BoxRec

Fat Git wrote:You think Joshua would beat Lucas Browne?

I don't.

We need to see how Joshua gets up from being put on his bum, with heavyweights - that test needs to be
done before we can rave about them, how many lessons have to be learned on here (DAVID PRICE!!! )
Before folk learn this golden rule.

Come on! AJ would demolish Browne in quick fashion, I don't think he would really get hit tbf, Browne is just not good enough end of. We will see what he's made of eventually but not by the Browne's of the world.

Rexob wrote:

Fat Git wrote:You think Joshua would beat Lucas Browne?

I don't.

We need to see how Joshua gets up from being put on his bum, with heavyweights - that test needs to be
done before we can rave about them, how many lessons have to be learned on here (DAVID PRICE!!! )
Before folk learn this golden rule.

Come on! AJ would demolish Browne in quick fashion, I don't think he would really get hit tbf, Browne is just not good enough end of. We will see what he's made of eventually but not by the Browne's of the world.

Yes, Fat Git acts like it's so outlandish to back someone who is perceived as 'less proven' but who the hell has Browne proven himself against? A 90 year old, obese James Toney? Average Rudenko, who gave him a lot of problems? Browne is a limted, bumbling oaf, slow as shit and is going to be despatched by someone half decent as soon as they take the slightest risk with him. He would probably lose to a Malik Scott, let alone Joshua.

Should that fight be made Josh would be like a 1/3 favourite at least.

You kids never learn - I feel like my dad when he was telling me about when he stayed up half the night to listen to Bruce Woodcock fight Tami Mauriello at Madison Square Garden, when I was telling him how Frank Bruno was going to biff everyone up to the world title.

Translation: I am getting too old for this shieet.

The eternal truth for heavyweights.

But Price brought a whisper from Ams of vulnerability non?

Joshua needs the frequency still for 4-5 more bouts, be good to find 8 rounds or 10 for him soon however.

Instead of him fighting against the likes of Gavern, who basically had zero chance of an upset, they should throw him up against The Molecule From Hell! The great big lump (207cm, 320+ lb) will be hard to push around. At least then Joshua would have had the experience of fighting someone larger than him, not to mention someone who has lasted rounds (not "a round") with Klitschko-challengers Pulev (DQ7), Pianeta (UD8), Wach (PTS 8) and Leapai (ok, he was KTFO'd in 4 - but still!).

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

He's also on a three fight winning streak, admittedly against modest opposition (Okello Peter is modest opposition these days).

Fat Git wrote:

You kids never learn - I feel like my dad when he was telling me about when he stayed up half the night to listen to Bruce Woodcock fight Tami Mauriello at Madison Square Garden, when I was telling him how Frank Bruno was going to biff everyone up to the world title.

Translation: I am getting too old for this shieet.

OK, I stand corrected. By your logic no prospect taking a step up in class should be picked against an opponent with a technically better record and marginally better opponents, because they are still 'unproven', as if resumé is the only thing to consider when picking the outcome of fights. Nice one.

Thompson 'old manned' Price. Thompson will have forgot more about boxing than Browne will ever know. Someone out there could possibly upset the Joshua gravy train with one shot but I don't think its Browne. He might be powerful enough, although thats not yet proven, but even if he is, he isn't good enough. ALl the power in the world is no good if you can't land the shots needed.

lillywhite14 wrote:Thompson 'old manned' Price. Thompson will have forgot more about boxing than Browne will ever know. Someone out there could possibly upset the Joshua gravy train with one shot but I don't think its Browne. He might be powerful enough, although thats not yet proven, but even if he is, he isn't good enough. ALl the power in the world is no good if you can't land the shots needed.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

You kids never learn - I feel like my dad when he was telling me about when he stayed up half the night to listen to Bruce Woodcock fight Tami Mauriello at Madison Square Garden, when I was telling him how Frank Bruno was going to biff everyone up to the world title.

Translation: I am getting too old for this shieet.

OK, I stand corrected. By your logic no prospect taking a step up in class should be picked against an opponent with a technically better record and marginally better opponents, because they are still 'unproven', as if resumé is the only thing to consider when picking the outcome of fights. Nice one.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all, I'll make this really simple.

With heavyweights, it takes one punch. And a lot of heavyweight careers get derailed long before their awaited coronation.

One thing about Browne, he can do 12 rounds - can your mate do the same? We don't know.

Can he take a shot, get up from being put down and win? We don't know.

He might be able to, he might not be able to, you know what I mean?

Leave the coronation 'he's the greatest' blurb for when he actually does it. Nothing wrong with being excited in
watching his rise to that place - if he gets there.