Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑09 May 2018, 08:04
candyslim wrote: ↑03 May 2018, 09:24
Give me strength are you for real??? Beating Wilder means nothing? He is arguably the best heavyweight in the world, and when I say arguably, I mean if he isn’t then he’s the second best.
Ortiz almost knocked him out. Don’t make me disrespect Duhaupas because he put up a great show against Wilder but he never looked like winning, and he was soundly beaten by another fighter you have no respect for in Jarrell Miller.
Pulev has been a very good fighter as I said but his good wins are a good while back. I never did rate Ustinov, Samuel Peter was absolutely shot by the time he fought Pulev, Dimitrenko never had pretensions to world level and Chisora couldn’t beat yet another of those fighters you have no respect for Dillian Whyte.
You know something. I don’t ever put anyone on ignore no matter how big an ass I think they are but you have managed to test my resolve on this.
I’ve been watching Sirenko with great interest because I think he might turn out to be a really good fighter but to go overboard like you have at this stage of his development is ridiculous.
It’s maybe a little late but I’m going to heed the advice of whoever it was said “Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”
Ok against my better judgement my comments preceded cs:
Wilder hasn't proven he is any better than Joseph Parker. Or Andy Ruiz Jr. Or Kubrat Pulev. Or many of the other heavyweights who are undefeated or lost less than 3 fights because there isn't any basis for comparison. Wilder didn't even prove he is better than Johan Duhaupas in a fight that was close to even before the gifted premature stoppage.
cs: Wilder is unbeaten in 49 fights I grant you the opposition has been unspectacular but he has always found a way to win ... and inside the distance. If you put your theory to the forum that Duhaupas is equal to, or better than Wilder how many do you think would agree with you? The only reason comments like that are not met with universal derision are that most don't trouble to wade through your posts and those that do are either too exhausted to argue or recognize that there is really no point.
Ortiz almost knocked Wilder out. True! Likewise, Wilder was also knocking Ortiz's body down like a yo-yo
cs: Like a yo-yo? How many times did you see Ortiz taking a count?
after landing pretty much every glancing blow. Meanwhile, the same Wilder couldn't even come close to dropping (never mind KO'ing) Johan Duhaupas after 11 rounds of landing a career high number of flush punches. So what is it? Is Ortiz's chin and / or defense that horribly suspect? Or is Duhaupas insanely more durable and / or better defensively than Ortiz?
cs: Duhaupas is extremely durable and Wilder has performed a lot better. I'm not going to attempt to defend Wilder's quality as a technician, that's not what he's about.
"Duhaupas never came closing to beating Wilder"? How was Wilder close to beating Duhaupas then? Explain that one!
cs: Wilder stopped him. I'd say that was pretty close. I get it that you take issue with the stoppage but I don't recall being upset about the timing of it, and I don't recall any great furore about it either.
You do realize that Duhaupas was the one landing most of the scoring and effective punches? You do realize that Duhaupas inflicted far greater visible damage on Wilder's face by giving him a black eye than anything Ortiz did to the same Wilder? You do realize that most of Wilder's punches were being blocked by Duhaupas's defense? Or rolled? You do realize that Duhaupas had Wilder in survival mode for the most of the fight (Duhaupas proving to be the superior ring general)?
cs: You do get carried away don't you? I've said many times that Duhaupas put up a great show against Wilder. It was not his finest hour. He ended the fight looking a little like a gargoyle. Wilder is not a great exponent of the noble art but he finds a way to win and I never considered him to be in danger of losing that fight.
No, I don't rate Duhaupas too highly.
cs: Then you really must think Wilder is truly sh1t
Duhaupas doing as well as he did against Wilder is more of a testament to how poor Wilder is, rather than how great Duhaupas is. And an older, more declined version of Duhaupas getting beat by Jarrell Miller means nothing because I don't rate any of those boxers too highly in the first place.
cs: Seems to me you don'r rate anyone highly whose record extends to more than ten fights. No doubt you think Srirenko is the uncrowned world champion. I'd just like to register my resentment at how you manage to draw disparaging comments out of me, regarding boxers I have very high hopes for, or who I greatly respect, just so as to counter your nonsense.
Samuel Peter was shot when he fought Pulev.
cs: Not even a shadow of his former self!
But Bryant Jennings (that was literally coming off a defeat to Wladimir Klitschko in his last fight before fighting Luis Ortiz) wasn't shot?
cs: Yes you foolish person - Wladimir Klitschko the man who was dominating the division for over a decade FFS!
And that's literally one of Ortiz's only meaningful win. Nearly every one of Ortiz's best opponents that he beat, were previously coming off defeats from their last fights. Jennings was coming off a defeat to Wladimir Klitschko. Dave Allen was coming off a defeat to Dillian Whyte. Tony Thompson was coming off a defeat to Malik Scott. And Malik Scott, although wasn't coming off a defeat, but was stopped by Dereck Chisora when he was still undefeated whilst Ortiz performed far worse against an older and more faded version of Malik Scott.
cs: Apart from the fact Ortiz had Scott down for the full count in the first (IIRC) round but the ref wasn't having any of Scott's bullshit, I am well aware that Ortiz was showing his age and said so very clearly which is why I expected Wilder to win.
Do you now see Ortiz's career in a nutshell, in terms of the quality of his resume and record?
cs: I certainly see that you think he's crap. I don't agree and I'm by no means unusual in rating Ortiz as a good technical boxer with good power and durability who at the age of 39 or more, didn't quite have enough.
So how about you now take some time to explain in what way is Luis Ortiz more proven than Kubrat Pulev in terms of the quality of his record and resume?
cs: Take some time??? ... I'm losing the will to live as it is.
Kubrat Pulev beat multiple undefeated contenders. you may not rate Alexander Ustinov very highly, but what has any of Ortiz's best opponents done to suggest they are any better than Ustinov, Dimitrenko, Dereck Chisora and Samuel peter?
cs: At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, Pulev has done nothing of note for ages. You have probably noticed that he's been dropped from boxrec's ratings for inactivity. Ortiz on the other hand very nearly stopped the WBC Champion and probably would have done had he been two years younger. Now going life and death with Wilder may not impress you very much because Wilder is sh1t in your eyes, but to most rational boxing fans he's either number one or two. (No not that kind of number two!)
And on what logical criteria do you rank Luis Ortiz over Alexander Povetkin, when he looks older, when he has inferior physical conditioning with greater illnesses and when he's achieved far less in the
amateur and pros than Povetkin has? You criticize me for 'slating' Povetkin but then hypocritically 'slate' him even more by ranking a far inferior, less proven and unaccomplished boxer in Luis Ortiz over him? I want to know what the basis is? One guy (Povetkin) has a gold medal in the amateur world championship and Olympics whilst the other guy (Ortiz doesn't). One guy (Povetkin) was the best amateur heavyweight and pro heavyweight during his younger years of his country Russia. Whilst the other guy (Luis Ortiz) has always been second best (to Odlanier Solis) or even third best during his younger years as an amateur or pro of his country Cuba. One guy (Povetkin) has the far superior resume in the pros overall and the other guy (Ortiz) has the far inferior resume.
cs: You have got some fukcing nerve. The guy who thought Povetkin would struggle with the much bigger David Price. The only guy who gave Price any chance at all and only said Povetkin would win when you saw the landslide of opinion giving Price no chance. The guy who expected that Povetkin would suffer multiple broken limbs were he to fight Joshua. How TF is Joshua going to break even one of his limbs ???
So you call me an 'idiot'. But do you realize how 'idiotic' you actually seem when you rank a relatively unproven boxer like Luis Ortiz over an astronomically more proven and accomplished boxer in Alexander Povetkin? If anything, it is you who is exposing yourself as something that you're calling me (an idiot).
cs: I've shown far more respect for Povetkin than you ever have. He's a little fatboy who shouldn't even competing at heavyweight according to you. The only reason I think he has slipped more than Ortiz is the latter's performance against one of the champions compared to Sasha's somewhat laboured efforts against Rudenko and Hammer.
cs: As for being an idiot, the only people to call me that are yourself and Badhusker both of whom are no strangers to being described in such terms. Go figure.
cs: I really don't know why I've taken the trouble to respond to you in such detail. It's not like anything I say is going to alter your opinion one iota. You are simply not one you can either reason with, or have a pleasant exchange of views and agree to differ. In short Luis you are fukcing hard work!
)