or the fighters I mentioned being GB fighters or not, you do realise I'm talking about his career post ODLH not just the 3 I mentioned.

Yes I mentioned Vargas to correct you, you simpleton...

Are you ret@rded? feel free to explain which of these criteria Usyk fits under - easier to beat than available opponents, older, less skilled, poor record!?

The only one that is arguable is older and it's by a like 16 months but in boxing it's can be just as much about your wear and tear and abuse of your body than age...

And truthfully Usyk has him beat in every category so even if he is older Fury was out of his depth, his perception might not of been that way because of the Dubois fight mind you.

But Fury much like Floyd assessed the risk and assumed Usyk had been adequately softened/exposed by Dubois, perceived to be enough of a risk to enhanced legacy, whilst also representing a way to solidify his position as #1 .

He miscalculated/misjudge his own ability but that doesn't changed the fact he was assuming it was all the previous things I mentioned coalescing at the perfect time...

Both Floyd and Fury teetered the edge of cherry picking and micro-managing the picking of their opponents to the point of "cherry picking".

Again you're comparing stiffs to people who have solidified themselves in an era were there was 2 belts so rankings had more weight for the majority of their respective careers.

It's beyond a joke you even though they were comparable, I don't even know why you'd embarrass yourself like that.

And Hagler as example was atrocious he was on a 37 fight win streak and stopped Mugabi, had beaten Hearns the fight before the Mugabi fight and hearns had beaten

Compared to Pacquiao for example who fought Mayweather coming off a win over Algeri who'd just sc****d byProvodnikov, Tim Bradley who we already know he'd beaten the first fight so realistically was a redundant fight and Brandon Rios coming directly off a loss...

Your wall of text is all over the place and barely coherent. Take a breath you moron.

So for clarity here, your position is the guy that the entire boxing world said Fury was blatantly ducking, In Usyk, is actually in your reality someone that Fury cherrypicked?

This is your stance?

And you're asking me if i'm retarded? Are you sure your parents are not siblings?


As for Hagler, I must touch on this, as you were clearly not alive when those fighters were fighting each other because it was extremely well known that Leonard had no interest in fighting Hagler until he looked beatable vs Mugabi. He even admits that HIMSELF you dumb fuck

Every point you've attempted to make is as good as brain dead and objectively incorrect.

You've got no clue what you're talking about and should quit while you're miles behind.

[IronDanHamza]

Wall of text, it's literally a sentence at a time!? Imbecile.

Do you lack reading comprehension or something, I specifically stated he waited until after the Dubois fight to fight him, allegedly reaffirming his weakness to the body.

Fury could've of fought him instead of Chisora, Ngannou both of those fights are superseded by undisputed.

Instead he waited for him to take more damage (see above) and potentially slow down.

It's not cherrypicking per se as I said it's walking the tight rope...

What have I said that wasn't a fact -

Yes because Hagler looking beatable makes any difference to him having been out the ring for 3 years on drugs and alcohol and jumping straight into elite opposition, right!? bit of critical thinking on your part wouldn't go amiss.

Hatton wasn't a belt holder, he previously held a belt at 47, didn't at the time of fighting Floyd that's definitionally not a belt holder. (if you can even call winning a elevated champions belt a real belt, particularly when they didn't defend it)

Pacman - like I said Brandon Rios lost to Alvarado then fought Pac right after, Bradley shouldn't of won the first fight so shouldn't of gotten the second and Algeri barely got by Provodnikov...

Victor Ortiz - Like I said not only was he bounced off the ring twice he was literally MD to Peterson and moving up in weight to beat what you claim is a great 47 fighter give your head a wobble.

P.S. The SRL point is even more poignant when you think Fury came back to fight seferi seferi or w/e he was called coming out of his drug and alcohol hiatus

"What have I said that's not a fact" You're so chronically out of touch with any kind of reality that it's comical. Almost every point you've attempted to make is the opposite of reality.

You've tried to double down on the Hagler point again, what part of the FACT that Leonard openly wanted nothing to do with Hagler until he had a poor showing vs Mugabi are you lost on? Isn't that the EXACT point you're trying to make in regards to Floyd's career? That he "waited out opponents" or "fought them coming off poor performances" or are you just too galactically stupid to realise that?

Pacquaio was universally considered the 2nd best fighter in the world P4P at that time. You consider that a cherry pick

You're trying to argue Victor Ortiz was coming off a "terrible performance" when he was coming off an upset win over the #2 WW in the world to win the WBC title whilst moving up in weight.

The points you're attempting to make are not only objectively false but they're flat out retarded.

[IronDanHamza]

No I'm not doubling down on anything I'm just stating the facts, I didn't mention "the 4 kings" you did.

You are quite literally doing exactly that. The fact you weren't the one who brought up the comparison is irrelevant.

They were constantly fighting high level fighters in their prime including each other unlike Floyd (well at least beyond 135), that was why I said don't compare them...

Rightttt but it seems the point is contuing to fly directly over your head.

The point is, using your logic, they didn't do that. For the reasons I named (by using your backwards logic)

Again the fact I have to reiterate that SRL was coming out of a 3 year drug and alcohol hiatus is quite frankly alarming. [

Ok, ok, ok, again, for I think the third time now, what part are you not understanding about the fact, yes FACT, that Leonard openly wanted nothing to do with that Hagler fight UNTIL he had a poor peformance vs Mugabi? It's quite LITERALLY a carbon copy of the point you are trying to make.

Leonard openly admits he came back because after watching that fight Hagler looked beatable. You do know this, right?

How is that not the EXACT critisicm you are using elsewhere?

Pacquiaio run of fights was mediocre going into the fight and Floyd delayed the fight as long as humanly possible, the fact you're even trying to defend Floyd is laughable.

Yeah, even though he was universally considered the P4P #2 fighter in the world. It's difficult to cherry pick the second best fighter in the world P4P.

If the #2 welterweight is getting beat by someone mediocre as Ortiz when he's moving up in weight and coming off the terrible performance against Lamont it goes to show how little him being #2 means, regardless of your prattle.

Not only that when Ortiz was almost even money, he in no way getting an "upset win" or a "massive underdog" as you tried to imply previously.

Well you've moved the goal post from your orginial argument which was Ortz was coming off a terrible performance which is obviously plain dumb and objecitvely wrong.

Now you're denying it was an "upset win" which is literally was that by definition as he was the betting underdog. I said he was "massive underdog" because he was, in the sense no one in the boxing media gave him a chance of winning. These are facts.

The fact he was even close to even money coming off a majority draw and moving up in weight, speaks more to how bad the bookies and the sporting world in general viewed Berto at the time.

Now we're just getting the point where you're lying.

You're now actually trying to argue that an undefeated Andre Berto wasn't a highly regarded fighter in 2011? Really?