BoxRec

Some questions for Brits : Joe Joyce or Daniel Dubois ? Who is better HW ? What about fan support for them ? Are they capable to become champions ?
I had read that Dubois dropped Joshua on sparring. Is this true, or just a PR attempt to make him more recognizable ?

No I wasn't aware BC and thanks for the heads up. That's twice this evening I've read helpful posts putting me in the picture, the other about why I can't type Fwank's name in full. It's a remider I'm still a newbie.

ValMar rhere are probably Brits better informed than I about the amateur scene but my take on it is that Joe Joyce is a career amateur, very tough and experienced, a real handful for anyone over three rounds.

Daniel Dubois is a fabulous prospect who is only 19 years old. He seems the complete package, top amateur, good skills, good movement, excellent jab, good power, very confident and mature for his age. He seems very intelligent and thoughtful gave some thought to the question about dropping AJ before giving a non-commital response which left you in no doubt that he did but wouldn't say so, which I am sure was precisely the result he intended - a smart cookie that one.

Tony1244 wrote:[


All people suck, let's just leave it at that.

Not all Tony. My wife doesn't sadly

not often enough anyway

ValMar wrote:Some questions for Brits : Joe Joyce or Daniel Dubois ? Who is better HW ? What about fan support for them ? Are they capable to become champions ?
I had read that Dubois dropped Joshua on sparring. Is this true, or just a PR attempt to make him more recognizable ?

I'd fancy joe Joyce if they were to fight tomorrow but Dubois has time on his side to improve and succeed further in the pro game

Candyslim, considering your description of DD, he has the potential to become new Lennox Lewis. I hope you were right.
I did not watch, but I read that Joe Joyce had deserved Olympic gold medal, but judges robbed him......Strange ?

ValMar wrote:Candyslim, considering your description of DD, he has the potential to become new Lennox Lewis. I hope you were right.
I did not watch, but I read that Joe Joyce had deserved Olympic gold medal, but judges robbed him......Strange ?

I saw that fight and Joyce deserved the gold in a close fight

His style should transfer ok in pro boxing

Ossyrules wrote:

ValMar wrote:Candyslim, considering your description of DD, he has the potential to become new Lennox Lewis. I hope you were right.
I did not watch, but I read that Joe Joyce had deserved Olympic gold medal, but judges robbed him......Strange ?

I saw that fight and Joyce deserved the gold in a close fight

His style should transfer ok in pro boxing

JJ & DD....Welcome ! I expect you will deserve support of fans worldwide..........

Dubois has much more upside IMO. Joyce looks solid, but he'll be ancient for a guy making his debut (if he does in fact turn pro). I've always thought it was notable that Sven Ottke turned pro at 29 and still had a good career, but Joyce will probably be at least 32!

Lazlo Papp won 3 Olympic Gold Medals and didn't turn professional until he was 32 years old... He went undefeated in 29 fights but never got a title shot.

Truth is I like it, long as it doesn't go mental and people get violent and mad.
Most of the people I've seen at boxing will cheer for the fighter based of skin, color, name the whole lot of it.
Me at this point in my boxing critic stage sides with building my own boxing stable, have done for years and the only thing that gets you in is your ability.
You lot can argue the toss about the intangibles.

ValMar wrote:Candyslim, considering your description of DD, he has the potential to become new Lennox Lewis. I hope you were right.
I did not watch, but I read that Joe Joyce had deserved Olympic gold medal, but judges robbed him......Strange ?

Ooh I never said that ValMar, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I must confess I am very excited by his potential. People bemoan the state of the Heavyweight division but to me, at the top it's bursting with potential even money fights among the elite (whether any of them get made that don't involve Joshua is another question) and green shoots are springing up everywhere.

I thought Joyce won but I can't claim to be impartial. Do we know he's turning pro? The pro game will suit his style but he's left it very late in my opinion.

candyslim wrote:

ValMar wrote:Candyslim, considering your description of DD, he has the potential to become new Lennox Lewis. I hope you were right.
I did not watch, but I read that Joe Joyce had deserved Olympic gold medal, but judges robbed him......Strange ?

Ooh I never said that ValMar, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I must confess I am very excited by his potential. People bemoan the state of the Heavyweight division but to me, at the top it's bursting with potential even money fights among the elite (whether any of them get made that don't involve Joshua is another question) and green shoots are springing up everywhere.

I thought Joyce won but I can't claim to be impartial. Do we know he's turning pro? The pro game will suit his style but he's left it very late in my opinion.

I have been waiting for the LL's heir almost fifteen years (as ancient Hebrews waiting for the Messiah). Joshua could be the one, but it is to early to claim anything. I am so glad that he is not the only one. I had been reading (unfortuntely, I do not remember where and when) that all Rio HW medalist (Yoka, Joyce, Hrgović, Dychko) were becoming profesionals. Wonderful news, definitely. If there is 75 % truth about DD's potential, the most important weight division will be very, very hot.......

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy (for putting that nice Mr. Joshua on his backside - allegedly )

candyslim wrote:He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy (for putting that nice Mr. Joshua on his backside - allegedly )

We have not any proof, but we had better believe (I think about Mr. Dubois dropping Mr. Joshua, not about Messiah).

The same rumour is circulating about Lawrence Okolie (dropping Joshua that is - pretty sure he's not the Messiah either )

candyslim wrote:The same rumour is circulating about Lawrence Okolie (dropping Joshua that is - pretty sure he's not the Messiah either )

Who, the fukc, is Lawrence Okolie ?
Maybe Mr. Joshua has paid these guys to speak about dropping in order to lure Mr. Wilder.

Lawrence Okolie is a very tall slender cruiserweight who has only had two or three fights. He has decent skills, good amateur background, and he carries impressive power. He's 24 and may eventually decide to chase the big bucks at hwt. Certainly he's tall enough to carry the extra poundage required to be effective in the higher weight division. He's another I'm going to enjoy following.

When the story broke that someone had floored AJ in sparring it was rumoured to be Ekolie who, when asked, would neither confirm nor deny. I'm sure he was enjoying the attention / notoriety, whether it was true or not. Some days, maybe a week or three, passed and rumours were heard that Daniel Dubois had dropped Joshua but it remains unclear (to me at least) whether it was originally a case of mistaken identity, or whether AJ got dropped by each of them.

He doesn't need bait. Deontay is champing at the bit (equestrian term meaning the horse is very eager to get started). Of course it's not the money he's always wanted to test himself against the very best like Wladimir Klitscho, no not Wladimir Klitscho, I meant to say Luis Ortiz, actually not Luis Ortiz, I meant David Haye, sh!t it wasn't him either, it was ... I got it, it was Andrejz Warzjek, that's the fellah. I knew I'd get it right in the end

I found out all DDD's (triple D, interesting...) fights on You Tube, his opponents have not been on the top level, but he is promising young fighter, definitely (size, strength, skills)..........

I really hope that we will see Joshua-Wilder or Fury-Wilder next year. A hope or a dream, that is a question......

ValMar wrote:War and violence are really dark side of human nature, and I hate this dark side. I do not need war, I do not need any kind of violence.
I do not want to bother any of posters with my life story, but believe me, war is really traumatic experience. I am fed up of keybord warriors, f.ck them.

Agreed. I am 10000% certain what we called "wars" in many places were not what we would even call a gang fight today.

Europeans framed the world in a war perspective. Just like how many peoples around the world happened to be cannibals. Sad to see so many people turning their belief in high school history into a debate between right and left.

The reality of murder, rape and torture was introduced to your "peaceful white ancestors" by Roman invaders who raped and enslaved them. In fact, the majority of Europe controlled by the Romans regulated most of the common people (your ancestors) into a chattel slavery identical to the one "black" people were subjected to. This slavery lasted longer than the European/American African slavery.

Have any of you ever researched what a "slave" was outside of Roman slavery and what was done to Africans? If you did, then you could never make a point like "Africans sold each other into slavery". Yet another example of supremacist thinking using modern interpretations to justify evil.

A legal term "indentured servant" was introduced to erase the history of white slaves, but if you research what that really was, then you'd better understand your history and how you've been severely manipulated towards a violent world history by a master race that's been in control of your mind for about 2000 years.

Also, the Vikings weren't savage brutes. They were there "barbarians" who were the resistance fighters against the "civilized Romans", a term that's such an oxymoron it's amazing how so many of you guys "on the right" promote so many brutal and anti-human ideals.

This is done in some effort to look tough and macho, but you're fighting wars with computers.

Keep pushing the violence taught to you by those guys who talk "reality". You'll understand what's reality when you are bleeding out as 3 men enter your daughter's room.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Bad intentions and Tunney would be an epic racist battle.

This comment is way off.
His world view is one that promotes dominance and war.

Speaking of Patriotic Rooting, I'd be interested to know what percentage of those on this forum who scored it for Horn are Australian.

..I don't have a huge problem with patriotic rooting among the boxing fans: has been happening all along...it's the patriotic rooting of the boxing judges and "patriotic officiating" that is absolutely unacceptable...

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Bad intentions and Tunney would be an epic racist battle.

This comment is way off.
His world view is one that promotes dominance and war.

You're like in your racism, the rules are up for debate.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

ValMar wrote:War and violence are really dark side of human nature, and I hate this dark side. I do not need war, I do not need any kind of violence.
I do not want to bother any of posters with my life story, but believe me, war is really traumatic experience. I am fed up of keybord warriors, f.ck them.

Agreed. I am 10000% certain what we called "wars" in many places were not what we would even call a gang fight today.

Europeans framed the world in a war perspective. Just like how many peoples around the world happened to be cannibals. Sad to see so many people turning their belief in high school history into a debate between right and left.

The reality of murder, rape and torture was introduced to your "peaceful white ancestors" by Roman invaders who raped and enslaved them. In fact, the majority of Europe controlled by the Romans regulated most of the common people (your ancestors) into a chattel slavery identical to the one "black" people were subjected to. This slavery lasted longer than the European/American African slavery


Also, the Vikings weren't savage brutes. They were there "barbarians" who were the resistance fighters against the "civilized Romans", a term that's such an oxymoron it's amazing how so many of you guys "on the right" promote so many brutal and anti-human ideals.
.

Lol your history is atrocious

Just for one, the romans didn't exist as an entity when the vikings were doing their thing, and the vikings were the most enthusiastic and prolific slavers in Europe (google the slave market in Dublin/Dyflin that they set up for example)

And the idea that the majority of people under Roman rule were slaves is utterly inaccurate

Counter-puncher wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

ValMar wrote:War and violence are really dark side of human nature, and I hate this dark side. I do not need war, I do not need any kind of violence.
I do not want to bother any of posters with my life story, but believe me, war is really traumatic experience. I am fed up of keybord warriors, f.ck them.

Agreed. I am 10000% certain what we called "wars" in many places were not what we would even call a gang fight today.

Europeans framed the world in a war perspective. Just like how many peoples around the world happened to be cannibals. Sad to see so many people turning their belief in high school history into a debate between right and left.

The reality of murder, rape and torture was introduced to your "peaceful white ancestors" by Roman invaders who raped and enslaved them. In fact, the majority of Europe controlled by the Romans regulated most of the common people (your ancestors) into a chattel slavery identical to the one "black" people were subjected to. This slavery lasted longer than the European/American African slavery


Also, the Vikings weren't savage brutes. They were there "barbarians" who were the resistance fighters against the "civilized Romans", a term that's such an oxymoron it's amazing how so many of you guys "on the right" promote so many brutal and anti-human ideals.
.

Lol your history is atrocious

Just for one, the romans didn't exist as an entity when the vikings were doing their thing, and the vikings were the most enthusiastic and prolific slavers in Europe (google the slave market in Dublin/Dyflin that they set up for example)

And the idea that the majority of people under Roman rule were slaves is utterly inaccurate

There is a very strong paradox connected with Vikings. So, ancient Vikings were extremly violent community. Right now, all countries where their descendants live are among the most tolerant countries world-wide.
During the Roman rule, only minority of people were slaves, and this period of history has nothing to do with American slavery.
I was born as a white. I did not choose my skin, and do not consider this as a benefit. I despise all forms of slavery, but I have to emphasize that my white ancestors had nothing with slavery. Nothing....
OMG, I am off topic, again...........