Page 2 of 2

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 07 Aug 2016, 21:20
by foxdog1923
Anthony Joshua, Wladmair Klitschko and Joseph Parker are the only ones who dont fuk around.

Joshua and Parker keep the division alive otherwise theres nothing to watch really this year so far..

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 07 Aug 2016, 21:39
by allInmoderationAIM
No order: PARKER JOSHUA WLAD.K. HAYE POVETKIN WILDER FURY
Satalit group under Ortiz, Browne, Ruiz.
Would like to see Martin rematch the boxer he took championship with and the winner there meet Dominick whom Joshua just stop in 7.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 07 Aug 2016, 22:20
by jamesmcdonnell
asdfjkl wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Horse wrote:The top heavyweights would beat the fighters from all of the other divisions in a fight and that is what matters.

The other divisions are just a bonus.
So what if they'd beat them? What has that got to do with anything.

The top earning fighters of the last 10 years weren't heavyweights, so clearly not everyone shares your viewpoint.
Golf players earn a hell of a lot, while gymnasts barely earn anything at all. I'm still more impressed by gymnasts, and I think most people are, so money doesn't say it all, but what has that got to do with anything?
By horse's logic, the heavyweight division, being the most meaningful, would attract the most attention, and therefore the most money, the fact that it doesn't, means that people who spend money on boxing, don't believe that it's all about the heavyweights. The guy generally considered, in terms of the mass of opinon, as the greatest fighter who ever lived, SRR, was a welterweight, I don't personally think he was, but that's another conversation. The point is, the heavyweights, are the ultimate fighters in terms of who would beat who, but they have rarely been the most skillful, with rare exceptions, if ever.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 08 Aug 2016, 01:23
by littlepug
allInmoderationAIM wrote:
littlepug wrote:
Horse wrote:The heavyweight division is always the most important division in boxing.
It should be but it isn't, it should be the poster division for the sport but its being overshadowed by the wealth of talent from the divisions below, only in Germany in recent years has there been a superstar heavyweight, every other country in the world however has had smaller guys having the star power, the heavyweights are floundering badly so its easy to get a bit excited when theres a sniff of something happening ala Joshua but we are still a way off the old days yet.
Wake up little pug! At this moment their is great spark in the division.
hard to get excited about a spark when you've seen a roaring blaze !!!

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 08 Aug 2016, 01:58
by BAD INTENTIONS
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Horse wrote:
BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Only because IDIOTS keep saying so.

The fascination with heavyweights is a holdover from the time the only way to see a fight was to see a fight live. In person, size matters.
Watching fights on TV has removed that reality. Now these guys are slower/less-skilled guys on TV.

Boxing fans need to stop promoting this heavyweight garbage. Why make the worst quality product the face of your sport? IDIOTS.
The heavyweights are the biggest and toughest. They'd batter the fighters from the smaller weights.

The heavyweight division will always matter the most.

Anyone who disagrees with me is an IDIOT!
Are you quite well?

The heavyweight division consistently fails to deliver quality fights, which ultimately is what matters.
No, you are an idiot because of the ample evidence supporting the statement above.
And it has been true for at least 12 years.

It's still horrible now. For example, Fury and Wilder are champions, and highly ranked and dangerous.

What's the Fury/Wlad purse? After the SHITTIEST fight ever, what is their purse?
What if that money was added to the potential bank for Kovalev/Stevenson?

You are an idiot because you are diverting major attention and $ towards an inferior product. Why, because they are bigger? :brick:
Would you watch an NBA game with 10 Shaqs on the floor? Just because they are bigger?
Sounds like the rationale of an idiot.

As for the heavyweight battering everyone ... Steve Cunningham is a very good fighter with solid power. Not great, but solid.
Kovalev and Stevenson would stop Fury. Ward would win 120-96 ... 10-8 every round because Fury wouldn't land a single punch.
Ditto for Wilder.

Go take your big man fetish underground. Let's get more money going towards Gonzalez/Inoue and the dozens of other great fights south of 200 that could use some of that wasted heavyweight $ money to tip the bargaining scales.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 08 Aug 2016, 06:46
by BitPlayer
allInmoderationAIM wrote:No order: PARKER JOSHUA WLAD.K. HAYE POVETKIN WILDER FURY
Satalit group under Ortiz, Browne, Ruiz.
Would like to see Martin rematch the boxer he took championship with and the winner there meet Dominick whom Joshua just stop in 7.
Glazkov is terrible, him and Breazeale's best wins were robberies, and a fluke injury in Breazeales case. None of those guys are any good.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 08 Aug 2016, 07:37
by RoyRJ
I think Wladimir Klitschko won't be able to defeat Tyson fury in england. The klitschko's era is over.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 08 Aug 2016, 08:34
by allInmoderationAIM
Certainly the Heavyweight Div is the most meaningful. The history is traditionally much stronger. But yes, recent years Mayweather has riden the LB4LB category and that soar up to the ceiling. Imagine if he fought Gennady Golovkin? He would at least equal what he made vs Pacquiao. Gennady $40,000,000.00. I'm about it! But....Heavyweight div is unique. It could turn back! How the whole SPORT is today it is miniature next to old times despite the MONEY!
I've got it right now the top 5 mega's being: (no order) *GOLOVKIN WARD ALVAREZ PACQUIAO KOVALEV. *faulted administratively.
Heavyweights I put my lists out already. If I ran Boxing I would RANK the Heavyweights and never allow them into the LB4LB.
What someone say here about blab is only that just blubber! Spark, Fire Ha Ha! Say what ever.
Yet the only counting gonna be the "mother nature" of the Sport! Sure Joe Louis - JJW era facinating. But Boxing didn't get SICK over night!
LIKE IT the under current of Martin rematch winner meets Joshua's last outting!
To truly be any FAN one gonna be spending time their nose to the grind. Searching! I do that always!

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 08 Aug 2016, 12:00
by jamesmcdonnell
allInmoderationAIM wrote:Certainly the Heavyweight Div is the most meaningful. The history is traditionally much stronger. But yes, recent years Mayweather has riden the LB4LB category and that soar up to the ceiling. Imagine if he fought Gennady Golovkin? He would at least equal what he made vs Pacquiao. Gennady $40,000,000.00. I'm about it! But....Heavyweight div is unique. It could turn back! How the whole SPORT is today it is miniature next to old times despite the MONEY!
I've got it right now the top 5 mega's being: (no order) *GOLOVKIN WARD ALVAREZ PACQUIAO KOVALEV. *faulted administratively.
Heavyweights I put my lists out already. If I ran Boxing I would RANK the Heavyweights and never allow them into the LB4LB.
What someone say here about blab is only that just blubber! Spark, Fire Ha Ha! Say what ever.
Yet the only counting gonna be the "mother nature" of the Sport! Sure Joe Louis - JJW era facinating. But Boxing didn't get SICK over night!
LIKE IT the under current of Martin rematch winner meets Joshua's last outting!
To truly be any FAN one gonna be spending time their nose to the grind. Searching! I do that always!
This is a very odd read.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 13 Aug 2016, 18:21
by Tony1244
The problem with Browne-Chagaev and the Wilder-Povetkin and the Fury-Wlad cancellations are gravely disappointing regardless of who you like and who you are rooting for. :cry:

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 14 Aug 2016, 16:50
by davie
littlepug wrote:Heavyweight division been dead for years its the least interesting division in the sport
Regardless of the decline or level of talent, at least there was a bit of excitement and buzz about it.
Providing all the right fights were made, there was reason for some real optimism.

If this keeps up though we'll be lucky if we see half these guys fight at all let alone face each other.

We just need Joshua nailed for juicing and Hayes shoulder to go and it's game over

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 14 Aug 2016, 17:43
by Tony1244
The division is awful only because they don't fight each other.

The reasons they come up with for canceling, not making, and disqualifying HW results I can no longer keep up with.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 15 Aug 2016, 09:06
by asdfjkl
foxdog1923 wrote:Anthony Joshua, Wladmair Klitschko and Joseph Parker are the only ones who dont fuk around.

Joshua and Parker keep the division alive otherwise theres nothing to watch really this year so far..
I think Klitschko is actually stopping Fury right? Or is it the other way around?

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 15 Aug 2016, 09:22
by foxdog1923
asdfjkl wrote:
foxdog1923 wrote:Anthony Joshua, Wladmair Klitschko and Joseph Parker are the only ones who dont fuk around.

Joshua and Parker keep the division alive otherwise theres nothing to watch really this year so far..
I think Klitschko is actually stopping Fury right? Or is it the other way around?
I dont know. I thought that fight was happening..

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 15 Aug 2016, 13:19
by asdfjkl
foxdog1923 wrote:
asdfjkl wrote:
foxdog1923 wrote:Anthony Joshua, Wladmair Klitschko and Joseph Parker are the only ones who dont fuk around.

Joshua and Parker keep the division alive otherwise theres nothing to watch really this year so far..
I think Klitschko is actually stopping Fury right? Or is it the other way around?
I dont know. I thought that fight was happening..
Yes it is, but it could have happened like 3 months after as well, instead of 11 (and it's still not scheduled for sure as far as I know).

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 17 Aug 2016, 02:39
by allInmoderationAIM
Parker is the newest entry at the super elite in heavyweight div.
PARKER JOSHUA FURY WLAD POVETKIN IS HERE HAYE makes the grade & WILDER.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 17 Aug 2016, 14:53
by man
jamesmcdonnell wrote:The heavyweight division consistently fails to deliver quality fights
very true.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 17 Aug 2016, 15:00
by gilgamesh
allInmoderationAIM wrote:Parker is the newest entry at the super elite in heavyweight div.
PARKER JOSHUA FURY WLAD POVETKIN IS HERE HAYE makes the grade & WILDER.
Parker hasn't established himself as Super Elite or Elite at all. He's a lower Top 10 contender, and would make for some interesting fights, but he's not in the same breath as the other big names in the division yet. He may well get there though.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 17 Aug 2016, 18:35
by Redback Rasta
Tony1244 wrote:The problem with Browne-Chagaev and the Wilder-Povetkin and the Fury-Wlad cancellations are gravely disappointing regardless of who you like and who you are rooting for. :cry:
I anticipate there will be an announcement shortly after Browne's suspension is completed that he will fight Oquendo next.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 18 Aug 2016, 23:42
by allInmoderationAIM
First of all, one has to have a 'taste' for great water. If you are not a die hard of course you are never gonna support.
APPRECIATE HVY-WT div. HISTORY FIRST. You read me here? You could?

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 18 Aug 2016, 23:44
by allInmoderationAIM
gilgamesh wrote:
allInmoderationAIM wrote:Parker is the newest entry at the super elite in heavyweight div.
PARKER JOSHUA FURY WLAD POVETKIN IS HERE HAYE makes the grade & WILDER.
Parker hasn't established himself as Super Elite or Elite at all. He's a lower Top 10 contender, and would make for some interesting fights, but he's not in the same breath as the other big names in the division yet. He may well get there though.
With that one-before-last match, Parker arrived.

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 18 Aug 2016, 23:51
by allInmoderationAIM
:TU:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
allInmoderationAIM wrote:Certainly the Heavyweight Div is the most meaningful. The history is traditionally much stronger. But yes, recent years Mayweather has riden the LB4LB category and that soar up to the ceiling. Imagine if he fought Gennady Golovkin? He would at least equal what he made vs Pacquiao. Gennady $40,000,000.00. I'm about it! But....Heavyweight div is unique. It could turn back! How the whole SPORT is today it is miniature next to old times despite the MONEY!
I've got it right now the top 5 mega's being: (no order) *GOLOVKIN WARD ALVAREZ PACQUIAO KOVALEV. *faulted administratively.
Heavyweights I put my lists out already. If I ran Boxing I would RANK the Heavyweights and never allow them into the LB4LB.
What someone say here about blab is only that just blubber! Spark, Fire Ha Ha! Say what ever.
Yet the only counting gonna be the "mother nature" of the Sport! Sure Joe Louis - JJW era facinating. But Boxing didn't get SICK over night!
LIKE IT the under current of Martin rematch winner meets Joshua's last outting!
To truly be any FAN one gonna be spending time their nose to the grind. Searching! I do that always!
This is a very odd read.
Thank you! :TU:

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 18 Aug 2016, 23:52
by gilgamesh
allInmoderationAIM wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:
allInmoderationAIM wrote:Parker is the newest entry at the super elite in heavyweight div.
PARKER JOSHUA FURY WLAD POVETKIN IS HERE HAYE makes the grade & WILDER.
Parker hasn't established himself as Super Elite or Elite at all. He's a lower Top 10 contender, and would make for some interesting fights, but he's not in the same breath as the other big names in the division yet. He may well get there though.
With that one-before-last match, Parker arrived.
Yes he arrived...in the lower Top 10

Champion: Tyson Fury

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Alexander Povetkin
3. Deontay Wilder
4. Luis Ortiz
5. Anthony Joshua
6. Kubrat Pulev
7. Bermane Stiverne
8. Joseph Parker
9. Bryant Jennings
10. Carlos Takam

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 20 Aug 2016, 00:21
by allInmoderationAIM
Yes he arrived...in the lower Top 10

Champion: Tyson Fury

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Alexander Povetkin
3. Deontay Wilder
4. Luis Ortiz
5. Anthony Joshua
6. Kubrat Pulev
7. Bermane Stiverne
8. Joseph Parker
9. Bryant Jennings
10. Carlos Takam[/quote]
True champ: Tyson Fury (WBA, WBO)
Belt holders A.Joshua (IBF); Wilder (WBC)
YOUR RATINGS: I'd move Parker into #5 & pull Ortiz OUT. Haye would be a nice mandate for Ortiz keep things moving; a.t.t. myself I would rate Haye above him.
Myself, IF Parker met Wilder I would lay down $$ on Parker.
Boxing the sort of Sport that you really never know with many of them! "Mood" plays a roll.
Stiverne a Interesting fighter when/who he go against Next? Two year vacation??
Thanks for your ratings. YOU ARE A FAN! Do you have 1 fighter??

Re: What a year for heavyweight boxing

Posted: 02 Sep 2016, 12:06
by PredatorHayds
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
asdfjkl wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
So what if they'd beat them? What has that got to do with anything.

The top earning fighters of the last 10 years weren't heavyweights, so clearly not everyone shares your viewpoint.
Golf players earn a hell of a lot, while gymnasts barely earn anything at all. I'm still more impressed by gymnasts, and I think most people are, so money doesn't say it all, but what has that got to do with anything?
By horse's logic, the heavyweight division, being the most meaningful, would attract the most attention, and therefore the most money, the fact that it doesn't, means that people who spend money on boxing, don't believe that it's all about the heavyweights. The guy generally considered, in terms of the mass of opinon, as the greatest fighter who ever lived, SRR, was a welterweight, I don't personally think he was, but that's another conversation. The point is, the heavyweights, are the ultimate fighters in terms of who would beat who, but they have rarely been the most skillful, with rare exceptions, if ever.
Who is your number #1 mate?