Errol Spence Jr. Vs Carlos Ocampo Scorecard by Gold


scorecard by GOLD
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ERROL SPENCE JR
CARLOS OCAMPO

Fight:



More:

Errol Spence Jr

Carlos Ocampo



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Gold's picture

Because you delete one round fights that I scored when they happened lol

Champion97's picture

I bet you drink beer with a straw.

Champion97's picture

You probably report 1 cent missing to the police

Champion97's picture
Gold's picture

I like to debate things and we have very different perspectives. I don't ever make it personal, but there are some things I believe are objectively true such as the WBA regular being an illegitimate title, so if you disagree I'm going to argue against it.

Gold's picture

When it comes down to it if we will never agree I will just end the conversation like with Pacquiao vs. Matthysse and let it play out, but sometimes they don't actually play out which is disappointing.

Champion97's picture

Ok.

At the end of the day, we do not know whether or not Whyte avoided Ortiz, we do not know whether Parker wants the tougher fights or not, but I'm 99% certain I'm right on this. All it takes is a disagreement, and a fight doesn't happen, Whyte was close to fighting Pulev and Ortiz, negotiations were underway, and out of the blue, the Parker fight was done, Hearn drives a hard bargin, there is a reason why Wilder, Ortiz both complain about Hearn, but Parker and his team have made two fight deals with Hearn in the last 6 months. Ortiz is not easy to deal with, Parker is, you should acknowledge that, and also, acknowledge that Parker, without a belt isn't that high reward an opponent, he is high risk as well as Ortiz. Whyte wants to fight Charr for the same reason Pacquiao fought Matthysse. I'm not saying it would definitely get Whyte fights agaisnt Wilder or Joshua, because Murata, Shumenov, Fielding, Tepora, don't seem to be on the radars of the champions, but if you are Whyte, getting that Regular, it's worth a shot.

Gold's picture

It's not necessarily that Whyte ducked Ortiz either, it's that Eddie definitely did. When you have a purse bid situation like with Whyte vs. Pulev, Whyte vs. Ortiz, that is a situation where a negotiation doesn't need to be met, Eddie has big pockets and if he wanted to win those purse bids he could have. That wasn't the timeline, the Whyte vs. Pulev purse bid was completed, Eddie lost by a wide margin, they pulled out of the Ortiz one before it went to purse bid, and then Parker was signed. Parker doesn't have leverage or better paydays, so he was going to have to take what Eddie gave him. If Eddie wanted to make the Ortiz fight happen, it is very simple, he lets it go to purse bid and wins. If Eddie wanted to make the Wilder fight happen, he would offer a percentage split instead of a flat fee. When Wilder called his bluff and accepted the earlier flat fee, Eddie freaked out and quickly made the Povetkin fight. Parker is more known than Ortiz, especially in the UK because he fought Fury and AJ, he is also much less dangerous, Parker doesn't have the one punch power or boxing craft of Ortiz. Whyte wants to fight Charr for the same reason Pacquiao fought Matthysse, money? If Eddie wants to make the Whyte vs. AJ rematch, he can make it happen on the drop of a hat, he doesn't need any WBA regular, IBF mandatory, etc to make that happen. The reason those guys aren't on the radar is because they aren't legitimate champions.

Champion97's picture

So do I. I agree that the WBA should have one title, just like the WBC, IBF, WBO. My argument wasn't so much that the Regular is that significant, it is more that it is factually a belt which is officially a world title, and if a fighter has it, there is more chance of them getting opportunities, because Matthysse was Pacquiao's choice of opponent for a reason. My point was, Whyte wants to fight Charr because Charr has a belt (legitimate or not), and if he has that belt, Joshua or Wilder might want to fight him, because some consider the Regular a world title.

Not relative to Whyte and Ortiz so much, on a level below them, 'Charr got knocked out by a cruiserweight' is just critical, Charr beat Alexander Ustinov, who only lost to Kubrat Pulev prior to that, Briedis made the Usyk fight close, Charr was unfortunate against Klitschko, unfortunate to lose?, no, unfortunate to lose under that circumstance and not make more of a name for himself? Yes. Charr beats Kevin Johnson as well, in 2014, decent win.

Gold's picture

It is a belt like the WBC Silver, WBC Diamond, WBO interim, etc. It is not a world title because the WBA already has a champion, that is why no credible media or expert recognizes the WBA regular. It does not get fighters more opportunities either because the WBA does not use it as a mandatory status, how come Povetkin is the WBA mandatory yet Charr is the WBA regular title holder? Makes no sense except for that it is another check the WBA can collect. Matthysse was Pacquiao's choice because it paid well and Matthysse has an outsized reputation compared to his form at the time. The WBA regular will not sway Joshua or Wilder at all, if Whyte/Hearn wanted to make the Wilder fight happen they would have fought Ortiz for the mandatory, Eddie can make Whyte vs AJ happen at any time. Whyte fighting an actual legitimate opponent would do more to boost his profile than fighting Manuel Charr.

Legitimate Heavyweights should not lose to Cruiserweights unless they are of Holyfield or Usyk's quality. It wasn't that he was knocked out, he got knocked out cold, and Usyk took Breidis's punches for twelve rounds. The guy is not a good heavyweight, Ustinov is a low level contender fighter and Kevin Johnson is a guy people build prospects off of at this point. Charr loses to any top 15-20 Heavyweight in the world, if he fought Chisora he'd get stopped. Charr is a walkover opponent for Whyte at this point in his career.

Champion97's picture

I understand that to an extent, the WBA shouldn't work like that. Because Povetkin has been more successful, working towards a title and getting closer to an opportunity, for years, Charr is in a better position than he would be without the WBA Regular, because as I said, that's why Whyte wants to fight him. The WBA Regular had something to do with it I think, you can't rule that out as a strong possibility, Pacquiao picked Matthysse, Whyte calls out Charr, and the WBA Regular's involvement in these two scenarios is coincidence?, I don't think so, I'm not saying the Regular, the IBO, WBF, IBA, not saying these are legitimate world titles, but I'm saying they make a difference, and a fighter would take these titles rather than leave them, but I'm not saying the Regular is the same as the 4. Well for all you know, they did, maybe Ortiz is to blame, does he want to fight Whyte? I think he's resorting to it, I think it is better than nothing, I'm not saying it is smart, all I'm saying is, Charr having a title called the WBA, is the reason why Whyte would fight him when he probably won't get Wilder this year, Joshua is occupied, when Ortiz and Pulev fights haven't been made, through possibly their faults as much as or more than his, that's what I'm saying, I'm saying who is there for Whyte assuming Pulev and Ortiz aren't options?, the Regular is better than nothing, that's all I'm saying, Whyte isn't a promoter, if you are right, Hearn won't invest time in the fight. Whyte, in my opinion, is the most deserving fighter out there for a world title shot, apart from Povetkin, but he has his chance against AJ. Hearn will have to wait for the next window, and even after Joshua vs Povetkin, what if Wilder negitions progress? Joshua won't fight Whyte instead of Wilder if negotiations go well, I don't think, some people think Joshua is avoiding Wilder, I don't think so. I honestly think Whyte tried to get Ortiz or Pulev before the Parker fight was made, and you should definitely give Parker credit for being so easy to do business with, because he was a world champion remember, when he agreed to take not 40% against Joshua.

Well what are we talking here? You make it sound like all professional boxers should be held to world level standards, as a world level heavyweight, a top 10 heavyweight definitely, he shouldn't be knocked by a cruiserweight, you have a point, but Charr is a good European, top 30 heavyweight, who has overachieved, so with that in mind, you can't hold a KO loss to even a cruiserweight of the level of Briedis, against him, Briedis can punch, and he is a very good fighter, definitely world level, I think he might be top 2 at 200, there is a case for him, he won what? 5 rounds against Usyk? That's a world level fighter, he can punch, knocking out a heavyweight Charr is a testament to Briedis, not a negative of Charr, and like I said, I do not think Charr is on the level of Povetkin, Ortiz, Whyte, Parker, Miller. Build what sort of prospects? Just fighters who are 3-0 with NABA ambitions?, no, fighters who are chasing world titles, Fury, Ruiz, Pulev, these sort of fighters, Charr beating him was impressive. Ustinov is good, at world level?, no he isn't good, at European level, he is very good, no shame in losing to Pulev, outside of Pulev and Charr, Ustinov has been dominant. It all depends what we are talking about, if you are only talking world level, then I agree, Charr and Ustinov are not good, but they are not terrible at world level, and are very good at a high level (because boxing for your continent is high level). Now, I could say, Briedis couldn't really hurt Usyk because Usyk didn't let him set anything up, never let him get leverage on his shots, not because Charr can't take a punch. Also, it was in 2014, before Joshua knocked him out, that Charr beat Johnson, so bear that in mind. I don't think Chisora would stop Charr, beat him by UD I think. I don't think he's a walkover opponent for Whyte, I don't he's a tough opponent either, I think Charr could challenge him for short times, do better than Browne, but not really give Whyte problems, and get stopped. I think the top 20 heavyweights beat Charr. Charr would be a challenge for inexperienced fighters like Dubois, Yoka, Joyce, Gorman, might be a good opponent too, maybe because he is not good at world level, and these guys have all had a good few fights, it might not be too much, too soon, but Charr would be a step up for them.

One thing I will say about Tyson Fury is this, Pianeta is not good enough to be his second comeback opponent, first instead of Seferi would have been alright, but bear in mind what you said about Johnson, well Johnson isn't a puncher, he stopped Pianeta quite recently, Pianeta also, stopped by Chagaev in a round.

Gold's picture

I actually do agree that Charr wouldn't get the Whyte fight without the WBA Regular, but the boost the WBA Regular gives is only at a below true world title contention level. Matthysse was the best name for Pacquiao relative to the danger he presented, but again neither of those guys are in true world title contention at Welterweight. Those titles don't really mean a lot in terms of building towards the top competition, like we've discussed the WBA regular doesn't help someone get a WBA title shot. They didn't go to purse bid which is Eddie's decision to pull out, Ortiz has no opportunities unless he's given a Wilder rematch, of course he'd love to fight Whyte. You could run a massive list of people that Whyte should fight rather than Charr WBA regular or not. I highly doubt Whyte will get a shot at Wilder until after Joshua vs. Wilder happens, Haymon and the WBC won't let that happen. Whyte should rematch Chisora, it will make good money in the UK, more than Charr will or probably any other fight he can get at the time. He won't do that though because Chisora already made him look questionable once, it is too risky of a fight. Well here's the thing about Whyte being the most deserving, if Ian John Lewis would have called the knockdown correctly in the second round, the fight would have been a split draw. If the Joshua vs. Wilder negotiations do get done than Whyte should just bide his time and wait to fight the winner, he will definitely get it down the line if its Joshua. It isn't that Joshua is avoiding Wilder, it's that Eddie Hearn is. Whyte himself said he has a while to go and is still developing, I can understand not taking Pulev fight because Hearn can set up the Joshua vs. Whyte fight at any time, but if he really wanted a fight with Ortiz Eddie should have taken it to purse bid, I doubt he would have lost it. Parker has no better options, he didn't deserve 40% versus Joshua, Joshua was the name in the fight. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say Parker likely made ten times more to fight Joshua than he did to fight Hughie Fury. It wasn't Parker being charitable but rather taking his best business option.

The reason I am holding him up to a high standard is because Whyte may face him and Whyte is supposedly a top 5 or top 10 Heavyweight according to some people. Does anyone want to see guys like Joshua, Wilder, Ortiz, etc. fight guys of this level? Absolutely not, the only reason Ortiz has to fight guys of this level or worse is because he can't get a fight. Charr is not trash but he is not a good name or a viable opponent for Whyte. Briedis did very well versus Usyk, but Briedis was a lot less experienced when he faced Charr and Charr got smoked, a true Heavyweight contender isn't going to have that happen to them even if Breidis is a top Cruiserweight. Charr is a good opponent for someone like Joe Joyce or Hgrovic to build on, but he isn't going to fight them because it doesn't pay for him. Ustinov has an incredibly padded record outside of his losses to Pulev and Charr. Usyk stood in the pocket versus Briedis, he wasn't boxing him on the outside for twelve rounds like he did versus Gassiev. Johnson was still on a low level before Joshua knocked him out. Charr can't take power at this stage in his career and can't beat legitimate opponents, that's why he is winning at this level. If I were predicting I'd say Whyte KO 1-4 honestly. Charr has done extremely little on a good level other than getting KO'd. Charr fighting those prospect guys you listed is the level he should be fighting at, not a supposed top 5-10 Heavyweight like Whyte.

Yeah Fury's opponents have been not good on this comeback. It will be forgiven though if the unlikely Wilder vs. Fury fight happens.

Champion97's picture

All I'm saying is, I think some fighters might take the Regular rather than leave it, and it can be a reason to handpick a certain opponent, surely that makes sense. I'm not saying Charr vs Whyte is a good fight. I just don't buy that that is because Whyte doesn't want Ortiz. What if Hearn makes Haymon and Wilder an offer they can't refuse? Can he do that? No I think Whyte would fight Chisora again, he can do much better than he did in 2016, he is the one who has improved, not Chisora, as you said, the money would be good. Ok, I see he would have drawn against a former world champion who Joshua just beat but couldn't hurt, I'd say that's very impressive, he dropped Parker once cleanly, Joshua didn't, then again, it is styles and fight tempo I suppose, because Whyte got dropped himself, but no I think Whyte is the most deserving, especially with the Browne win, plus, he beat Parker, it really is that simple, no I think he should get a world title shot, who is more deserving than him apart from Povetkin who gets his shot in September? Ok, if Hearn and Ortiz wanted it, why not go to purse bids?, I don't have an answer to that, he lost a purse bid in the Pulev negotiations I believe, bjt there was no purse bid for Whyte against Ortiz. I strongly disagree with that, no other options? He was the champion, didn't deserve 40%, I think he deserved at least 40, maybe 45, he was the champion as well, Joshia being the draw is why he was able to claim so much money, not what is right. Doesn't matter, it is still a case of him being massively out earned by his opponent, charitable is the wrong word, but no, Parker took that because he is a wise, realistic athlete, Wilder keeps asking for 50%, because he's difficult to deal with?, no, he's like most fighters, Parker agreed to take 30-35% when he was a champion, that's very reasonable, he wanted the fight so badly I think, that money wasn't as important, but whichever way you look at it, Parker is very reasonable, very easy to make a fight with, Whyte fought Parker not because he avoided Ortiz, but because Parker is easy to make a fight with.

You have to put him in the top 10. You have to remember, realistically, all fighters fight opponents who are a level below them sometimes, look at all fighters' records, not all wins are hard fought, I'm not giving you examples, because I'm talking about all fighters at this level. No, maybe not when they are champions, not Joshua and Wilder. Well, yes, but let's not get carried away, this guy is a drug cheat, what do you expect?, he was very lucky to get the second chance against Wilder which he didn't deserve, he is a skumbag, and you think he tries hard to get fights?, he should take a leaf out of Parker's book, be easier to deal with, because Ortiz has no other options, I bet he wouldn't except under 40% against Joshua. He is a good stay busy opponent, worthwhile, could get some rounds, better than nothing, a fight worth taking, definitely if he fights 3 times in one year, if he has 3 in a year, by a stay busy standard, Charr is not bad. He isn't a top heavyweight, Briedis wasn't that inexperienced, he is a puncher, knocked out Aririch in one round, a heavyweight and a fighter most beat by UD I think, Briedis is a puncher, there is no shame in a heavyweight of Charr's level being knocked out by even a cruiserweight who might well be top 2 in his division. This is about facts, Ustinov is undeniably a very good fighter in boxing within his continent, he is not good at world level, he doesn't have a padded record in my opinion at European level, but it takes very good European level fighter who is no Rod Salka or Conor McGregor even at world level, to beat Ustinov, I think Charr was the underdog, you should always give a fighter who pulls out an upset, credit. I know, but he was still moving his head, using his general pedigree, he was still fighting smart, not taking shots flush that often, but he did take some big shots clean, and isn't that more of a testament to Usyk's chin? He was on a high enough level that Charr beating him was impressive, and when I say this, remember what I'm talking about, a Eurpoean level fighter who is a level below most fighters who beat Johnson, because most fighters who beat him are ranked higher than Charr. Ustinov is a puncher, but I agree, Charr is not durable at this time. Again, legitimate opponents?, that depends on the level, and in a world where only world level fighters are worth mentioning, this discussion is pointless .

Gold's picture

Some fighters may take it, but some also take the IBO which is a worthless belt as well. Hearn won't be able to make that offer because Wilder and his team want to fight Joshua exclusively. Hearn missed the boat on having Whyte face Joshua first, there was a time where that could have happened but it isn't going to now. If Whyte fights Charr while Chisora sits on the shelf he definitely deserves criticism. Charr is going to be unavailable until at least December anyways having to fight ancient Fres Oquendo at the end of September. I think Joshua would have had a good shot to get Parker out of there if there was a different referee. Getting the headbutt knockdown could have shaken Parker up too. The Browne win I don't rate at all, Browne looked really terrible physically and it reflected in his boxing. Who is more deserving of getting a title shot after Povetkin? Deontay Wilder. Hearn lost the purse bid for the Pulev fight which he likely didn't really want and didn't even want to go to purse bid versus Ortiz. What else was Parker going to do? Fight contenders and mandatories back to back making a fraction of what he made in one fight versus Joshua? He probably made in the Joshua fight what he would make for at least five successful title defenses which is definitely not a given when he is fighting closely versus Andy Ruiz and Hughie Fury. Parker was a one belt champion, not as accomplished as AJ in the ring and didn't bring any of the money to the table which is what decides the purse splits. I agree, he took it because he realizes it is better to take a chance versus AJ even when he has little chance to win and make a ton of money rather than toiling away at making successful title defenses. He definitely took the AJ fight for the money, I don't think there is any question about that. He has terrible management and promotion as well, they aren't going to drive a real hard bargain, they want to get their cash while they can. Like Golovkin, Wilder doesn't actually want 50%, but he isn't going to start negotiating at the percent split he actually wants because he actually wants to get the value he believes he deserves. Parker is an easier opponent than Ortiz and pays more but that also lost him the WBC mandatory chance, so it is a question of what is more important.

Heavyweight is such a thin division that I'd place him in the top 10, but not in the top 5. No one wants to see him face Charr, it is like Miller facing Adamek, just a walkover opponent. Canelo popped too and he will remain the biggest draw in boxing. At the end of the day if guys pay, they will get fights regardless of their history. If Ortiz paid, he'd get fights too, but he's not a draw at all. Yes, obviously he tries to get fights, the Jennings fight actually did scare a lot of guys off because it showed that he was a high risk opponent alongside being low reward. Parker is not some model professional, he is mismanaged by people who want to get money out of him which the AJ fight provided. Parker had almost no leverage in the negotiation either, AJ is a draw with or without him, theoretically, another belt gives him more leverage but it's not like the Parker fight made him a greater draw. Ortiz took less than 20% versus Wilder, so that definitely isn't true. He isn't going to fight Charr until December so it isn't really a "stay busy" fight. By then he could just fight Chisora which is what he should do unless Hearn views old man Chisora as too high risk despite paying a lot more money. Breidis hadn't fought any legitimate contender level Cruiserweights yet, he was still at the prospect stage. If you need anymore proof of that, it was an eight round fight and Charr still got really knocked out. Briedis isn't a huge puncher either, he has a good punch but he wasn't able to stop aging Huck or Mike Perez who had both been KO'd previously. If you believe Ustinov is good at a European level, fighting guys who are good at that level, who is the best opponent he beat? Charr was likely the underdog because he hadn't beat a notable opponent in years and got sparked by Briedis, lost to Duhaupas and sparked by Povetkin since doing anything notable. Was it really that impressive that Charr beat Johnson? Looking at his resume it actually may be his best win though so I guess that says something about the level he was at. If he was fighting for the European championship he would have been facing tougher competition. Is Ustinov a puncher? Charr is not at a European championship level either honestly. There just isn't a competitive or monetary basis for Whyte vs. Charr. In a logical world Whyte should rematch Chisora and Charr should fight someone like Joyce, Hgrovic, Yoka, Gorman, but that likely won't happen.

Champion97's picture

I know, that's probably why Groves didn't pay the fee in the Eubank fight, because the belt meant nothing to him or his team. Legitimate world title or not, it shouldn't be Oquendo. 45, that's very old for any weight, and more importantly, 4 years out, his last fight was a loss to Chagaev in 2014. I don't think so, they both would have had more success, the referee was not out to get one fighter, he was just a fool who didn't know ti what extent to let guys fight in close before breaking up the action, it would just have ben a better fight, but if I had to say, I would say the fighter at the reach disadvantage suffered more from the referee. Nobody is, exactly, that's what I'm saying. Here's the thing, this is about building towards an opportunity, so because Browne was terrible, Whyte shouldn't get a shot?, no, you have to be impressed bh that to some degree, you do have to be realistic and take Browne's terrible form into consideration, but for all we know, he wasn't as bad as he was made to look, that was impressive from Whyte, and he's beaten Parker now, he deserves a world title shot. What is Wilder going to do? Boxers don't usually think sensibly, that's why there is a need for financial advisors, Wilder would make more against Joshua even if he got 30%, but no champion wants to take under 40% when they think they are entitled to more, Parker had other options, he wanted the fight, had been calling Joshua out for years, he kept lowering his own claim, from 40, 35, etc, team Parker wasted no time arguing about money, they got on with it. There absolutely is! Parker was calling out AJ when he was no more of a champion than him, he didn't fight Joshua for the money, he would have fought him for what he made against Takam. If you just fight for the money, don't come as prepared as Parker did. I still don't think Ortiz beats Parker, Parker, on his day, I think beats Whyte, and Ortiz is a very damaged fighter as well as an old fighter.

You seem to really not want to give Whyte credit, boxing is not always good to watch, not always clean, but fighters like Whyte get results. He tries to get fights, but who would he fight? He had no leverage which is why he agreed to 35%, which for a champion, is not easy to do, which is why we got to see the fight, give Parker credit for being a reasonable fighter who is easy to do business with. I find that hard to believe, wasn't it 30-35?, that's what I read. Parker is definitely a model professional, and someone I look up to, aside from this topic, for his sportsmanship, no fighter would have handled Whyte's BS better. This is a good time to stop this topic, my final answer on my take, is that Charr is not good at world level, he is at European level, is beating Johnson impressive from a fighter who is supposed to be world level? Not particularly, it is expected, is it from a good European level fighter? Yes of course it is. He is, he just beat Ustinov. There is no shame in being KO'd by Briedis, it's levels. Well it depends, if Whyte fights Charr this year, that's 3 fights, and the Browne and Parker wins a good wins regardless of what you say about Browne. It depends on of how much significance Charr vs Whyte would be built up as. Joyce vs Ortiz would be brilliant!

Is it me or has Parker become not good in your book since losing to Whyte, you hdad yiur mind made up about Whyte, but maybe consider he is better than you thought, I do think Parker coming back too soon was a factor, but still.

Gold's picture

I understand why it is Oquendo, because of the court case mandating it, but it is still bad on a competitive basis and for the "legitimacy" of this "title". Joshua is a lot more physically imposing and can work on the inside better than Parker. Parker doesn't like to be made uncomfortable, that showed in the Whyte fight. I think other than the fans, Joshua would have been the main beneficiary of being allowed to fight on the inside. Browne did look really bad in isolation, you have to remember before that Whyte went twelve with old Helenius, I think it really was just Browne looking that bad. I wasn't impressed by Whyte or Parker in their fight. When a champion fights someone who is a draw and generates a lot more money than they usually fight for, they are likely going to have to take less than 40%. That figure is still a lot more than they usually get paid though which is the point of taking the fight. What was Parker's other option? AJ has been a big star ever since he won at the Olympics, you can't honestly tell me that Parker would fight AJ if AJ paid what Parker got paid for facing Takam. AJ is a big payday, I don't fault Parker for taking it. What is Parker's day though? He hasn't had a lot of great results in his career. If Ortiz is a damaged fighter, he hasn't shown it in the ring. His speed and reflexes still look good, his legs aren't fast but they are servicable.

Because if someone has to fight dirty and have it enabled by a bad referee to win, then they shouldn't get a lot of credit. He fought the fight he had to fight to win, but it was outside the rules of boxing. That 35% or whatever it was for Parker was many times over what he has made in any other fight. In my opinion Parker couldn't have handled Whyte's dirty tactics worse. He didn't make a big deal out of it to the referee, he didn't try to foul Whyte back when the referee was allowing fouls, that is essentially conceding the fight to Whyte. Neither Browne or Parker were good wins in my opinion because of the context that surrounded the fights. I don't know about you, but when I think of good European level fighters I think of guys like Pulev and Chisora, they can challenge at a higher level and have mixed success but essentially beat everyone below that level. I wouldn't rank Charr on that level at all. Briedis wasn't a developed fighter yet, you'd hope a legitimate Heavyweight like Charr could at least go the eight round distance without getting knocked out cold. I'm sure Eddie will bill Whyte vs. Charr as a world title fight and all that jazz. I don't think Ortiz would take the Joyce fight, even though Ortiz is a high risk low reward opponent Joyce is even worse, if he wins he beat a prospect, if he loses that's basically it for his career.

AJ vs. Parker didn't really change my opinion of Parker, he has a well-rounded skill set but he isn't particularly good at any one skill. His stock went straight in the tank after the Whyte fight, he didn't show the will to win that a former champion and top contender should have. He just seemed content to take the paycheck until he finally tried to step on the gas in the last round when it was too late. I would be surprised if Parker ever became a really legitimate title challenger or a champion again, I am off the Parker train completely. For Whyte to prove he was good for my money, he should have fought Ortiz, but he didn't so here we are. Heavyweight has been a weak division historically, I think this is a better than average era for the division but the only two elite decades the division has had were the 70's and 90's. It makes sense when you think about it, somewhere between Lightweight and Light Heavyweight is the size where the vast majority of humans fall into and divisions in that range have the best competition.

Gold's picture

World alphabet titles don't really even matter if the fighter is good enough. Marco Antonio Barrera was the legitimate Featherweight champion of the world when he lost to Pacquiao, he had cleaned out the division yet held zero alphabet titles, only the Lineal and Ring titles. Antonio Tarver was the legitimate Light Heavyweight champion when he lost to Hopkins, he was the clear cut #1 in the division yet only held the Ring title at the time. Sergio Martinez was the clear cut legitimate Middleweight champion only defending the Lineal and Ring titles because the WBO and WBC unfairly stripped him. I wish fans would stop placing emphasis on alphabet titles as ways to legitimize boxers because they aren't needed.

Champion97's picture

I know, Canelo Alvarez is the Lineal and Ring Champion, but it is not often that that is the case, A, C, O, and IBF are the real titles, we both know it, most of the time, having those titles is more important, more significant than anything else, I'm well aware that Canelo out earns Golovkin, I know Mikey Garcia against Broner, and when he wasn't sure about which title to defend (because 140IBF/135WBC) outearned fighters with world titles, but what Terence Crawford did, what Oleksandr Usyk did, that's just something else in my book, in terms of achievements, not necessarily money, but achievements, sheer glory, that's just something above Canelo. There are many posters for Golovkin vs Canelo, the majority have Canelo first, but not all, on the one, higher earner, special titles, Lineal champion, I get it, and I know what Lineal means, but on the other hand, Golovkin had 75%, now it's 50%, of the legitimate world titles, Canelo has none, I mean, Canelo has never actually won a world title fight at 160, he beat Cotto at 155, won the WBC belt, vacated it soon after, and that's it really, it a belt he never defended, the Lineal, Ring, just see,s like an extra privilege, whereas Golovkin has won 15-20 world title fights at 160, you cannot deny that that is a valid argument to make Golovkin the A-side, Alvarez is in the driving seat, 57-58% of the money I believe, but you can't blame me or anyone else for considering the champion who is undefeated, still has 2 belts, him the A-side, and not a fighter who has never won a world title fight at 160. I don't agree, because when fighters win the titles, that's actually earning, if fighters have been/should be champions, they usually win a belt soon after.

Gold's picture

I actually don't think Canelo has a claim to the Lineal Middleweight championship anymore when he beat Liam Smith for Smith's WBO Super Welterweight title he said he wasn't a Middleweight anymore. Canelo vs. Golovkin II will definitely be for the vacant Lineal and Ring titles though given they are the clear cut two best Middleweights. He was also stripped of the Ring title because of the drug test failure. I agree, those four are the real titles but it is really dependant on if fans recognize them or not. I agree it is a great accomplishment for Crawford and Usyk to unify all of the titles in a division, it very rarely has happened in the three and four belt eras. Canelo is the A-side of the promotion and gets the top billing because he is the draw. It isn't as clear-cut as it was before though, Golovkin got 45% or whatever of the purse split, much more than he got in the first fight. I agree that Canelo's legacy at Middleweight is definitely skewed because of the Caneloweight fights. I disagree with counting Golovkin's title defenses before Geale vacated the WBA Super title because he wasn't the legitimate champion. Golovkin's legitimate title reign starts with Rosado in my opinion, so Hopkins still has the most middleweight title defenses to me. Alvarez is the A-side because he is getting the larger purse split, gets top billing in promotions, etc. I agree that fighters that have been/should have been champions usually win an alphabet belt, but I am saying that those titles shouldn't be the only thing that is used to legitimize the best fighters in a division.

Champion97's picture

I don't think he is a middleweight, I think he is 5'9, too stocky for 147, height isn't everything, I understand that, and there are taller fighters who can make lower weights, but it is still a very good metric for natural size in my opinion, and I do not think Canelo is a middleweight, not really, but after the 12 rounds against Chavez and Golovkin, he is adapted now, he is strong, fast, dangerous at 160 because he is a stocky 5'9 and couldn't make 147. I understand that, he is the cash cow, the PPV star, take your pick, but he isn't the champion, he wasn't against Cotto, he wasn't against Smith, and he isn't against Golovkin. Meh, I don't know, but ok let's go along with that, Rosado, that was in 2013, that's still 5 years, 13 world title fights at 160, and Canelo has never won a world title fight at 160, he vacated the only belt he won above 154, now I think while not paying sanctioning fees, getting the WBC off your back, not having to deal with mandatories, you should also have to face the drawbacks of vacating a title, and I just think Canelo has been allowed to hve his cake and eat it in that regard. I agree with that, Charlo might not be a champion, he is still a top middleweight, Porter might not be a champion, still a top welterweight, Frampton might not be a champion, still a top featherweight. People aren't stupid, it doesn't take an observant person to see who the better fighters in the division are, and more to the point, Frampton will get his chance, so will Charlo, so will Prograis.

More to the point though, I think it is fair to have Golovkin first of this site, have a poster which is Golovkin vs Alvarez II, because hw is the champion, he has the belts, Alvarez has never won at 160.

Gold's picture

I think he can be a viable top Middleweight champion despite his poor build for the weight. We saw him go twelve very competitive rounds versus Golovkin. He can't make Super Welterweight so he is a Middleweight. He was the Middleweight champion but he never really had to face legitimate Middleweights, I agree with that. I don't have a problem with Golovkin getting the top billing here really, he isn't the A-side of the fight though.

Champion97's picture

I do not buy that Alvarez can't make 154, he could cut the weight, make that, it is just that it isn't really necessary now he is adapted to 160. I'm happy with that, I know, Paulie Malignaggi, Robert Garcia have both said Alvarez is the A-side, PPV star and all that, and of course Alvarez is outearning Golovkin, I know that, but I wanted to explain why in my opinion Golovkin SHOULD be the A-side, and why he comes first on this site, if you don't have a problem with that, cool.

Gold's picture

Canelo was in his mid 20's when he was able to make 154 consistently and he barely made it versus Liam Smith almost two years ago. He wasn't on VADA 365 at the time if I remember correctly so perhaps that had something to do with it as well.

Champion97's picture

Yes, but he made 152 against Mayweather, I suppose he was 23, but no I think once you are 26 and making a weight, you can make that weight for the rest of your career if you choose to stay there. Possible, I don't buy the Tainted Meat stuff, I just don't believe it, plausible it may be, but I just seems very unlikely.

Gold's picture

There isn't a set age where someone stops being able to make the weights, there is only a certain age and finite amount of times someone can cut as much weight as Canelo was cutting to get to 154 lbs.

Champion97's picture

I know, but I don't think Alvarez had serious trouble, was seriously struggling to make 154 when he fought Liam Smith, I just don't buy that a 5'9 fighter simply cannot make 154, but obviously, it would be a tough, tough weight cut, he has no reason to do it now. I think Canelo is big enough for 160, he is short for the weight, and he is not a big middleweight, but because of his natural build, and just having always been stacked, I think he is strong, fast at 160, and I don't think he has at a weight disadvantage against Golovkin this time, not really, he might be, but less so than last time, another reason I think he wins the remacth.

I think a lot of it is about age, when you are under 25, you can make a weight you probably won't be able to make later in your career, when you are 27, and you can make a weight, you are full matured, and that is a weight you can make until you start to decline and because of age, it is harder to shift the lbs, Hopkins knew when it was time to move up.

Champion97's picture

By the way, don't forget to keep the predictions coming, because you are winning this month!