Joshua vs Breazeale

[Stuarty]

I think it's best for both of us if we stopped engaging him. He's almost as bad as Fergus. Hopefully Horse goes the same way.

You are a terrible poster.

You're not a cock all of the time but when you're in one of your moods you're an awful poster as well. Stones n glass houses n all that....

[Stuarty]

You seem like an anal lunatic but live and let live eh...

No Wilders opposition was even more carefully selected than AJs up until Stiverne.

Wilder's pre-Stiverne record was much better than Joshua's, whether it was carefully selected or not.

Joshua's record is exceedingly poor. He wasn't even a good British or Commonwealth champion. He didn't fight any of his main rivals.

In another fight or two AJ will likely have to fight Parker then he'll be looking at Fury/Wlad or Haye. Maybe even the winner of Deontay/Povetkin. That puts Wilders padded record to shame. Of course AJ could well lose in any of they fights. Nobody that knows the sport doesn't think AJ is anything other than a work in progress. Hard to match because he's bowling people over.

Joshua does not deserve credit for fights that have not taken place yet.

Joshua is not hard to match. Everyone in the division wants to fight him.

He is hard to match proper. They could bring in Stiverne a guy that is meant to give him rounds and there's every chance AJ catches him early and blows him away!! In that sense he IS hard to match.

[Horse]

I didn't say he did deserve credit. That would be daft. It was merely an observation.

You implied it.

Wilders standard of opponent until Stiverne was honking and not better than AJs. Dress it up however you like.

Scott is better than anyone that Joshua has fought.

No he's not been a good British champ but he can't be blamed for that can he? The best big guys in the country are beyond that domestic level. Would you rather he fought Dave Allen or John McDermott, Price or Sexton maybe? Cornish again? You're criticising his calibre of opponent but in the same breath you're giving him stick for not being a good British champion? Makes no sense. He holds a world belt now.

I'd rather that he'd have kept the British title and fought Price and Chisora, rather than Martin and Breazeale.

The British title was a dangerous title to keep hold of, so he won that silly little trinket that he can defend against anyone instead.

[jamesmcdonnell]

As a first defence, I have no problem with this. I won't be paying for PPV at all, nor attend it, In fact my work offered to buy VIP tickets for this fight as a bonus for hitting my target- when I found out they were 1000 each, I told them to save their money and do something else.

However, I'm happy Joshua is keeping busy and not sitting out for 6 months after winning the title. It's not like there's really much talent out there for him to fight at the moment.

I'd have just asked for the cash

New PC and posh company meal out...

[Horse]

He is hard to match proper. They could bring in Stiverne a guy that is meant to give him rounds and there's every chance AJ catches him early and blows him away!! In that sense he IS hard to match.

So they bring in a guy that he is far more likely to blow away early instead?

[Stuarty]

I didn't say he did deserve credit. That would be daft. It was merely an observation.

You implied it.

Wilders standard of opponent until Stiverne was honking and not better than AJs. Dress it up however you like.

Scott is better than anyone that Joshua has fought.

No he's not been a good British champ but he can't be blamed for that can he? The best big guys in the country are beyond that domestic level. Would you rather he fought Dave Allen or John McDermott, Price or Sexton maybe? Cornish again? You're criticising his calibre of opponent but in the same breath you're giving him stick for not being a good British champion? Makes no sense. He holds a world belt now.

I'd rather that he'd have kept the British title and fought Price and Chisora, rather than Martin and Breazeale.

The British title was a dangerous title to keep hold of, so he won that silly little trinket that he can defend against anyone instead.

The British title is more dangerous title to keep a hold of than the IBF? Are you for real? Chisora was offered the fight and chose to fight Pulev in an eliminator. As I said the best guys from these shores are above domestic level. You are contradicting yourself you plum. I do however agree his belt is nothing more than a trinket. Everyone knows who the champion is. No arguements there.

[Stuarty]

As a first defence, I have no problem with this. I won't be paying for PPV at all, nor attend it, In fact my work offered to buy VIP tickets for this fight as a bonus for hitting my target- when I found out they were 1000 each, I told them to save their money and do something else.

However, I'm happy Joshua is keeping busy and not sitting out for 6 months after winning the title. It's not like there's really much talent out there for him to fight at the moment.

I'd have just asked for the cash

New PC and posh company meal out...

Nice deal mate Better make target lol

[Stuarty]

I didn't say he did deserve credit. That would be daft. It was merely an observation.

You implied it.

Wilders standard of opponent until Stiverne was honking and not better than AJs. Dress it up however you like.

Scott is better than anyone that Joshua has fought.

No he's not been a good British champ but he can't be blamed for that can he? The best big guys in the country are beyond that domestic level. Would you rather he fought Dave Allen or John McDermott, Price or Sexton maybe? Cornish again? You're criticising his calibre of opponent but in the same breath you're giving him stick for not being a good British champion? Makes no sense. He holds a world belt now.

I'd rather that he'd have kept the British title and fought Price and Chisora, rather than Martin and Breazeale.

The British title was a dangerous title to keep hold of, so he won that silly little trinket that he can defend against anyone instead.

So you would take Scott to beat Whyte and Martin? Nah mate. Martin was bad but not that bad. Whyte would whip Scott hands down.

[BitPlayer]

You seem like an anal lunatic but live and let live eh...

No Wilders opposition was even more carefully selected than AJs up until Stiverne.

Wilder's pre-Stiverne record was much better than Joshua's, whether it was carefully selected or not.

Joshua's record is exceedingly poor. He wasn't even a good British or Commonwealth champion. He didn't fight any of his main rivals.

In another fight or two AJ will likely have to fight Parker then he'll be looking at Fury/Wlad or Haye. Maybe even the winner of Deontay/Povetkin. That puts Wilders padded record to shame. Of course AJ could well lose in any of they fights. Nobody that knows the sport doesn't think AJ is anything other than a work in progress. Hard to match because he's bowling people over.

Joshua does not deserve credit for fights that have not taken place yet.

Joshua is not hard to match. Everyone in the division wants to fight him.

He is hard to match proper. They could bring in Stiverne a guy that is meant to give him rounds and there's every chance AJ catches him early and blows him away!! In that sense he IS hard to match.

Atleast blowing someone like Stiverne away would actually be impressive and he'd probably atleast need to go a few to wear him down, he's fighting a guy that lost every round and got knocked down to a 6"1' 43 year old, and only won because his opponent bit his tongue and couldn't breath.

[Stuarty]

Wilder's pre-Stiverne record was much better than Joshua's, whether it was carefully selected or not.

Joshua's record is exceedingly poor. He wasn't even a good British or Commonwealth champion. He didn't fight any of his main rivals.

Joshua does not deserve credit for fights that have not taken place yet.

Joshua is not hard to match. Everyone in the division wants to fight him.

He is hard to match proper. They could bring in Stiverne a guy that is meant to give him rounds and there's every chance AJ catches him early and blows him away!! In that sense he IS hard to match.

Atleast blowing someone like Stiverne away would actually be impressive and he'd probably atleast need to go a few to wear him down, he's fighting a guy that lost every round and got knocked down to a 6"1' 43 year old, and only won because his opponent bit his tongue and couldn't breath.

Stiverne would be a better fight. I've said that a few times. All I'm saying is he's hard to match because he's knocking people out. Again... An observation.

[Horse]

The British title is more dangerous title to keep a hold of than the IBF? Are you for real? Chisora was offered the fight and chose to fight Pulev in an eliminator. As I said the best guys from these shores are above domestic level. You are contradicting yourself you plum. I do however agree his belt is nothing more than a trinket. Everyone knows who the champion is. No arguements there.

Martin was weaker than several of the best domestic fighters out there and there are always plenty of jokers that get ranked to fight.

Being better than domestic level doesn't mean that they can't be made the British mandatory challenger.

Lots of dangerous domestic opponents out there who might well love to get their hands on Joshua, better to get a silly ABC title as quickly as possible.

[BitPlayer]

I didn't say he did deserve credit. That would be daft. It was merely an observation.

You implied it.

Wilders standard of opponent until Stiverne was honking and not better than AJs. Dress it up however you like.

Scott is better than anyone that Joshua has fought.

No he's not been a good British champ but he can't be blamed for that can he? The best big guys in the country are beyond that domestic level. Would you rather he fought Dave Allen or John McDermott, Price or Sexton maybe? Cornish again? You're criticising his calibre of opponent but in the same breath you're giving him stick for not being a good British champion? Makes no sense. He holds a world belt now.

I'd rather that he'd have kept the British title and fought Price and Chisora, rather than Martin and Breazeale.

The British title was a dangerous title to keep hold of, so he won that silly little trinket that he can defend against anyone instead.

So you would take Scott to beat Whyte and Martin? Nah mate. Martin was bad but not that bad. Whyte would whip Scott hands down.

I would, assuming they haven't improved, Whyte is very sloppy, Scott could avoid most of his punche, Whyte's not that big a puncher and doesn't have half the engine Chisora used to batter him, I think he could out point him. I'm not convinced Martin has the power and strength either, I think he'd just get outboxed.

That said I think against Joshua he would just be a bit too easy to bully and outmuscle, and wouldn't make a great fight.

[Horse]

So you would take Scott to beat Whyte and Martin? Nah mate. Martin was bad but not that bad. Whyte would whip Scott hands down.

Yes, I would. He is a far more proven fighter than either of them and is ranked in the world's top 15 based on that.

He would be hands down Joshua's best opponent to date.

Martin and Whyte might not even be English title level fighters. They are very much unproven.

[Stuarty]

You implied it.

Scott is better than anyone that Joshua has fought.

I'd rather that he'd have kept the British title and fought Price and Chisora, rather than Martin and Breazeale.

The British title was a dangerous title to keep hold of, so he won that silly little trinket that he can defend against anyone instead.

So you would take Scott to beat Whyte and Martin? Nah mate. Martin was bad but not that bad. Whyte would whip Scott hands down.

I would, assuming they haven't improved, Whyte is very sloppy, Scott could avoid most of his punche, Whyte's not that big a puncher and doesn't have half the engine Chisora used to batter him, I think he could out point him. I'm not convinced Martin has the power and strength either, I think he'd just get outboxed.

That said I think against Joshua he would just be a bit too easy to bully and outmuscle, and wouldn't make a great fight.

Disagree. Both Martin and Whyte beat Scott IMO. Scott would be doing well to get out the second round against AJ.

[Stuarty]

So you would take Scott to beat Whyte and Martin? Nah mate. Martin was bad but not that bad. Whyte would whip Scott hands down.

Yes, I would. He is a far more proven fighter than either of them and is ranked in the world's top 15 based on that.

He would be hands down Joshua's best opponent to date.

Martin and Whyte might not even be English title level fighters. They are very much unproven.

Whyte would beat Scott and so would Martin. You're being far too kind to a mediocre fighter here.

[Horse]

Whyte would beat Scott and so would Martin. You're being far too kind to a mediocre fighter here.

That's what you are doing.

Martin and Whyte are not good fighters.

[Stuarty]

So you would take Scott to beat Whyte and Martin? Nah mate. Martin was bad but not that bad. Whyte would whip Scott hands down.

Yes, I would. He is a far more proven fighter than either of them and is ranked in the world's top 15 based on that.

He would be hands down Joshua's best opponent to date.

Martin and Whyte might not even be English title level fighters. They are very much unproven.

What's the world top 15 got to do with anything? Why are you using that as an example when your slating Breazeale who is also in the top 15.... Again very contradictory.

[Stuarty]

Whyte would beat Scott and so would Martin. You're being far too kind to a mediocre fighter here.

That's what you are doing.

Martin and Whyte are not good fighters.

Whyte might well prove to be a good fighter. I wouldn't say he is a bad fighter would you? Martin shouldn't ever have been near a world strap but again he might turn out to be better than people think.

[Horse]

What's the world top 15 got to do with anything? Why are you using that as an example when your slating Breazeale who is also in the top 15.... Again very contradictory.

I'm talking about the world's top 15, not the IBF's bozo rankings.

Not contradictory at all.

[Horse]

Whyte might well prove to be a good fighter. I wouldn't say he is a bad fighter would you? Martin shouldn't ever have been near a world strap but again he might turn out to be better than people think.

Scott might turn out to be better than people think, although he already is.

Scott is very underrated.

Whyte and Martin are highly overrated based on what they have actually done.

[Stuarty]

What's the world top 15 got to do with anything? Why are you using that as an example when your slating Breazeale who is also in the top 15.... Again very contradictory.

I'm talking about the world's top 15, not the IBF's bozo rankings.

Not contradictory at all.

What is the world top 15? Boxrec? The ring? Boxrec has Scott ahead of Chisora who beat him. They mean nothing. There are several fighters below Scott in the rankings who would beat him. He's fought twice since his Oscar winning effort against Wilder!

[Stuarty]

Whyte might well prove to be a good fighter. I wouldn't say he is a bad fighter would you? Martin shouldn't ever have been near a world strap but again he might turn out to be better than people think.

Scott might turn out to be better than people think, although he already is.

Scott is very underrated.

Whyte and Martin are highly overrated based on what they have actually done.

Ok. So you would be ok if AJ chose to take on Scott in his next defence?

[Horse]

What is the world top 15? Boxrec? The ring? Boxrec has Scott ahead of Chisora who beat him. They mean nothing. There are several fighters below Scott in the rankings who would beat him.

The consensus world's top 15.

He is highly ranked based on having one of the best records in the heavyweight division.

He's fought twice since his Oscar winning effort against Wilder!

What's your point?

[Horse]

Ok. So you would be ok if AJ chose to take on Scott in his next defence?

Yes, it would have been much better than fighting this joker that he's fighting.

It's ridiculous that people are defending this trash.

[Stuarty]

Ok. So you would be ok if AJ chose to take on Scott in his next defence?

Yes, it would have been much better than fighting this joker that he's fighting.

It's ridiculous that people are defending this trash.

So you would defend the Scott fight if they chose him?