Comments Thread For: Promoter: I Just Don't See Anthony Joshua Beating Jarrell Miller

[Eff Pandas]

Then we'll just have to disagree. Miller isn't in my top 10. Losing to much better fighters doesn't allow Miller to place over them when all he's doing is fighting bums who are actually shot to pieces.

I find it funny you don't rank Big Baby when he's fighting the same "bums" who are Povetkin's best W's as of late. And I'd even say Price is beneath those guys so Povetkin has done less in more recent history then Big Baby has as I see it.

The L isn't even in THAT much consideration for me. He's not getting any points for losing obviously or really losing many points with me for losing to a guy I thought he'd lose to.

[Sid-Knee]

Your contradicting yourself. Thats my point, that the standards as a whole are relevant. Wilder is a top guy right now. MIller has history as a kick boxer also and has whiskers.

What do you think that these guys come up are world beaters in a few years and every one lives happily ever after in boxing land? Who is going to give guys good fights? and one can only fight the people who are around to fight.

Washington actually has some skills, most fighters today are athletes and not fighters in the sense that they were committed to boxing from a young age. Wilder was a Bballer, AJ came up but was not into boxing as a youth.... The exceptions are actually Miller who has history as a fighter before boxing, and Fury who was brought up fighting. And both guys move well, Fury moves very well and has skills because of that...something alot of people here don't get.

Its the new paradigm. In the early days the cross overs, guys like too tall Jones for example, did not get far as boxers. The guys were too strong and had been fighters from the get go so ex footballers, etc could not compete. Today? these guys can compete because the division is not that strong.

Finally your opinion of Washington is misinformed. Its simple: watch him in the ring and take inventory: He moves relatively well, especially for being 250 plus, he is in shape, has a good jab, combo punches fairly well, with decent hand speed for a heavy weight, he has some defensive skills, I mean no he isn't going to be the champ tomorrow but the guy has skills that can be empircally validated. Also he was never down until Wilder and even with Miller is corner threw in the towel.

I never contradicted myself though.

You said Washington showed Miller has good whiskers even though the dude can't even punch. You then tried to justify Washington even further by saying he won the early rounds against Wilder. I pointed out that winning rounds isn't hard against Wilder because the guy is so poor, not because Washington is good. So yeah.

Washington is poor no matter how much you want to say otherwise. Calling him decent would be over estimating him. He won't beat any Heavy that matters in the top 20. He's rubbish.

[Sid-Knee]

I find it funny you don't rank Big Baby when he's fighting the same "bums" who are Povetkin's best W's as of late. And I'd even say Price is beneath those guys so Povetkin has done less in more recent history then Big Baby has as I see it.

The L isn't even in THAT much consideration for me. He's not getting any points for losing obviously or really losing many points with me for losing to a guy I thought he'd lose to.

Povetkin beat those bums when they were fresher though, so he's definitely above Miller. And that's without everything Povetkin has done in the past to clearly put him above the likes of Miller.

The only people who would put Miller above him reside in the US. No one outside of the country would come close to doing that. So you're in the minority there.

[billeau2]

I never contradicted myself though.

You said Washington showed Miller has good whiskers even though the dude can't even punch. You then tried to justify Washington even further by saying he won the early rounds against Wilder. I pointed out that winning rounds isn't hard against Wilder because the guy is so poor, not because Washington is good. So yeah.

Washington is poor no matter how much you want to say otherwise. Calling him decent would be over estimating him. He won't beat any Heavy that matters in the top 20. He's rubbish.

You said that washington's performance against Wilder was due to wilder's skill level no? Meaning that the level of competition in the division is such that a top 5 guy, one of the very top is "bad" enough to be competative against Washington, all your words, not mine. Therefore it makes sense that to fight decently against Washington means that in the level of skill today it is a victory that compares nicely to the performance of Wilder.

So you cannot have it both ways: either Washington is rubbish and not any indication of performance against the top of the division, or Washington, rubbish or not is good enough to present a problem to one of the top fighters in the division and therefore a decent victory against a tough opponent.

Make up your mind. Again Ill repeat myself. The relative merits of a fighter has to be seen as a function of the division as a whole. We are not looking at Washington in a vacuum. We are looking at how he stacks up in the present division against the top of the division, etc. He apparently has enough skills to fight well against a very bad Deontay Wilder, meaning a very bad Miller did well against a comparative opponent. Notice how I could call them "great", "very bad" etc and it would not even make a difference.

Truth is your more interested in rubbishing Washington than even understanding my point. Did the guy piss in your corn flakes? he obviously has skills, watch tapes of him. But whatever your opinion of him is, he is a good victory for Miller considering the relative merits of Wilder.

[Eff Pandas]

Povetkin beat those bums when they were fresher though, so he's definitely above Miller. And that's without everything Povetkin has done in the past to clearly put him above the likes of Miller.

Both fights were 2 years or less after Povetkin beat them & Big Baby was the only guy who beat both of them post-Povetkin. I don't deny they weren't a lil more worn down when they got to Big Baby cuz 2 years is 2 years, but they weren't spring chickens when Povetkin beat them either.

The only people who would put Miller above him reside in the US. No one outside of the country would come close to doing that. So you're in the minority there.

Fair play if you don't wanna rank Big Baby OVER Povetkin. I say right in the rankings I made that I couldn't argue with my 5ish guys (Ortiz, Big Baby & Povetkin) being in any order. So sh^t you catch me 3 weeks from now or even after todays Big Baby fight & maybe I'll have Big Baby down below Povetkin or maybe out of the 5ish range officially.

Thing I don't get is how you don't even got Big Baby in the top 12 ffs when his best wins are the same best wins your #4 guy has. I think you're being more biased than I am by a mile.

[billeau2]

Povetkin beat those bums when they were fresher though, so he's definitely above Miller. And that's without everything Povetkin has done in the past to clearly put him above the likes of Miller.

The only people who would put Miller above him reside in the US. No one outside of the country would come close to doing that. So you're in the minority there.

Aha! there it is! You know naive as I am. I knowed you was an engrish guy but said..."Give this poster the benefit of the doubt here, he honestly feels the way he does about different fighters because maybe he just does not understand how to look at things as a whole, or the relative merits of one variable within a system of many variables...." But no its that ****** BS of Fighters from one country are better than another and everyone is a cultural ********** which is the only reason they would have an opinion regarding one fighter or another.

What a silly way of thinking. A person's country has nothing to do with why they love a fighter unless one is really immature. Miller is a prospect coming up, Povatkin is a veteran fighter coming down, they are not really even comparable.

[Sid-Knee]

You said that washington's performance against Wilder was due to wilder's skill level no? Meaning that the level of competition in the division is such that a top 5 guy, one of the very top is "bad" enough to be competative against Washington, all your words, not mine. Therefore it makes sense that to fight decently against Washington means that in the level of skill today it is a victory that compares nicely to the performance of Wilder.

So you cannot have it both ways: either Washington is rubbish and not any indication of performance against the top of the division, or Washington, rubbish or not is good enough to present a problem to one of the top fighters in the division and therefore a decent victory against a tough opponent.

Make up your mind. Again Ill repeat myself. The relative merits of a fighter has to be seen as a function of the division as a whole. We are not looking at Washington in a vacuum. We are looking at how he stacks up in the present division against the top of the division, etc. He apparently has enough skills to fight well against a very bad Deontay Wilder, meaning a very bad Miller did well against a comparative opponent. Notice how I could call them "great", "very bad" etc and it would not even make a difference.

Truth is your more interested in rubbishing Washington than even understanding my point. Did the guy piss in your corn flakes? he obviously has skills, watch tapes of him. But whatever your opinion of him is, he is a good victory for Miller considering the relative merits of Wilder.

Presenting a problem to Wilder doesn't make you good because a good few bums have presented problems to him. What part of that don't you understand? Wilder's boxing "Ability" is shocking. He's power and nothing else. Without that power we wouldn't have even heard of him because he would have been beaten by the first decentish bum he fought.

Miller dominated because his boxing isn't as shocking as Wilder's is. The top 15 in the division excluding Wilder dominates and knocks Washington out. Washington is pure garbage. Winning some rounds against Wilder does not indicate you are any good, because any bum with the slightest bit of skill can take rounds off him and cause him problems. We've seen it before with Splika. Bloody Molina rocked him and caused him problems for crying out loud. So no, he's **** full stop.

[Sid-Knee]

Both fights were 2 years or less after Povetkin beat them & Big Baby was the only guy who beat both of them post-Povetkin. I don't deny they weren't a lil more worn down when they got to Big Baby cuz 2 years is 2 years, but they weren't spring chickens when Povetkin beat them either.



Fair play if you don't wanna rank Big Baby OVER Povetkin. I say right in the rankings I made that I couldn't argue with my 5ish guys (Ortiz, Big Baby & Povetkin) being in any order. So sh^t you catch me 3 weeks from now or even after todays Big Baby fight & maybe I'll have Big Baby down below Povetkin or maybe out of the 5ish range officially.

Thing I don't get is how you don't even got Big Baby in the top 12 ffs when his best wins are the same best wins your #4 guy has. I think you're being more biased than I am by a mile.

I'm looking at Povetkin's head to head capabilities as well, just like we do with Ortiz. They're both better and more proven than Miller and would beat him if they fought each other. Miller basically has done nothing. Not even a decent win. Sorry.

[Sid-Knee]

Aha! there it is! You know naive as I am. I knowed you was an engrish guy but said..."Give this poster the benefit of the doubt here, he honestly feels the way he does about different fighters because maybe he just does not understand how to look at things as a whole, or the relative merits of one variable within a system of many variables...." But no its that ****** BS of Fighters from one country are better than another and everyone is a cultural ********** which is the only reason they would have an opinion regarding one fighter or another.

What a silly way of thinking. A person's country has nothing to do with why they love a fighter unless one is really immature. Miller is a prospect coming up, Povatkin is a veteran fighter coming down, they are not really even comparable.

No one outside of the states would have Miller above Povetkin, that would be ******. It has nothing to do with being bias. But it is ironic that two Americans have no problem with putting Miller above Povetkin even though Miller has done less and would lose in a head to head fight. So the bias isn't with me here i'm afraid.

[billeau2]

Presenting a problem to Wilder doesn't make you good because a good few bums have presented problems to him. What part of that don't you understand? Wilder's boxing "Ability" is shocking. He's power and nothing else. Without that power we wouldn't have even heard of him because he would have been beaten by the first decentish bum he fought.

Miller dominated because his boxing isn't as shocking as Wilder's is. The top 15 in the division excluding Wilder dominates and knocks Washington out. Washington is pure garbage. Winning some rounds against Wilder does not indicate you are any good, because any bum with the slightest bit of skill can take rounds off him and cause him problems. We've seen it before with Splika. Bloody Molina rocked him and caused him problems for crying out loud. So no, he's **** full stop.

I am going to assume my point is going over your head, not your fault, you just do not seem to understand the point being made. Its all good.