Comments Thread For: Joseph Parker is Willing To Fight Winner or Loser of Bellew-Haye

[EnglishOxide]

Parker should fight Hughie Fury again. Would get beat easily this time.

[Redgloveman]

Spanked? not a mark on him except from AJ's illegal elbow.

He got completely outboxed and didn't cope with the pressure that was being applied. Spent most of the night on the back foot circling away from Joshua and didn't establish anything effective.

I'm not particularly a Joshua fan but the fight wasn't even close. You were talking about Parker knocking Joshua out for months before the fight happened.

You were wrong. It happens, but don't try to make excuses because everyone can see through them (because they're crap excuses)

[Jkp]

He got completely outboxed and didn't cope with the pressure that was being applied. Spent most of the night on the back foot circling away from Joshua and didn't establish anything effective.

I'm not particularly a Joshua fan but the fight wasn't even close. You were talking about Parker knocking Joshua out for months before the fight happened.

You were wrong. It happens, but don't try to make excuses because everyone can see through them (because they're crap excuses)

Your clearly know nothing about boxing if you think he got completely out boxed. Go read some of the reviews by credible boxing writers before saying such garbage.

[Redgloveman]

Your clearly know nothing about boxing if you think he got completely out boxed. Go read some of the reviews by credible boxing writers before saying such garbage.

Send me a link rather than making unsubstantiated claims

[Jkp]

Send me a link rather than making unsubstantiated claims

Here you go...

This is first article I googled. The expert writer had them level at the end of round 10.

Your a muppet.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/li...ht-boxing-live

[Redgloveman]

Here you go...

This is first article I googled. The expert writer had them level at the end of round 10.

Your a muppet.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/li...ht-boxing-live

See how much more persuasive your argument is when you actually bother to back it up with something?

It's still a weak argument, managing to find one person on the internet to back up your view isn't exactly hard. It also says a lot that your "expert" is a guy I've never heard of (and the Guardian is the paper that I read)

The Guardian's main boxing correspondent is Kevin Mitchell. I'd hardly call Mitchell an expert either, but he's considered more qualified than that Bryan guy you've found by the publication that they both write for.

Mitchell wrote:

"Anthony Joshua, taken the distance for the first time in 21 paid bouts, collected a third world title belt when he cruised to a convincing if drama-free win over the WBO champion, Joseph Parker, and looks in good shape to raise his game for what will be a more demanding assignment against Deontay Wilder.

Two of the judges saw it 118-110, and the third had it 119-109 – a bit harsh on the New Zealander, who might have had a share of the sixth and a shout of stealing the seventh in a fleeting period of success. But the verdict was, overall, fair. It was a technical fight, a clinical victory."

Even trying to be kind Mitchell can't make a strong argument for giving Parker 3 rounds.

Anthony Joshua, taken the distance for the first time in 21 paid bouts, coll…

Similarly Gareth A Davis (a better known correspondent than either of them) only gave Parker 1 round whilst providing his live scores.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2...fight-updates/

The BBC's reporter wrote

"[Joshua's] WBO title always looked like it would end up round Joshua's waist as a significant points gap opened up, with the favourite landing a hard left uppercut in round eight and two stinging left hooks early in the 10th."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/boxing/43556460

From the Independent:

"A cut opened up near Parker's left eye in round 10, and although he produced his most effective punch of the contest in the next round, Joshua had already done more than enough."

https://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...-36763067.html

So you're beginning to see that the wider narrative is that Joshua cruised to an easy win. Even then these writers are being kind if you ask me. It wasn't a good showing by Joshua but he easily did enough and Parker never pushed him. In my view Parker didn't look like a genuine threat at any point and took shots even on the retreat. His post match interview where he sheepishly celebrated not getting knocked down said a lot to me - he seemed to exceed his own expectations by not getting his ass handed to him.

Oh, and it should have been "you're a muppet", by the way.

[Jkp]

See how much more persuasive your argument is when you actually bother to back it up with something?

It's still a weak argument, managing to find one person on the internet to back up your view isn't exactly hard. It also says a lot that your "expert" is a guy I've never heard of (and the Guardian is the paper that I read)

The Guardian's main boxing correspondent is Kevin Mitchell. I'd hardly call Mitchell an expert either, but he's considered more qualified than that Bryan guy you've found by the publication that they both write for.

Mitchell wrote:

"Anthony Joshua, taken the distance for the first time in 21 paid bouts, collected a third world title belt when he cruised to a convincing if drama-free win over the WBO champion, Joseph Parker, and looks in good shape to raise his game for what will be a more demanding assignment against Deontay Wilder.

Two of the judges saw it 118-110, and the third had it 119-109 – a bit harsh on the New Zealander, who might have had a share of the sixth and a shout of stealing the seventh in a fleeting period of success. But the verdict was, overall, fair. It was a technical fight, a clinical victory."

Even trying to be kind Mitchell can't make a strong argument for giving Parker 3 rounds.

Anthony Joshua, taken the distance for the first time in 21 paid bouts, coll…

Similarly Gareth A Davis (a better known correspondent than either of them) only gave Parker 1 round whilst providing his live scores.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2...fight-updates/

The BBC's reporter wrote

"[Joshua's] WBO title always looked like it would end up round Joshua's waist as a significant points gap opened up, with the favourite landing a hard left uppercut in round eight and two stinging left hooks early in the 10th."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/boxing/43556460

From the Independent:

"A cut opened up near Parker's left eye in round 10, and although he produced his most effective punch of the contest in the next round, Joshua had already done more than enough."

https://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...-36763067.html

So you're beginning to see that the wider narrative is that Joshua cruised to an easy win. Even then these writers are being kind if you ask me. It wasn't a good showing by Joshua but he easily did enough and Parker never pushed him. In my view Parker didn't look like a genuine threat at any point and took shots even on the retreat. His post match interview where he sheepishly celebrated not getting knocked down said a lot to me - he seemed to exceed his own expectations by not getting his ass handed to him.

Oh, and it should have been "you're a muppet", by the way.

No where in those articles did it say parker was "completely outboxed" .

AJ was never pushed, but he needed to cheat repeatedly pull his tape off his gloves because he was completely
gassed.