BoxRec

Kalan wrote:

verlichte wrote:

Tarkus wrote: Plus he was talking about Ortiz.

Wrong. Anthony Joshua was talking in general. He did not refer to any specific fighter.

He was referring to Ortiz son.. Read between the lines... Ortiz is the most dangerous and skilled Heavyweight in the world, but at 38 he's aging rapidly... The strategy should be to fight Wlad again.. Parker.. Fury.. Wilder.. and then Ortiz when AJ is much more skilled with 23 fights and Ortiz is really old. That way he has a much better chance of going 24-0 with 24 straight KO wins -- and there'll be a brand new crop of young killers invading the division.

It's kind of funny how people that use this forum consider "facts" as bad, but "rumour", "gut instinct", "bias" and "reading between the lines" as good.

Believe whatever you want to kid. Your preferred perception of reality is far more "exciting" than real-world objective and verifiable truths.

verlichte wrote:

Kalan wrote:

verlichte wrote: Wrong. Anthony Joshua was talking in general. He did not refer to any specific fighter.

He was referring to Ortiz son.. Read between the lines... Ortiz is the most dangerous and skilled Heavyweight in the world, but at 38 he's aging rapidly... The strategy should be to fight Wlad again.. Parker.. Fury.. Wilder.. and then Ortiz when AJ is much more skilled with 23 fights and Ortiz is really old. That way he has a much better chance of going 24-0 with 24 straight KO wins -- and there'll be a brand new crop of young killers invading the division.

It's kind of funny how people that use this forum consider "facts" as bad, but "rumour", "gut instinct", "bias" and "reading between the lines" as good.

Believe whatever you want to kid. Your preferred perception of reality is far more "exciting" than real-world objective and verifiable truths.

You have to read between the lines. Because this is boxing and rarely anyone talks directly. Now I am far from the opinion that Joshua is scared of Ortiz but it did not escape my attention that when Eddie Hearn was talking about the potential opponents he several times mentioned champions and mandatories, Klitchko, Wilder, Parker, Pulev and Fury, but did not mention Ortiz. Even though Ortiz has been a mandatory for some time and has been vocal about fighting Joshua. Are you seriously thinking Eddie forgot about Ortiz, someone he briefly signed just a few months ago? Certainly not. In fact Eddie started talking about not defending belts exactly when Ortiz was made mandatory. By now it should be obvious that he doesn't want Joshua Ortiz, he sees it as a too high risk fight.

Tarkus wrote:

verlichte wrote:

Kalan wrote:
He was referring to Ortiz son.. Read between the lines... Ortiz is the most dangerous and skilled Heavyweight in the world, but at 38 he's aging rapidly... The strategy should be to fight Wlad again.. Parker.. Fury.. Wilder.. and then Ortiz when AJ is much more skilled with 23 fights and Ortiz is really old. That way he has a much better chance of going 24-0 with 24 straight KO wins -- and there'll be a brand new crop of young killers invading the division.

It's kind of funny how people that use this forum consider "facts" as bad, but "rumour", "gut instinct", "bias" and "reading between the lines" as good.

Believe whatever you want to kid. Your preferred perception of reality is far more "exciting" than real-world objective and verifiable truths.

You have to read between the lines. Because this is boxing and rarely anyone talks directly. Now I am far from the opinion that Joshua is scared of Ortiz but it did not escape my attention that when Eddie Hearn was talking about the potential opponents he several times mentioned champions and mandatories, Klitchko, Wilder, Parker, Pulev and Fury, but did not mention Ortiz. Even though Ortiz has been a mandatory for some time and has been vocal about fighting Joshua. Are you seriously thinking Eddie forgot about Ortiz, someone he briefly signed just a few months ago? Certainly not. In fact Eddie started talking about not defending belts exactly when Ortiz was made mandatory. By now it should be obvious that he doesn't want Joshua Ortiz, he sees it as a too high risk fight.

Seriously? You expect EO to read between the lines? I suspect his dog would do a better job at that.

boxing_rocks wrote: Seriously? You expect EO to read between the lines? I suspect his dog would do a better job at that.

You've lost me my man, who is EO?

... Is that Enlightened-One?

Tarkus wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote: Seriously? You expect EO to read between the lines? I suspect his dog would do a better job at that.

You've lost me my man, who is EO?

... Is that Enlightened-One?

Yes, and it's also verlichte. Im surprised you can't tell.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote: Seriously? You expect EO to read between the lines? I suspect his dog would do a better job at that.

You've lost me my man, who is EO?

... Is that Enlightened-One?

Yes, and it's also verlichte. Im surprised you can't tell.

I suppose I have not payed attention. And a clue was in the name.
Why cant people just use one account.

Tarkus wrote:

verlichte wrote:

Kalan wrote:
He was referring to Ortiz son.. Read between the lines... Ortiz is the most dangerous and skilled Heavyweight in the world, but at 38 he's aging rapidly... The strategy should be to fight Wlad again.. Parker.. Fury.. Wilder.. and then Ortiz when AJ is much more skilled with 23 fights and Ortiz is really old. That way he has a much better chance of going 24-0 with 24 straight KO wins -- and there'll be a brand new crop of young killers invading the division.

It's kind of funny how people that use this forum consider "facts" as bad, but "rumour", "gut instinct", "bias" and "reading between the lines" as good.

Believe whatever you want to kid. Your preferred perception of reality is far more "exciting" than real-world objective and verifiable truths.

You have to read between the lines. Because this is boxing and rarely anyone talks directly. Now I am far from the opinion that Joshua is scared of Ortiz but it did not escape my attention that when Eddie Hearn was talking about the potential opponents he several times mentioned champions and mandatories, Klitchko, Wilder, Parker, Pulev and Fury, but did not mention Ortiz. Even though Ortiz has been a mandatory for some time and has been vocal about fighting Joshua. Are you seriously thinking Eddie forgot about Ortiz, someone he briefly signed just a few months ago? Certainly not. In fact Eddie started talking about not defending belts exactly when Ortiz was made mandatory. By now it should be obvious that he doesn't want Joshua Ortiz, he sees it as a too high risk fight.

My gut instinct tells me that the reason why Eddie Hearn would prefer Anthony Joshua to face Kubrat Pulev, as opposed to Luis Ortiz, is because the Bulgarian is popular in Germany (helping to attract 10.5m German viewers and 1.02m HBO PPV buys when he fought Klitschko)... and he also happens to be promoted by Team Sauerland (who are close partners with Eddie Hearn’s Matchroom).

The last two times Luis Ortiz competed on British soil, he delivered subpar performances that stank the joint out. And the Cuban is not a popular fighter commercially, since he doesn't attract TV audiences.

Whilst I honestly believe that Anthony Joshua is a better fighter than Luis Ortiz, the risk-versus-return ratio does not offer favourable returns. In fact he doesn't really bring anything to the table, so he wouldn't be deemed as an attractive opponent to face even if he was a journeyman.

‘King Kong’ either needs to gain more exposure to the British audience, whilst delivering memorable performances, or he has to possess something that AJ wants, such as another version of the world title (i.e. the WBC version).

If Eddie Hearn doesn’t have any plans for AJ to face Ortiz, it’ll be due to sensible business reasons, instead of "fear" of ruining Joshua’s unbeaten record.

By the way, Luis Ortiz is no longer promoted by Matchroom. He’s with Al Haymon and I suspect his fights will now be promoted by Lou DiBella.

Going back to my original claim about Anthony Joshua though, I really believe the sincerity of his words when he said that he “couldn’t give a fúckíng shít about the titles” - he wants to “face the biggest name opponents for the biggest paydays”. This was a general claim... and Luis Ortiz is nether a big name opponent and nor does he offer an opportunity to gain a big payday.

Out of interest, do you really rate Luis Ortiz, because I feel that he’s nowhere near as good as the hype and praise that has been lavished on him by many “hard-core” fans? I don't know if his age is causing his recent decline, but he hasn't looked that impressive for more than two years.

Tarkus wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tarkus wrote: You've lost me my man, who is EO?

... Is that Enlightened-One?

Yes, and it's also verlichte. Im surprised you can't tell.

I suppose I have not payed attention. And a clue was in the name.
Why cant people just use one account.

Its tough to get in the mindset of sick and demented individuals like that.

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Then, they will get a much smaller sanctioning fee I would think. Pulev vs. whoever. How exciting.

I believe Carlos Takam
Would be next in line..

Not a bad matchup. Whoever wins will still be rated below Joshua and Klitschko.

I rate Ortiz as a top ten at least.
Sure his last two fights were dire entertainment wise, but I still believe be has a good fight or two left in him.
The only reward for AJ is a learning experience. And one less unanswered question.
I'd like to see how he copes with a tough un orthodox southpaw

The IBF is consistent, the other sanctioning organizations are not. Pulev has been waiting many months for his title shot.

Pulev-Takam is a very good HW matchup.

RScarf1 wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Then, they will get a much smaller sanctioning fee I would think. Pulev vs. whoever. How exciting.

I believe Carlos Takam
Would be next in line..

Not a bad matchup. Whoever wins will still be rated below Joshua and Klitschko.

True, but we need to see these kinda contender fights.

Like Breazeale vs. Izu was a decent fight for how long it lasted. I was looking forward to Breazeale vs. Szplika but never happened

Ruthless-RKO wrote:True, but we need to see these kinda contender fights.

Like Breazeale vs. Izu was a decent fight for how long it lasted. I was looking forward to Breazeale vs. Szplika but never happened

I agree. I don't mind that we don't have an undisputed heavyweight champion. There usually has to be a belt at stake for two contenders to fight each other. In a way, it's like tennis. There are different championships such as Wimbledon and French Open. The rankings of the players are computerized in order to remove bias. Originally, the rankings for tennis were not computerized and there was bias as to who was rated higher and who was invited to tournaments. There is bias with the sanctioning bodies' rankings and with Ring Magazine's rankings, so I don't give them much credibility. The rankings on BoxRec are what I recognize as who is the best in each division even though I know it is not perfect. We are never going to go back to one champion and one belt per division, but I think there are advantages to having more than one world title and minor belts. More fights get made and it helps the sport in my opinion. Boxing is different from tennis in that tennis is regulated by one governing body, so their rankings are accepted as the only one that matters whereas boxing is not controlled by one entity. Some people do not recognize BoxRec's ratings or prefer other ratings, but everyone is going to have their own opinion. As long as boxing is not regulated/controlled by one organization, there are people who are going to proclaim their rankings as the best whether they are computerized or not.

Freedom2013 wrote:The IBF is consistent, the other sanctioning organizations are not. Pulev has been waiting many months for his title shot.

Pulev-Takam is a very good HW matchup.

Pulev-Takam is a very good matchup! Obviously the title loses some value, but both have shown propensity to step up to the higher levels in the past so no reason to doubt they will again.

The IBF are 100% correct. Boxers should fight their mandatories and follow the code of conduct to their fellow boxers. I think step aside money is a fair way of dealing with the situation, if the IBF don't allow it then it is their rules, their game, their belt. You know those rules when you fight for the title at the getgo.

Kubrat Pulev should fight for the IBF title in his next fight.

RScarf1 wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:True, but we need to see these kinda contender fights.

Like Breazeale vs. Izu was a decent fight for how long it lasted. I was looking forward to Breazeale vs. Szplika but never happened

I agree. I don't mind that we don't have an undisputed heavyweight champion. There usually has to be a belt at stake for two contenders to fight each other. In a way, it's like tennis. There are different championships such as Wimbledon and French Open. The rankings of the players are computerized in order to remove bias. Originally, the rankings for tennis were not computerized and there was bias as to who was rated higher and who was invited to tournaments. There is bias with the sanctioning bodies' rankings and with Ring Magazine's rankings, so I don't give them much credibility. The rankings on BoxRec are what I recognize as who is the best in each division even though I know it is not perfect. We are never going to go back to one champion and one belt per division, but I think there are advantages to having more than one world title and minor belts. More fights get made and it helps the sport in my opinion. Boxing is different from tennis in that tennis is regulated by one governing body, so their rankings are accepted as the only one that matters whereas boxing is not controlled by one entity. Some people do not recognize BoxRec's ratings or prefer other ratings, but everyone is going to have their own opinion. As long as boxing is not regulated/controlled by one organization, there are people who are going to proclaim their rankings as the best whether they are computerized or not.

You have to have zero boxing knowledge to think Boxrec rankings are better than these www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200 If you think Guillermo Jones deserves that high spot you probably need a straight-jacket too

Lennox wrote:The IBF are 100% correct. Boxers should fight their mandatories and follow the code of conduct to their fellow boxers. I think step aside money is a fair way of dealing with the situation, if the IBF don't allow it then it is their rules, their game, their belt. You know those rules when you fight for the title at the getgo.

Kubrat Pulev should fight for the IBF title in his next fight.

I agree. IBF doesn't allow diva treatment. If a champion wants unifications, he can do it every other fight fighting mandatories in between.

Lennox wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:True, but we need to see these kinda contender fights.

Like Breazeale vs. Izu was a decent fight for how long it lasted. I was looking forward to Breazeale vs. Szplika but never happened

I agree. I don't mind that we don't have an undisputed heavyweight champion. There usually has to be a belt at stake for two contenders to fight each other. In a way, it's like tennis. There are different championships such as Wimbledon and French Open. The rankings of the players are computerized in order to remove bias. Originally, the rankings for tennis were not computerized and there was bias as to who was rated higher and who was invited to tournaments. There is bias with the sanctioning bodies' rankings and with Ring Magazine's rankings, so I don't give them much credibility. The rankings on BoxRec are what I recognize as who is the best in each division even though I know it is not perfect. We are never going to go back to one champion and one belt per division, but I think there are advantages to having more than one world title and minor belts. More fights get made and it helps the sport in my opinion. Boxing is different from tennis in that tennis is regulated by one governing body, so their rankings are accepted as the only one that matters whereas boxing is not controlled by one entity. Some people do not recognize BoxRec's ratings or prefer other ratings, but everyone is going to have their own opinion. As long as boxing is not regulated/controlled by one organization, there are people who are going to proclaim their rankings as the best whether they are computerized or not.

You have to have zero boxing knowledge to think Boxrec rankings are better than these http://www.premierboxingorganisation.co ... weight-200 If you think Guillermo Jones deserves that high spot you probably need a straight-jacket too

I'll be damned, I thought you had actually made a post without pimping your useless ratings. I should have known better. You have zero knowledge of anything except for how to waste your life and be an ass clown.

As I stated, I don't think BoxRec ratings are perfect. The Premier ratings are not perfect either and there are ratings of heavyweight boxers that I disagree with on that list

RScarf1 wrote:As I stated, I don't think BoxRec ratings are perfect. The Premier ratings are not perfect either and there are ratings of heavyweight boxers that I disagree with on that list

but they are a lot better than Boxrec.

I briefly looked at a few weight classes, and Premier HW rankings are pretty good, but CW, LHW, SMW rankings are no good.

The women's boxing website WBAN did their own computerized ratings for years even though there were many flaws which they ignored until it became so ridiculous that they had to end it. They now recognize boxrec ratings.