BoxRec

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
I'm just confused: are you saying beating timid Malik Scott, 45 year old Tony Thompson, and Bryant Jennings make you the number one heavyweight???? Luis Ortiz has one decent win; Bryant Jennings. Heck Povetkins last four craps all over that list. If Tyson Fury is truly retired then there is no clear number one heavyweight based on resume. So if we're basing it off the "look" test then 65 year old Ortiz shouldn't be in the top five...or ten.

Povetkin's lack of activity removes him from contention for me. He hasn't fought in 13 months, so he joins Klischko and Fury in the inactive club.

As much as I do not rate Scott myself, his UD win over Thompson does raise his stock, and as ugly as the fight was, he did manage to take Ortiz 12 rounds. Out of fighters that have fought in the last 12 months, who has a better resume than Ortiz?

Well Povetkin is fighting in three days so...

If Ortiz resume is based off of ancient Tony, no-hoper Scott, and B-level Jennings then I'd rate Wilder, AJ, Parker, possibly Pulev, heck you could even make a case for Lucas Browne and Johann Duhaupas having better wins. Ortiz just fought Dave Allen...that should tell you pretty much all you need to know.

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Povetkin's lack of activity removes him from contention for me. He hasn't fought in 13 months, so he joins Klischko and Fury in the inactive club.

As much as I do not rate Scott myself, his UD win over Thompson does raise his stock, and as ugly as the fight was, he did manage to take Ortiz 12 rounds. Out of fighters that have fought in the last 12 months, who has a better resume than Ortiz?

Well Povetkin is fighting in three days so...

If Ortiz resume is based off of ancient Tony, no-hoper Scott, and B-level Jennings then I'd rate Wilder, AJ, Parker, possibly Pulev, heck you could even make a case for Lucas Browne and Johann Duhaupas having better wins. Ortiz just fought Dave Allen...that should tell you pretty much all you need to know.

Yes and the Allen win didn't budge his ranking at all.

Deontay Wilder's record over the last 12 months is probably quite comparable to Joshua's, with Joshua's being probably a little better.
Parker has a very average CV with Ruiz and Takam both ranked well below the three Americans at the time they were fought.
Kubrat Pulev has only one credible win inside the last 3 years, and that was scraped inside a SD.
It's a little embarrassing that your bringing Lucas Browne and Johann Duhaupas into the equation.

I know what you're thinking. How can a win against the aforementioned Americans propel someone to #1? The answer is simple. Nobody has fought anyone to take top spot. This is the best of a very bad bunch of resume's. If Fury was still in the equation, he would be number one, if Klitschko would have fought in the last 12 months, then he would be number one. But they haven't.

We may well be talking about Povetkin as number 1 on Saturday night, and we may well be having the same discussion about Joshua and Klitschko in April, but until then....

punchoutsb wrote:Pulev's clear win over Chisora is just as good as any of Ortiz three wins. He also has a better overall resume and has actually fought for the world title. Browne's win over Chagaev is better than Thompson or Scott, perhaps slightly less than Jennings given Chagaev's age. Duhaupas win over Helenius is better than anything Ortiz has ever done. Resume's are about whole body of work. Ortiz resume is incredibly shallow and his in ring performances recently have been dire. Add to that the fact that his opponents have regressed (never being close to the top level in the first place) and his age and you've got a real recipe for a fighter that is not number one. Ortiz is nothing special.

crusader wrote:Why do some people mention the split nature of Pulev's win over Chisora as if it should hurt the former's credibility? Have they not actually seen the fight? Pulev dominated and the 7-5 card for Chisora is a strong contender for worst score of the year, though it would've certainly been appropriate for Chisora's battle with Whyte.

And, despite all the criticism I think Wilder's matchmaking has deserved at times, I'd say that overall he has a better resume than AJ (though I think AJ is the best HW) and certainly more depth to his record than Ortiz. As for how Ortiz compares with Povetkin, IMO Stiverne (assuming a win), Takam, Perez, Wach and Charr > Scott, Jennings, and old Thompson coming off a wide loss. Povetkin has the far better resume outside those wins too, though you have to go back several years for that.

Sequitorian wrote:Joshua would be good for boxing ... (great, in fact) ... Wilder would be bad ... (all bad) ...

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Pulev's clear win over Chisora is just as good as any of Ortiz three wins. He also has a better overall resume and has actually fought for the world title. Browne's win over Chagaev is better than Thompson or Scott, perhaps slightly less than Jennings given Chagaev's age. Duhaupas win over Helenius is better than anything Ortiz has ever done. Resume's are about whole body of work. Ortiz resume is incredibly shallow and his in ring performances recently have been dire. Add to that the fact that his opponents have regressed (never being close to the top level in the first place) and his age and you've got a real recipe for a fighter that is not number one. Ortiz is nothing special.

Some of your lines of argument are reducing your credibility. Browne's win over Chagaev? Surely that's a joke. The guy was in his last pro fight before retirement, and Browne failed a drugs test straight after. Your claim that Duhaupas win over Helenius trumps anything that Ortiz has ever done is beyond laughable. The only thing I will say is that Thompson's victories over Price are largely clouded by the drug allegations, but on the whole, to suggest that these one hit wonders out trumps consistent dominance by Ortiz over all his opposition to date, suggests your objectivity is clouded.

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Pulev's clear win over Chisora is just as good as any of Ortiz three wins. He also has a better overall resume and has actually fought for the world title. Browne's win over Chagaev is better than Thompson or Scott, perhaps slightly less than Jennings given Chagaev's age. Duhaupas win over Helenius is better than anything Ortiz has ever done. Resume's are about whole body of work. Ortiz resume is incredibly shallow and his in ring performances recently have been dire. Add to that the fact that his opponents have regressed (never being close to the top level in the first place) and his age and you've got a real recipe for a fighter that is not number one. Ortiz is nothing special.

Some of your lines of argument are reducing your credibility. Browne's win over Chagaev? Surely that's a joke. The guy was in his last pro fight before retirement, and Browne failed a drugs test straight after. Your claim that Duhaupas win over Helenius trumps anything that Ortiz has ever done is beyond laughable. The only thing I will say is that Thompson's victories over Price are largely clouded by the drug allegations, but on the whole, to suggest that these one hit wonders out trumps consistent dominance by Ortiz over all his opposition to date, suggests your objectivity is clouded.

Consistent dominance...over who? Matias Vidondo? Dave Allen? Lateef Kayode...or are we not mentioning that one?

The reason why you're only naming three names on Ortiz resume is because there are only THREE names on Ortiz resume. You can discount a win over an aging Chagaev, but a win over an older, much more shopworn Tony Thompson is acceptable? What exactly makes wins over shopworn Thompson or never-was Scott better than Duhaupas destruction of undefeated RANKED contender Helenius? Or even his win over another actual contender in Charr? You may question my objectivity but your claim that nursing home Tony The Tiger, Malik freaking Scott, and Bryant Jennings makes Ortiz the number one heavy is so laughable it could be in a George Carlin skit.

crusader wrote:Why do some people mention the split nature of Pulev's win over Chisora as if it should hurt the former's credibility? Have they not actually seen the fight? Pulev dominated and the 7-5 card for Chisora is a strong contender for worst score of the year, though it would've certainly been appropriate for Chisora's battle with Whyte.

And, despite all the criticism I think Wilder's matchmaking has deserved at times, I'd say that overall he has a better resume than AJ (though I think AJ is the best HW) and certainly more depth to his record than Ortiz. As for how Ortiz compares with Povetkin, IMO Stiverne (assuming a win), Takam, Perez, Wach and Charr > Scott, Jennings, and old Thompson coming off a wide loss. Povetkin has the far better resume outside those wins too, though you have to go back several years for that.

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote: Some of your lines of argument are reducing your credibility. Browne's win over Chagaev? Surely that's a joke. The guy was in his last pro fight before retirement, and Browne failed a drugs test straight after. Your claim that Duhaupas win over Helenius trumps anything that Ortiz has ever done is beyond laughable. The only thing I will say is that Thompson's victories over Price are largely clouded by the drug allegations, but on the whole, to suggest that these one hit wonders out trumps consistent dominance by Ortiz over all his opposition to date, suggests your objectivity is clouded.

Consistent dominance...over who? Matias Vidondo? Dave Allen? Lateef Kayode...or are we not mentioning that one?

The reason why you're only naming three names on Ortiz resume is because there are only THREE names on Ortiz resume. You can discount a win over an aging Chagaev, but a win over an older, much more shopworn Tony Thompson is acceptable? What exactly makes wins over shopworn Thompson or never-was Scott better than Duhaupas destruction of undefeated RANKED contender Helenius? Or even his win over another actual contender in Charr? You may question my objectivity but your claim that nursing home Tony The Tiger, Malik freaking Scott, and Bryant Jennings makes Ortiz the number one heavy is so laughable it could be in a George Carlin skit.

Well the reason I was bringing up those particular fighters, was because these were all fights in the last 12 months. I don't really understand why you're bring the like Vidondo and Kayode in. Allen was a little bit of an anomaly because Ortiz had just signed up with Matchroom, and they needed a fall guy to quickly match him up. He did nothing to improve Ortiz' resume.

Granted Thompson is shot to sh*t also, but is someone with a much more credible history. He was definitely on the downward slope of his career at the time, but is still considered a decent scalp. Two wins over Price and Solis a few years prior have put him in excellent stead, and shared the ring with Klitschko twice also. Let's say for arguments sake that Chagaev is as credible a win as against Thompson (which I don't believe it is). That is still only one credible win on Browne's CV. Ortiz has 3, in the last 12 months.

Also granted that Duhaupas has a decent recent CV, but I still don't think it's better than Ortiz. The MD win over Charr - impressive, the TKO win over Helenius - impressive. But the defeat in between by Wilder writes him out of contention for me. Had he won that fight, I'd be the first to say he'd definitely be in contention for number one, but he didn't.

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Consistent dominance...over who? Matias Vidondo? Dave Allen? Lateef Kayode...or are we not mentioning that one?

The reason why you're only naming three names on Ortiz resume is because there are only THREE names on Ortiz resume. You can discount a win over an aging Chagaev, but a win over an older, much more shopworn Tony Thompson is acceptable? What exactly makes wins over shopworn Thompson or never-was Scott better than Duhaupas destruction of undefeated RANKED contender Helenius? Or even his win over another actual contender in Charr? You may question my objectivity but your claim that nursing home Tony The Tiger, Malik freaking Scott, and Bryant Jennings makes Ortiz the number one heavy is so laughable it could be in a George Carlin skit.

Well the reason I was bringing up those particular fighters, was because these were all fights in the last 12 months. I don't really understand why you're bring the like Vidondo and Kayode in. Allen was a little bit of an anomaly because Ortiz had just signed up with Matchroom, and they needed a fall guy to quickly match him up. He did nothing to improve Ortiz' resume.

Granted Thompson is shot to sh*t also, but is someone with a much more credible history. He was definitely on the downward slope of his career at the time, but is still considered a decent scalp. Two wins over Price and Solis a few years prior have put him in excellent stead, and shared the ring with Klitschko twice also. Let's say for arguments sake that Chagaev is as credible a win as against Thompson (which I don't believe it is). That is still only one credible win on Browne's CV. Ortiz has 3, in the last 12 months.

Also granted that Duhaupas has a decent recent CV, but I still don't think it's better than Ortiz. The MD win over Charr - impressive, the TKO win over Helenius - impressive. But the defeat in between by Wilder writes him out of contention for me. Had he won that fight, I'd be the first to say he'd definitely be in contention for number one, but he didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting Browne or Duhaupas was number one. I don't believe that for a second. I'm saying that based on resume they are equal to or greater than Ortiz. I would pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz...not sure about Browne. Basically I think Ortiz is terribly overrated.

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Well the reason I was bringing up those particular fighters, was because these were all fights in the last 12 months. I don't really understand why you're bring the like Vidondo and Kayode in. Allen was a little bit of an anomaly because Ortiz had just signed up with Matchroom, and they needed a fall guy to quickly match him up. He did nothing to improve Ortiz' resume.

Granted Thompson is shot to sh*t also, but is someone with a much more credible history. He was definitely on the downward slope of his career at the time, but is still considered a decent scalp. Two wins over Price and Solis a few years prior have put him in excellent stead, and shared the ring with Klitschko twice also. Let's say for arguments sake that Chagaev is as credible a win as against Thompson (which I don't believe it is). That is still only one credible win on Browne's CV. Ortiz has 3, in the last 12 months.

Also granted that Duhaupas has a decent recent CV, but I still don't think it's better than Ortiz. The MD win over Charr - impressive, the TKO win over Helenius - impressive. But the defeat in between by Wilder writes him out of contention for me. Had he won that fight, I'd be the first to say he'd definitely be in contention for number one, but he didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting Browne or Duhaupas was number one. I don't believe that for a second. I'm saying that based on resume they are equal to or greater than Ortiz. I would pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz...not sure about Browne. Basically I think Ortiz is terribly overrated.

Yeah, but the question is, who?

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting Browne or Duhaupas was number one. I don't believe that for a second. I'm saying that based on resume they are equal to or greater than Ortiz. I would pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz...not sure about Browne. Basically I think Ortiz is terribly overrated.

Yeah, but the question is, who?

A relatively strong case could be made for Wilder, AJ, or Povetkin. Fury or Klitschko obviously, but that is dependent on what happens over the next few months. There are other heavies that may be good, but I cannot see a case where they are number one. Parker would fall in that group, so would someone like Lucas Browne. Then there are other fighters that have zero case to be number one. That's where I class Ortiz. He wins a big fight or two and he could move up, but based on his current CV, his age and his previous performances he's not even on the radar for number one.

davie wrote:

thechump wrote:

davie wrote:
Get the fvck outta here!

Fights better than tyson

The fighters Joshua has been knocking down have been no better than Tysons "cab drivers, street sweepers and doormen"
Tyson went on to beat a higher calibre of opponent in Thomas, Tucker, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks and Bruno, better than anyone Joshua has faced
There's no guarantee, none what so ever, that AJ could have swept through that impressive crowd

He came unstuck against Douglas, that's a given
but aside from that, his next defeats were past his prime against Holyfield and Lewis, there isn't even a fighter on the planet right now that compare with those two, for AJ to attempt to prove himself against.

Is Joshua better than Tyson? Time may prove that he is but I'd be doubtful.
But there is no way any boxing fan can confidently state, right now, that he IS better. He just hasn't done anything to prove it

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Consistent dominance...over who? Matias Vidondo? Dave Allen? Lateef Kayode...or are we not mentioning that one?

The reason why you're only naming three names on Ortiz resume is because there are only THREE names on Ortiz resume. You can discount a win over an aging Chagaev, but a win over an older, much more shopworn Tony Thompson is acceptable? What exactly makes wins over shopworn Thompson or never-was Scott better than Duhaupas destruction of undefeated RANKED contender Helenius? Or even his win over another actual contender in Charr? You may question my objectivity but your claim that nursing home Tony The Tiger, Malik freaking Scott, and Bryant Jennings makes Ortiz the number one heavy is so laughable it could be in a George Carlin skit.

Well the reason I was bringing up those particular fighters, was because these were all fights in the last 12 months. I don't really understand why you're bring the like Vidondo and Kayode in. Allen was a little bit of an anomaly because Ortiz had just signed up with Matchroom, and they needed a fall guy to quickly match him up. He did nothing to improve Ortiz' resume.

Granted Thompson is shot to sh*t also, but is someone with a much more credible history. He was definitely on the downward slope of his career at the time, but is still considered a decent scalp. Two wins over Price and Solis a few years prior have put him in excellent stead, and shared the ring with Klitschko twice also. Let's say for arguments sake that Chagaev is as credible a win as against Thompson (which I don't believe it is). That is still only one credible win on Browne's CV. Ortiz has 3, in the last 12 months.

Also granted that Duhaupas has a decent recent CV, but I still don't think it's better than Ortiz. The MD win over Charr - impressive, the TKO win over Helenius - impressive. But the defeat in between by Wilder writes him out of contention for me. Had he won that fight, I'd be the first to say he'd definitely be in contention for number one, but he didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting Browne or Duhaupas was number one. I don't believe that for a second. I'm saying that based on resume they are equal to or greater than Ortiz. I would pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz...not sure about Browne. Basically I think Ortiz is terribly overrated.

Kalan wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Well the reason I was bringing up those particular fighters, was because these were all fights in the last 12 months. I don't really understand why you're bring the like Vidondo and Kayode in. Allen was a little bit of an anomaly because Ortiz had just signed up with Matchroom, and they needed a fall guy to quickly match him up. He did nothing to improve Ortiz' resume.

Granted Thompson is shot to sh*t also, but is someone with a much more credible history. He was definitely on the downward slope of his career at the time, but is still considered a decent scalp. Two wins over Price and Solis a few years prior have put him in excellent stead, and shared the ring with Klitschko twice also. Let's say for arguments sake that Chagaev is as credible a win as against Thompson (which I don't believe it is). That is still only one credible win on Browne's CV. Ortiz has 3, in the last 12 months.

Also granted that Duhaupas has a decent recent CV, but I still don't think it's better than Ortiz. The MD win over Charr - impressive, the TKO win over Helenius - impressive. But the defeat in between by Wilder writes him out of contention for me. Had he won that fight, I'd be the first to say he'd definitely be in contention for number one, but he didn't.

I am a little concerned what the last two performances have done to his chances of moving forward. The idea was to give him a few quick fire blow outs, raise his profile, make him more marketable, and then get him in a final eliminator or world title fight. After being dragged through the worst 12 rounds in heavyweight history by Scott, followed by an uninspiring 7 rounds against domestic level, Allen, how's this done anything other than reduce his stock? Where does he go now?
Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting Browne or Duhaupas was number one. I don't believe that for a second. I'm saying that based on resume they are equal to or greater than Ortiz. I would pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz...not sure about Browne. Basically I think Ortiz is terribly overrated.

If you pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz you're a fking idiot... Duhaupas is wide open and would be taken out quickly... That German fat boy Teper had 10 or 12 fights when he had a field day with Duhaupas.. Duhaupas barely beat Manuel Charr, who wouldn't get out of the 5th round with Ortiz.. Charr is terrible.. I don't know why people are going to such ridiculous extremes to dis Ortiz.. Wilder will not fight him because he knows he'd get knocked out.. All the top fighters are avoiding him right now because he's deadly.. Maybe Joshua could beat him at the most.. I hope Ortiz gets a major fight before he's 39 or so -- because the main strategy seems to be to age him outta here.

asdfjkl wrote:

davie wrote:

thechump wrote: Fights better than tyson

The fighters Joshua has been knocking down have been no better than Tysons "cab drivers, street sweepers and doormen"
Tyson went on to beat a higher calibre of opponent in Thomas, Tucker, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks and Bruno, better than anyone Joshua has faced
There's no guarantee, none what so ever, that AJ could have swept through that impressive crowd

He came unstuck against Douglas, that's a given
but aside from that, his next defeats were past his prime against Holyfield and Lewis, there isn't even a fighter on the planet right now that compare with those two, for AJ to attempt to prove himself against.

Is Joshua better than Tyson? Time may prove that he is but I'd be doubtful.
But there is no way any boxing fan can confidently state, right now, that he IS better. He just hasn't done anything to prove it

Well, maybe he's just about 10% more tall and heavy, which helps in a boxing match. On top of that Tyson and Holyfield doped.

Kalan wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Well the reason I was bringing up those particular fighters, was because these were all fights in the last 12 months. I don't really understand why you're bring the like Vidondo and Kayode in. Allen was a little bit of an anomaly because Ortiz had just signed up with Matchroom, and they needed a fall guy to quickly match him up. He did nothing to improve Ortiz' resume.

Granted Thompson is shot to sh*t also, but is someone with a much more credible history. He was definitely on the downward slope of his career at the time, but is still considered a decent scalp. Two wins over Price and Solis a few years prior have put him in excellent stead, and shared the ring with Klitschko twice also. Let's say for arguments sake that Chagaev is as credible a win as against Thompson (which I don't believe it is). That is still only one credible win on Browne's CV. Ortiz has 3, in the last 12 months.

Also granted that Duhaupas has a decent recent CV, but I still don't think it's better than Ortiz. The MD win over Charr - impressive, the TKO win over Helenius - impressive. But the defeat in between by Wilder writes him out of contention for me. Had he won that fight, I'd be the first to say he'd definitely be in contention for number one, but he didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting Browne or Duhaupas was number one. I don't believe that for a second. I'm saying that based on resume they are equal to or greater than Ortiz. I would pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz...not sure about Browne. Basically I think Ortiz is terribly overrated.

If you pick Duhaupas to beat Ortiz you're a fking idiot... Duhaupas is wide open and would be taken out quickly... That German fat boy Teper had 10 or 12 fights when he had a field day with Duhaupas.. Duhaupas barely beat Manuel Charr, who wouldn't get out of the 5th round with Ortiz.. Charr is terrible.. I don't know why people are going to such ridiculous extremes to dis Ortiz.. Wilder will not fight him because he knows he'd get knocked out.. All the top fighters are avoiding him right now because he's deadly.. Maybe Joshua could beat him at the most.. I hope Ortiz gets a major fight before he's 39 or so -- because the main strategy seems to be to age him outta here.

thechump wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

davie wrote:
The fighters Joshua has been knocking down have been no better than Tysons "cab drivers, street sweepers and doormen"
Tyson went on to beat a higher calibre of opponent in Thomas, Tucker, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks and Bruno, better than anyone Joshua has faced
There's no guarantee, none what so ever, that AJ could have swept through that impressive crowd

He came unstuck against Douglas, that's a given
but aside from that, his next defeats were past his prime against Holyfield and Lewis, there isn't even a fighter on the planet right now that compare with those two, for AJ to attempt to prove himself against.

Is Joshua better than Tyson? Time may prove that he is but I'd be doubtful.
But there is no way any boxing fan can confidently state, right now, that he IS better. He just hasn't done anything to prove it

Well, maybe he's just about 10% more tall and heavy, which helps in a boxing match. On top of that Tyson and Holyfield doped.

Av you got proof? If not dont say it

asdfjkl wrote:

thechump wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Well, maybe he's just about 10% more tall and heavy, which helps in a boxing match. On top of that Tyson and Holyfield doped.

Av you got proof? If not dont say it

First of all, Holyfield got a very very odd way of growing, he gained about 3 inches after the age of 20.
Mike Tyson himself even fully admitted that he cheated on all kinds of drugstests, why would he do that if he had nothing to hide?
Holyfield was also linked to all kind of doping affairs.

"On February 28, 2007, Holyfield was anonymously linked to Applied Pharmacy Services, a pharmacy in Alabama that is currently under investigation for supplying athletes with illegal steroids and human growth hormone (HGH). He denies ever using performance enhancers.
Holyfield's name does not appear in the law enforcement documents reviewed. However, a patient by the name of "Evan Fields" caught investigators' attention. "Fields" shares the same birth date as Holyfield—October 19, 1962. The listed address for "Fields" was 794 Evander, Fairfield, Ga. 30213. Holyfield has a very similar address. When the phone number that, according to the documents, was associated with the "Fields" prescription, was dialed, Holyfield answered.
Is ped use in boxing common? Is it like bodybuilding where testing is basically non existent? Is it not unfair that someone could have the advantage of PED's like steroids/hgh and they get in the ring with someone who puts in the same amount of hard work in the gym as they do just without the help of drugs?"