BoxRec

wesshaw1985 wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:So what you're saying is that the young new champion has faced less of the best fighters available than his opponent the former undisputed champion and 20 year veteran?

Less of the best fighters available?
He hasn't faced 1 of the best fighters (Fury, Wlad, Povetkin, Ortiz, Wilder, Parker, Pulev) available yet.
Becareful of building this boy up too much before he has actually beaten anybody...

How do you think it'll go?

wesshaw1985 wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:So what you're saying is that the young new champion has faced less of the best fighters available than his opponent the former undisputed champion and 20 year veteran?

Less of the best fighters available?
He hasn't faced 1 of the best fighters (Fury, Wlad, Povetkin, Ortiz, Wilder, Parker, Pulev) available yet.
Becareful of building this boy up too much before he has actually beaten anybody...

What on earth are you on about? I've not built anybody up. You don't ever understand the point I'm making.

Ossyrules wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:So what you're saying is that the young new champion has faced less of the best fighters available than his opponent the former undisputed champion and 20 year veteran?

Less of the best fighters available?
He hasn't faced 1 of the best fighters (Fury, Wlad, Povetkin, Ortiz, Wilder, Parker, Pulev) available yet.
Becareful of building this boy up too much before he has actually beaten anybody...

How do you think it'll go?

The only facts we can go off is records and Wlad is better than AJS unquestionably. But Wlad is rusty and on the downslide.
It's a 50/50 fight.
Gun to my head, I lean Joshua mainly due to the ring rust of a 40plus year old man.
But I wouldn't bet a penny on this fight, there is no telling how it will go.
Anybody arguing that Joshua will demolish Wlad simply from what they've seen from AJs previous fights doesn't know what they are talking about.
Whyte, Martin, Breazeale and Molina are not measuring sticks when it comes to Wlad...

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:So what you're saying is that the young new champion has faced less of the best fighters available than his opponent the former undisputed champion and 20 year veteran?

Less of the best fighters available?
He hasn't faced 1 of the best fighters (Fury, Wlad, Povetkin, Ortiz, Wilder, Parker, Pulev) available yet.
Becareful of building this boy up too much before he has actually beaten anybody...

What on earth are you on about? I've not built anybody up. You don't ever understand the point I'm making.

He's making a point of not understanding people's points I've noticed, no matter how clearly they've been expressed. I'm beginning to think he's here to irritate.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Less of the best fighters available?
He hasn't faced 1 of the best fighters (Fury, Wlad, Povetkin, Ortiz, Wilder, Parker, Pulev) available yet.
Becareful of building this boy up too much before he has actually beaten anybody...

What on earth are you on about? I've not built anybody up. You don't ever understand the point I'm making.

He's making a point of not understanding people's points I've noticed, no matter how clearly they've been expressed. I'm beginning to think he's here to irritate.

The only irritating going on is your belief that AJ will "trample" Wlad based on no fact whatsoever.
That sky sports/ eddie hearn hype train has claimed another fanboy...

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Less of the best fighters available?
He hasn't faced 1 of the best fighters (Fury, Wlad, Povetkin, Ortiz, Wilder, Parker, Pulev) available yet.
Becareful of building this boy up too much before he has actually beaten anybody...

How do you think it'll go?

The only facts we can go off is records and Wlad is better than AJS unquestionably. But Wlad is rusty and on the downslide.
It's a 50/50 fight.
Gun to my head, I lean Joshua mainly due to the ring rust of a 40plus year old man.
But I wouldn't bet a penny on this fight, there is no telling how it will go.
Anybody arguing that Joshua will demolish Wlad simply from what they've seen from AJs previous fights doesn't know what they are talking about.
Whyte, Martin, Breazeale and Molina are not measuring sticks when it comes to Wlad...

Records - there's only so much you can use to make a prediction. Or the torch would never get passed between an active older champion and the up and comer. Time and again in history a new kid arrives and takes over the throne. Use cv's by all means, but you also have to use what you're seeing for yourself. Styles, how the fights go, levels. If people can't see there is something about AJ I have to question what they are watching. If people are saying he's top 10 heavy all time then they are clearly elevating him too high, but to predict he can beat Wlad at 41 and most the current level heavies out there isn't quite the same thing, is it.

You keep coming back to them 4 fighters, Whyte etc. Whose using them as a measuring stick? The fights were relevant for his experience, 18 fights, and they all got battered. Out of interest who is Wlads measuring stick for AJ

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:
What on earth are you on about? I've not built anybody up. You don't ever understand the point I'm making.

He's making a point of not understanding people's points I've noticed, no matter how clearly they've been expressed. I'm beginning to think he's here to irritate.

The only irritating going on is your belief that AJ will "trample" Wlad based on no fact whatsoever.
That sky sports/ eddie hearn hype train has claimed another fanboy...

I've bored posters here to tears with my complaints about the nauseating Joshua hype. I've expressed numerous concerns about his chin. I'll laugh my arse off if Klitschko throws a hook and chins him.

My feeling that Joshua will trample Klit is based on 21 years of watching Klit and on considering the violent way Joshua goes about his work. It's called enjoying the sport, having fun and putting your neck on the line occasionally. Take off your anorak, stop being a pedant and remember that boxing history is filled with innumerable examples of men with AJ style records moving up and blitzing men with bigger, longer records. Right now you sound like a man who started watching the sport this year.

BitPlayer wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

Horse wrote:Cunningham wasn't garbage.

He's not even gate keeper level as a heavyweight

Well Cunningham went on to win a close fight with Mansour who, while not even being able to breath, battered Joshua's second best opponent, Breazeale.
And Chisora is agreed here to have deserved to beat Whyte, who self trained and injured was Joshua's best opponent.

Fury's pre-Wlad resume was miles better than Joshua's, it isn't even close.

Man this is a bad post lol.

That opening sentence is not relevant to anything. Person A who beat person B, also beat person C, but was beaten by person D, so is definitely going to beat person X. Truth is, Breazeale is probably a lot better than people than people give him credit for. Although he was dropped by Mansour and Ugonoh, he got back up and won the fight. His only blemish on his record is a defeat to Joshua, whom he lost every round to.

And where is it 'agreed here' that Chisora beat Whyte? I think a draw would have been a fair result, but I don't think Whyte winning that fight was an outrageous call.

Rob3_142 wrote:Man this is a bad post lol.

That opening sentence is not relevant to anything. Person A who beat person B, also beat person C, but was beaten by person D, so is definitely going to beat person X. Truth is, Breazeale is probably a lot better than people than people give him credit for. Although he was dropped by Mansour and Ugonoh, he got back up and won the fight. His only blemish on his record is a defeat to Joshua, whom he lost every round to.

And where is it 'agreed here' that Chisora beat Whyte? I think a draw would have been a fair result, but I don't think Whyte winning that fight was an outrageous call.

No, his post was good.

Your post was bad.

wesshaw1985 wrote:The only irritating going on is your belief that AJ will "trample" Wlad based on no fact whatsoever.
That sky sports/ eddie hearn hype train has claimed another fanboy...

The problem with this line of thinking is that it falls apart if Joshua does destroy Wlad.

I remember years ago an online debate about the Mayweather Hatton fight and one guy being adamant that Mayweather stops him. 'Hatton went the distance with a puncher like Tszyu and didn't budge, Floyd hasn't stopped anyone in years, you're talking nonsense' and so on. Obviously we all know what happened.

Someone saying 'Wlad is on the slide, his punch resistance isn't great, Joshua has dealt with average opponents in pretty brutal fashion, I think he stops him early' isn't exactly being unreasonable is he?

Horse wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:Man this is a bad post lol.

That opening sentence is not relevant to anything. Person A who beat person B, also beat person C, but was beaten by person D, so is definitely going to beat person X. Truth is, Breazeale is probably a lot better than people than people give him credit for. Although he was dropped by Mansour and Ugonoh, he got back up and won the fight. His only blemish on his record is a defeat to Joshua, whom he lost every round to.

And where is it 'agreed here' that Chisora beat Whyte? I think a draw would have been a fair result, but I don't think Whyte winning that fight was an outrageous call.

No, his post was good.

Your post was bad.

Back in your cave, troll.

Edit: Don't trolls live under bridges?

Rob3_142 wrote:Back in your cave, troll.

Edit: Don't trolls live under bridges?

You said his post was bad and then wrote a load of rubbish.

You are the troll here.

Horse wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:Back in your cave, troll.

Edit: Don't trolls live under bridges?

You said his post was bad and then wrote a load of rubbish.

You are the troll here.

I gave an explanation for my disagreement. You're just in troll-mode.

Rob3_142 wrote:I gave an explanation for my disagreement. You're just in troll-mode.

Your explanation was awful.

Quit trolling.

Horse wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:I gave an explanation for my disagreement. You're just in troll-mode.

Your explanation was awful.

Quit trolling.

A least I gave one. Would you prefer I just responded with 'That's a stupid post', and be done with it?

Rob3_142 wrote:A least I gave one. Would you prefer I just responded with 'That's a stupid post', and be done with it?

Sometimes the obvious doesn't need to be explained.

His post wasn't bad, yours was.

Ossyrules wrote:If you can see where I'm arguing that AJs cv is better than Furys pre Wlad I'd like to see it.

Okay, so you're not arguing that they're resumes are comparable you're just defending an argument that says exactly that.

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:The only irritating going on is your belief that AJ will "trample" Wlad based on no fact whatsoever.
That sky sports/ eddie hearn hype train has claimed another fanboy...

The problem with this line of thinking is that it falls apart if Joshua does destroy Wlad.

I remember years ago an online debate about the Mayweather Hatton fight and one guy being adamant that Mayweather stops him. 'Hatton went the distance with a puncher like Tszyu and didn't budge, Floyd hasn't stopped anyone in years, you're talking nonsense' and so on. Obviously we all know what happened.

Someone saying 'Wlad is on the slide, his punch resistance isn't great, Joshua has dealt with average opponents in pretty brutal fashion, I think he stops him early' isn't exactly being unreasonable is he?

it isn't an unreasonable thing to say if Wlad was an "average opponent." He isn't, so yes it is a little unreasonable.
I can guarantee Joshua and his team wont be treating Wlad so lightly, might be best to follow your heros lead on this one...

Rob3_142 wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:
He's not even gate keeper level as a heavyweight

Well Cunningham went on to win a close fight with Mansour who, while not even being able to breath, battered Joshua's second best opponent, Breazeale.
And Chisora is agreed here to have deserved to beat Whyte, who self trained and injured was Joshua's best opponent.

Fury's pre-Wlad resume was miles better than Joshua's, it isn't even close.

Man this is a bad post lol.

That opening sentence is not relevant to anything. Person A who beat person B, also beat person C, but was beaten by person D, so is definitely going to beat person X.

It's pretty relevent, because it shows Cunningham was far better than Breazeale, because Cunningham beat someone that dominated Breazeale. Look this doesn't prove it for sure, it's boxing you wcan't really be sure of anything, but it's pretty strong evidence you're just ignoring.

Truth is, Breazeale is probably a lot better than people than people give him credit for.

Based on what? Him losing to Kassi?

Although he was dropped by Mansour and Ugonoh, he got back up and won the fight. His only blemish on his record is a defeat to Joshua, whom he lost every round to.

Mansour had a cold and bit through his own tounge, he couldn't breath, yet even after that he won every round and even dropped Breazeale. Breazeale is tough, but he is also not a top heavyweight at all, and Ugonoh is not an impressive win at close to the top level.

And where is it 'agreed here' that Chisora beat Whyte? I think a draw would have been a fair result, but I don't think Whyte winning that fight was an outrageous call.

That's the overall opinion of most people here, in the polls and comments, or exactly what I said.

wesshaw1985 wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:The only irritating going on is your belief that AJ will "trample" Wlad based on no fact whatsoever.
That sky sports/ eddie hearn hype train has claimed another fanboy...

The problem with this line of thinking is that it falls apart if Joshua does destroy Wlad.

I remember years ago an online debate about the Mayweather Hatton fight and one guy being adamant that Mayweather stops him. 'Hatton went the distance with a puncher like Tszyu and didn't budge, Floyd hasn't stopped anyone in years, you're talking nonsense' and so on. Obviously we all know what happened.

Someone saying 'Wlad is on the slide, his punch resistance isn't great, Joshua has dealt with average opponents in pretty brutal fashion, I think he stops him early' isn't exactly being unreasonable is he?

it isn't an unreasonable thing to say if Wlad was an "average opponent." He isn't, so yes it is a little unreasonable.
I can guarantee Joshua and his team wont be treating Wlad so lightly, might be best to follow your heros lead on this one...

I'm not saying for a moment that Joshua will be taking Wlad lightly. I don't think anyone is.

Joshua is less than 2/1 in places to stop Wlad before the halfway point. Saying you think Joshua will destroy him does not necessarily mean you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

wesshaw1985 wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:The only irritating going on is your belief that AJ will "trample" Wlad based on no fact whatsoever.
That sky sports/ eddie hearn hype train has claimed another fanboy...

The problem with this line of thinking is that it falls apart if Joshua does destroy Wlad.

I remember years ago an online debate about the Mayweather Hatton fight and one guy being adamant that Mayweather stops him. 'Hatton went the distance with a puncher like Tszyu and didn't budge, Floyd hasn't stopped anyone in years, you're talking nonsense' and so on. Obviously we all know what happened.

Someone saying 'Wlad is on the slide, his punch resistance isn't great, Joshua has dealt with average opponents in pretty brutal fashion, I think he stops him early' isn't exactly being unreasonable is he?

it isn't an unreasonable thing to say if Wlad was an "average opponent." He isn't, so yes it is a little unreasonable.
I can guarantee Joshua and his team wont be treating Wlad so lightly, might be best to follow your heros lead on this one...

There's such an enormous gap in your understanding it's astonishing. Do we think Lewis took Ruddock and Golota lightly? Of course not. Thus they were blown out by a man at his most alert. When you take someone lightly and jump on them, Oliver McCall nights happen. There's no way Joshua is taking Klit lightly. Not one person here has suggested he is. I think it will be his prep and his attitude that will deliver the big performance. Sort of like how Corrie Sanders can spend 6 rounds biffing around Keith Fletcher in a Dagenham Leisure Centre, but raise his game substantially for an opponent like Klit, on the big stage. It's happened in boxing, oh, I don't know, a million times?

I hope you enjoy Joshua/Klitschko, and it encourages you to learn more about the sport.

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:
The problem with this line of thinking is that it falls apart if Joshua does destroy Wlad.

I remember years ago an online debate about the Mayweather Hatton fight and one guy being adamant that Mayweather stops him. 'Hatton went the distance with a puncher like Tszyu and didn't budge, Floyd hasn't stopped anyone in years, you're talking nonsense' and so on. Obviously we all know what happened.

Someone saying 'Wlad is on the slide, his punch resistance isn't great, Joshua has dealt with average opponents in pretty brutal fashion, I think he stops him early' isn't exactly being unreasonable is he?

it isn't an unreasonable thing to say if Wlad was an "average opponent." He isn't, so yes it is a little unreasonable.
I can guarantee Joshua and his team wont be treating Wlad so lightly, might be best to follow your heros lead on this one...

I'm not saying for a moment that Joshua will be taking Wlad lightly. I don't think anyone is.

Joshua is less than 2/1 in places to stop Wlad before the halfway point. Saying you think Joshua will destroy him does not necessarily mean you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

it is not so much ignorance as arrogance from AJ fanboys who have seen Joshua KO 18 out of 18 opponents and believe Wlad will simply be number 19 on the list.
Again, I think AJ will win. But I also think it stupid to count Wlad out...

wesshaw1985 wrote:it is not so much ignorance as arrogance from AJ fanboys who have seen Joshua KO 18 out of 18 opponents and believe Wlad will simply be number 19 on the list.
Again, I think AJ will win. But I also think it stupid to count Wlad out...

Ok, but what do you make of people who aren't 'AJ fanboys' and instead are the type who will talk about quality trade fights, attend small hall shows, watch any boxing going and can provide you with a list of their top ten p4p straw-weights who also think Joshua will flatten him? These people clearly exist. Is their opinion not valid?

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:it is not so much ignorance as arrogance from AJ fanboys who have seen Joshua KO 18 out of 18 opponents and believe Wlad will simply be number 19 on the list.
Again, I think AJ will win. But I also think it stupid to count Wlad out...

Ok, but what do you make of people who aren't 'AJ fanboys' and instead are the type who will talk about quality trade fights, attend small hall shows, watch any boxing going and can provide you with a list of their top ten p4p straw-weights who also think Joshua will flatten him? These people clearly exist. Is their opinion not valid?

Why are they listing p4p for one division?

I think if one compares both men's first 18 fights.... its rather interesting....

Beyond that, there's no question that Wladimir Klitschko fought the superior quality of opposition. It's very hard to dismiss Klitschko considering he was unbeaten for ten years, held the undisputed championship (more or less) for eight years and was approaching Joe Louis's 25 title defenses. Knock him for the era, knock him for his style, etc. but he was one of the great heavyweights. He had to go through alot of transformations in his career, and he rose to the occasion. Many a time his obituary was written, and he proved so many people wrong. The question used to be, "Will the younger brother ever be as good as the older brother?", but these days I think most will say, "The younger brother was the better skilled fighter," because his activity and dominance was much bigger than Vitali's. He was fighting three-four times a year, which is pretty hyper-active for a championship level heavyweight in our modern era.

As for Anthony Joshua... again if one compares the records of both men's first eighteen matches.... Because Anothony Joshua had the superior quality opposition over Wladimir, in those first eighteen fights.... It wouldn't be until Wladimir's 29th contest (Axel Schulz) would be make this big leap forward from the typical cannon fodder ((imho)) of the European class.... And in the interim, he lost to Ross Purrity and went the distance with Everett Martin, so his prospects at the time did not look all that bright... At that time frame, everyone was saying Vitali was the better brother of the two, that is until he lost to Chris Byrd: and only when Wladimir defeated Byrd to "avenge" his brother, did his stock rise up again.... So, in that respect, yes Anthony Joshua seems to be a very impressive heavyweight whose reached titles faster than Tyson (won it in his 27th pro fight) and Louis (32nd contest) and Lewis (22nd contest) but one has to wonder whether that impressive feat is because he's truthfully that good or because of special circumstances and careful matchmaking on the behalf of his promoter/manager. Maybe it's a mixture of both, but what is the ratio? 60/40? 80/20? Who knows.