digzee wrote:Because there are boxers working there ass off for an opportunity but then others who are gifted the opportunity because they have a big promoter.
Like who?
Haskins bet both Hall and McDonnell and they got an opportunity before him, there are loads of contenders who can only get a title shot by going through a mandatory route while others don't have to.
Contrary to romantic fantasies, we are not born equal, life is not fair, and equal justice is an aspiration.
Tanzio wrote:
You hold beating Stiverne for one of many belts against him? Team Wilder is doing something right, even if it is just building a solid hater base.
Do you think he earned his title fight?
Yes.
Of course, I consider his belt no more that decorative.
You really need to relieve that Wilder erection.
What's the point in writing that? Is it supposed to be witty? Is this where i'm supposed to take the piss out of you? Grow up.
digzee wrote:Haskins bet both Hall and McDonnell and they got an opportunity before him, there are loads of contenders who can only get a title shot by going through a mandatory route while others don't have to.
Haskins got his opportunity eventually.
Fighters getting opportunities when they are clearly not good enough (like Arreola), is much worse than fighters getting opportunities who are good enough (like Wilder).
digzee wrote:
Do you think he earned his title fight?
Yes.
Of course, I consider his belt no more that decorative.
You really need to relieve that Wilder erection.
What's the point in writing that? Is it supposed to be witty? Is this where i'm supposed to take the piss out of you? Grow up.
It is accurate. You have no legitimate argument. You parade Brook out onstage, absentmindedly. You just keep asking pointless questions. Go paste a Wilder photo on your heavy bag, or on a dart board.
Wilder owns a worthless belt. He is a very marketable commodity. Pro boxing is like every other professional sport on the planet, about making money. Wilder's path has not been what I would have liked to see but here he is and the proof will be in his future, not his past.
Wilder is fighting Szpilka, who is a legitimate contender. Who knows, maybe Deonte will be exposed and you will have your climax.
Last edited by Tanzio on 05 Jan 2016, 12:07, edited 1 time in total.
digzee wrote:So if you give Wilder a pass then you should give Brook a pass but you don't, as you've already admitted your a Brook hater.
No, the statistics support Wilder.
No, they show they have both won 35 fights and Brook is 1 year younger and started his carer at a younger age, now work out who has faced more top 50 opponents then tell me who the statistic's favour.
Szpilka is a decent talent in terms of hand and foot speed. He also has decent punching power and a pretty decent boxing IQ. However where he fails terribly is his punch resistance. His chin is dire and the first significant punch that Wilder lands, the fight will be over.
digzee wrote:So if you give Wilder a pass then you should give Brook a pass but you don't, as you've already admitted your a Brook hater.
No, the statistics support Wilder.
No, they show they have both won 35 fights and Brook is 1 year younger and started his carer at a younger age, now work out who has faced more top 50 opponents then tell me who the statistic's favour.
The statistics = they both need to get off their asses and get to work.
This will be Wilder's fourth fight in 12 months. Do you even have a clue when (let alone who) Brook will fight next?
digzee wrote:So if you give Wilder a pass then you should give Brook a pass but you don't, as you've already admitted your a Brook hater.
No, the statistics support Wilder.
No, they show they have both won 35 fights and Brook is 1 year younger and started his carer at a younger age, now work out who has faced more top 50 opponents then tell me who the statistic's favour.
That's a little bit of an unfair comparison. Brook isnt quite a year younger. Brook turns 30 in May, Wilder turned 30 at the end of october.
Also, Brook has been boxing since he was a kid. Wilder took up boxing when he was like 19/20. Wilder turned pro in November 2008, Brook Turned pro in September 2004.
digzee wrote:No, they show they have both won 35 fights and Brook is 1 year younger and started his carer at a younger age, now work out who has faced more top 50 opponents then tell me who the statistic's favour.
The statistics favour Wilder.
Wilder has been a pro over 4 years less long than Brook, he's more active and he's currently fighting more respectable opposition than Brook.
Brook is currently ranked higher P4P, but Wilder is moving in the right direction, fighting half decent opposition and catching him. Whereas Brook is disappointing everyone, fighting opponents that do next to nothing for his record and he's dropping down the P4P rankings.
conty22 wrote:It makes me mad . He is number ranked one in POLAND . He is pretty confident and he is not a school teacher as most of Wilder's opponents.
Povetkin fought slow robotic Wach and no one had problem lol . Szpilka is much dangerous than Wach .
Wach is very slow , he has 50% KO ratio over bums !
Wach is a simply punching bag for any top30 boxer! All he has is a chin .
People know Wach only because he was a punching bag for Wladimir.
There is notting impressive about Wach and Szpilka would beat him via UD.
Szpilka won Against Adamek .
Adamek houlds some notable wins like against Steve Cunninham or Eddie Chambers
Only because Wilder is facing him. This is the equivalent of Triple G facing Willie Monroe but not one person put Golovkin down for doing so.
Double standards do exist in people who claim they are "fans" of boxing, when in reality they are just fans of certain fighters and not of the sport in its' entirety.
conty22 wrote:It makes me mad . He is number ranked one in POLAND . He is pretty confident and he is not a school teacher as most of Wilder's opponents.
Povetkin fought slow robotic Wach and no one had problem lol . Szpilka is much dangerous than Wach .
Wach is very slow , he has 50% KO ratio over bums !
Wach is a simply punching bag for any top30 boxer! All he has is a chin .
People know Wach only because he was a punching bag for Wladimir.
There is notting impressive about Wach and Szpilka would beat him via UD.
Szpilka won Against Adamek .
Adamek houlds some notable wins like against Steve Cunninham or Eddie Chambers
Only because Wilder is facing him. This is the equivalent of Triple G facing Willie Monroe but not one person put Golovkin down for doing so.
Absolutely not true.
Double standards do exist in people who claim they are "fans" of boxing, when in reality they are just fans of certain fighters and not of the sport in its' entirety.
Szpilka is a fringe contender, and arguably the best boxer Wilder has ever faced (I think Stiverne is overrated), or at least the second best.
He's definitely better than the two journeymen Wilder faced since winning the belt. Deontay disgraced himself and the WBC belt by choosing Molina and Duhaupas.
Wach is bigger and stronger, and wouldn't have been stopped by Jennings. Povetkin's previous two opponents Perez and Takam were both ranked in the top ten HWs when he fought them.
Wilder SHOULD be fighting better opponents than Povetkin, because he's the WBC titleholder and Povetkin is just a contender. But his opposition has been disgracefully poor.
I think Szpilka has a chance of winning of about 40%, not because he's a top HW (he's obviously not, as his loss to Jennings showed us), but because Wilder really isn't very good either.
I think Szpilka is a more than acceptable voluntary defence. He's a top 15 guy, who has been in some good fights. This is more acceptable to me than the proposed Alvarez vs Rosado, the Ward vs Smith, and the Bradley vs Rios fights.
I understand the argument that he should have had these fights before winning titles, but thats the WBC's fault as much as Deontay and his team.
