Page 11 of 16

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:25
by Evander
Hail the new champ, good for Joshua :TU:

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:26
by Lancenix
And I do not expect anything different from Wilder on may 21st. and if something similar happens it will be a joke for the American titleholders.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:27
by gilgamesh
Lancenix wrote:And I do not expect anything different from Wilder on may 21st. and if something similar happens it will be a joke for the American titleholders.
Even if Wilder gets sparked in the first it probably won't be as bad as Martin's performance here. Martin looked too scared to even throw any meaningful punches.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:27
by punchoutsb
So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:28
by Lancenix
Champion on his 16th fight. 16 wins, 16 KO's!! Not a bad start to his career and now he has one belt.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:29
by Lancenix
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
I don't know about that. Did Oliver McCall or Bruce Seldon cash in on their short title reigns? I do not particularly think so.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:31
by punchoutsb
Lancenix wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
I don't know about that. Did Oliver McCall or Bruce Seldon cash in on their short title reigns? I do not particularly think so.
Oliver McCall had an iron chin and Bruce Seldon threw punches without picking his feet up, so neither is really comparable to Martin.

But yes, both did earn good money following their title reigns. Expect to see Martin fighting in Germany, Russia, and the UK a lot in the near future.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:31
by Taki...
Lancenix wrote:
Taki... wrote:That was quick. Does this show how good Whyte was or how bad Martin is?
Martin looked really bad and totally stiff. He prepared but looked unprepared and was scared to throw his left because he was getting hit by Joshua's right. He had nothing for him.
Certain posters who talked up Martin must be feeling a wee bit silly right about now.
Joshua looks the business, but Martin didn't look top 20 let alone world champion material.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:33
by Lancenix
punchoutsb wrote:
Lancenix wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
I don't know about that. Did Oliver McCall or Bruce Seldon cash in on their short title reigns? I do not particularly think so.
Oliver McCall had an iron chin and Bruce Seldon threw punches without picking his feet up, so neither is really comparable to Martin.

But yes, both did earn good money following their title reigns. Expect to see Martin fighting in Germany, Russia, and the UK a lot in the near future.
I disagree. His title was won on a fluke and I do not know what the future holds for him. Oliver McCall had more than a good chin. He has one of the best chins for anyone in the history of the sport. But he did not cash in per se. I was not comparing their styles and neither were you you are saying martin can cash on on his title. I disagree.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:34
by punchoutsb
Lancenix wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:
Lancenix wrote:
I don't know about that. Did Oliver McCall or Bruce Seldon cash in on their short title reigns? I do not particularly think so.
Oliver McCall had an iron chin and Bruce Seldon threw punches without picking his feet up, so neither is really comparable to Martin.

But yes, both did earn good money following their title reigns. Expect to see Martin fighting in Germany, Russia, and the UK a lot in the near future.
I disagree. His title was won on a fluke and I do not know what the future holds for him. Oliver McCall had more than a good chin. He has one of the best chins for anyone in the history of the sport. But he did not cash in per se. I was not comparing their styles and neither were you you are saying martin can cash on on his title. I disagree.
That's perfectly fine, I didn't ask you to :TU:

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:34
by Lancenix
Taki... wrote:
Lancenix wrote:
Taki... wrote:That was quick. Does this show how good Whyte was or how bad Martin is?
Martin looked really bad and totally stiff. He prepared but looked unprepared and was scared to throw his left because he was getting hit by Joshua's right. He had nothing for him.
Certain posters who talked up Martin must be feeling a wee bit silly right about now.
Joshua looks the business, but Martin didn't look top 20 let alone world champion material.
I agree. Fury picked martin to KO Joshua but I think he did it to disrespect Joshua. Joshua could be the best in the world.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:35
by Freedom2013
I was overrating Martin.

I picked Joshua to beat him by KO 5, but Martin isn't as durable as I thought and was stopped in round 2.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:36
by Nightmare Roy
ikorolev wrote:
kaiserbill wrote:Do NOT fight in Britain.
I thought this was well understood.
What does it to do with anything in this case ? Martin was an embarrassment.
lol Martin bottled it, got up bang on 10 knowing it would be stopped, he wanted out of there ASAP.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:37
by Batley18
Martin was trying to work his way into the fight and got tagged. Two big knock downs. Didnt see much head movement by either, but there has to be a lot of respect for AJs power.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:37
by Lancenix
punchoutsb wrote:
Lancenix wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:
Oliver McCall had an iron chin and Bruce Seldon threw punches without picking his feet up, so neither is really comparable to Martin.

But yes, both did earn good money following their title reigns. Expect to see Martin fighting in Germany, Russia, and the UK a lot in the near future.
I disagree. His title was won on a fluke and I do not know what the future holds for him. Oliver McCall had more than a good chin. He has one of the best chins for anyone in the history of the sport. But he did not cash in per se. I was not comparing their styles and neither were you you are saying martin can cash on on his title. I disagree.
That's perfectly fine, I didn't ask you to :TU:
You really did not have a point anyway. You were all over the place. First saying he can make a living off the belt then you were comparing styles. You just were not very cogent. :TU:

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:37
by Taki...
Lancenix wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
I don't know about that. Did Oliver McCall or Bruce Seldon cash in on their short title reigns? I do not particularly think so.
If Martin is as bad as he looked, tonight was a career payday. Pretty sure I read somewhere he made more for this fight than Wilder is getting for going to Russia. Cashed his golden ticket in against biggest payday in HW boxing right now.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:38
by Lancenix
Taki... wrote:
Lancenix wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
I don't know about that. Did Oliver McCall or Bruce Seldon cash in on their short title reigns? I do not particularly think so.
If Martin is as bad as he looked, tonight was a career payday. Pretty sure I read somewhere he made more for this fight than Wilder is getting for going to Russia. Cashed his golden ticket in against biggest payday in HW boxing right now.
Yep. Right on the money Taki. :TU:

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:39
by lillywhite14
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
He won't need to fight or work another day in his life. Rumour has it he picked up a cool £5m tonight for his troubles. Starting to make sense why he wanted to fight Joshua in England!

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:40
by Bard of Boxrec
Joshua walks right through Fury. I'm loving that so many people think otherwise. Easy money at the books.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:40
by Lancenix
lillywhite14 wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
He won't need to fight or work another day in his life. Rumour has it he picked up a cool £5m tonight for his troubles. Starting to make sense why he wanted to fight Joshua in England!
I am sure he wanted the money but no one wants to go out like that whop fights for a living.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:41
by BitPlayer
Lol, Martin was pathetic, I hoped he'd do so much more.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:41
by Rexob
Taki... wrote:
Lancenix wrote:
punchoutsb wrote:So when Martin won his title on a fluke knee injury, several posters (including myself) claimed he was the weakest/worst title holder in boxing's history. Thus ends his legacy.

For a guy at his skill level and ability though, this is the absolute best thing that could happen financially. He is now an ex-title holder and a name opponent, and can cash in for the next few years by getting smoked by prospects.
I don't know about that. Did Oliver McCall or Bruce Seldon cash in on their short title reigns? I do not particularly think so.
If Martin is as bad as he looked, tonight was a career payday. Pretty sure I read somewhere he made more for this fight than Wilder is getting for going to Russia. Cashed his golden ticket in against biggest payday in HW boxing right now.

That's exactly what he has done fairplay to him :clap: :TU:

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:41
by Lancenix
Riddick Blowe wrote:Joshua walks right through Fury. I'm loving that so many people think otherwise. Easy money at the books.
Fury is really tough to hit though. That fight would be more tricky than it looks. I would love to see it. I hope it happens. Possibly the biggest fight in UK history.

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:42
by punchoutsb
Lancenix wrote:You really did not have a point anyway. You were all over the place. First saying he can make a living off the belt then you were comparing styles. You just were not very cogent. :TU:
Martin will be getting paid now as fodder for prospects, money/fights he would not have gotten otherwise. That was very clearly stated.

For some reason you felt the need to offer up some un-requested and unrelated blurb on McCall and Seldon, who are in no way comparable to Martin. :clap:

Re: Charles Martin v Anthony Joshua

Posted: 09 Apr 2016, 18:43
by gilgamesh
I can't remember what section it was in, but there was a thread recently asking who was the Worst Titleholder at Heavyweight since 2000. I voted for Briggs, but after today I'd definitely go with Charles Martin. Martin looked terrible.