Dillian Whyte vs Joseph Parker

Enter your Dillian Whyte vs Joseph Parker fan card
CONTROVERSY RATING: 9%
The percentage of fan cards that disagree with an official result. Exclusively on EYE ON THE RING.
Dillian Whyte vs Joseph Parker
Fan Rating: 
0
Your rating: None
4.23077
Average: 4.2 (13 votes)

Date: 
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Location: 
O2 Arena, Greenwich, London, England, UK
Rounds Scheduled: 
12
Contracted Weight: 
Unlimited
Titles at Stake: 
WBC Heavyweight Silver Title (Whyte's 1st defence). (Vacant) WBO Heavyweight International Title
Referee: 
Ian John Lewis

Official Judging
Steve Gray 113 - 112
Phil Austin 114 - 111
Christophe Fernandez 115 - 110

More:






Averaged Fan Card:



Fan Cards: Dillian Whyte vs Joseph Parker



No fan cards yet, sign up now and be the first to score this fight!


Comments

Guy Incognito's picture

'Guy Incognito is undecided on whether or not the earth is flat'
'[he] thinks Hughie got robbed against Pulev'

Correct. So? Your point?

'he is always looking for trouble'

Incorrect. The very opposite is true. I always try to avoid trouble. If anything, the only trouble here is that which you bring here yourself.

'I was calling him a moron'

And I am the one who is looking for trouble? At least I do not call other people morons, swear at those who disagree with me and call them biased liars.

'I'm always happy to talk boxing rationally.'

Then talk boxing rationally.

Champion97's picture

My point? Your stupid, those are invalid arguments.

Who is always the one to make the first post?, that is all the proof I need, you look fpr trouble, you have no desrire to learn about boxing, you show no interest in it.

Yes you are, I called you a moron after you posted another stupid comment.

I am, with everybody apart from you, but you have very little boxing knowledge and have no desure to learn about it, now, clear off

Guy Incognito's picture

Here we go again. You know that when Champion97 starts swearing and insulting others that his tantrum is either nigh or has already begun. And to say that I know nothing about boxing is incorrect. And to consistently beg that I stop talking to you is a sign that you are growing frustrated by your failures to respond to my comments well, and fearful of losing yet another debate.

Champion97's picture

We have never had a real debate, your insistence on talking to me when you obviously don't know boxing, and making it about things unrelated to boxing, making it personal proves what an idiot you are.

I hope you sort yourself out, because man do you need to, please, if it makes you feel better, keep tellong yourself you won the debates, anyway, we should not talk, this stupidity is cluttering up this site. Take care of yourself, I wish you well.

Guy Incognito's picture

'We have never had a real debate'

Thanks to you.

'you obviously don't know boxing'

Incorrect. I do know things about boxing.

'[you are] making it about things unrelated to boxing'

no u

'making it personal proves what an idiot you are'

I do not make it personal.

'I hope you sort yourself out, because man do you need to'

no u

'we should not talk'

Again, to consistently beg that I stop talking to you is a sign that you are growing frustrated by your failures to respond to my comments well, and fearful of losing yet another debate.

'this stupidity is cluttering up this site'

Your stupidity, yes.

'Take care of yourself, I wish you well.'

Thank you. You, too.
You see? That was true politeness. Keep that up, and refrain from swearing, please.

Guy Incognito's picture

'We have never had a real debate'

Thanks to you.

'you obviously don't know boxing'

Incorrect. I do know things about boxing.

'[you are] making it about things unrelated to boxing'

no u

'making it personal proves what an idiot you are'

I do not make it personal.

'I hope you sort yourself out, because man do you need to'

no u

'we should not talk'

Again, to consistently beg that I stop talking to you is a sign that you are growing frustrated by your failures to respond to my comments well, and fearful of losing yet another debate.

'this stupidity is cluttering up this site'

Your stupidity, yes.

'Take care of yourself, I wish you well.'

Thank you. You, too.
You see? That was true politeness. Keep that up, and refrain from swearing, please.

MattDixon's picture

I think the two of you need to chill out like. No need for insults. No need for smack talking. No need for sarky little swings at each other. Come on lads it doesnt matter if the earth is flat or not. Just accept each others viewpoints and language used to talk to each other. No need for this.

Guy Incognito's picture

Agreed. Thank you.

Guy Incognito's picture

I tried saying the same thing you said to Champion97. You can see for yourself what that did to him by reading his replies to my comments. Now he loathes and despises me, probably because he failed to defeat me in our debates. But I did not create this hate from Champion97; I revealed it. I reccommend you steer clear of him, my friend.

Champion97's picture

Failed to defeat you in our debates? I beat you before it had started, you make no sense, we never had a debate because you lack the knowledge. Yes you did create the problems, you always start shit, it is always you who posts first, that's all anybody needs to know.

Guy Incognito's picture

Here we go again. You know that when Champion97 starts swearing and insulting others that his tantrum is either nigh or has already begun. And to say that I know nothing about boxing is incorrect. And to consistently beg that I stop talking to you is a sign that you are growing frustrated by your failures to respond to my comments well, and fearful of losing yet another debate. Also, it is not always me who posts first and starts the debates. This comment was never directed at you in any way, and you replied: http://eyeonthering.com/scorecards/gennady-golovkin-vs-sergiy-derevyanch....

Champion97's picture

Seeing as you are so insistent on talking to me, let's at least talk boxing, so you can learn something.

I can see the lack of knowledge, to say Kovalev is a bigger and scarier version of Golovkin is proof of limited knowledge, they are not that similar, Golovkin has the much better variety, is more versatile, has less weaknesses, Kovalev hits harder and not just because he is bigger, Golovkin has a good jab, but he has never been able to control opponents with it as well as Kovalev.

I can understand why someone who has a vague understanding of boxing would say Kovalev is a bigger and scarier version of Golovkin, because they both hit hard, have great jabs even if one is cleary better than the other in each of those departments, they both have great amateur background, but to say they are the same shows limited knowledge, not limited intelligence, but limited knowledge.

Guy Incognito's picture

'you are so insistent on talking to me'

Incorrect. You are just insistent on not talking to me at all, so you demand that I stop talking to you ever again if I reply to on of your comments just once.

'I can see the lack of knowledge, to say Kovalev is a bigger and scarier version of Golovkin is proof of limited knowledge, they are not that similar, Golovkin has the much better variety, is more versatile, has less weaknesses, Kovalev hits harder and not just because he is bigger, Golovkin has a good jab, but he has never been able to control opponents with it as well as Kovalev.'

Just because Kovalev is *like* a bigger version of Golovkin (not a bigger version of Golovkin: *like* a bigger version of Golovkin) does not mean that that he must have the exact same skills as Golovkin. He does has relatively similar skills. Kovalev hits hard, like Golovkin, has a good jab, like Golovkin, and generally controls his opponents well, like Golovkin. Just because Kovalev hits harder, but does not control his opponents as well, does not automatically make my point invalid. I was just saying that they are similar in skill and fighting style, but not identical.

'to say they are the same shows limited knowledge, not limited intelligence, but limited knowledge.'

Agreed. Good thing I did not say that they are the same, then.

Champion97's picture

I'm talking about boxing.

Ok, but they aren't roughly the same because there is an imbalance, what I mean by that is, Golovkin probably doesn't have any individual attributes which are as good Kovalev's 1, 2, but he is a more solid, compact fighter, more durable, more versatile, can fight on the inside, they are not chalk and cheese, there are some similarities, but not a lot. As I explained, Kovalev does those things better than Golovkin, why do you think Canelo struggled to much to get to the body of Kovalev? Why do you think Canelo still landed more power shots than Golovkin the second time despite being hit with so many jabs? The difference is, Kovalev controlls opponents with the jab, and Canelo struggled a lot more with Kovalev's jab than Golovkin's, his respect for Kovalev's power was a factor, but Kovalev controls distance with the jab, it's how he sets up the right hand, and it stops his opponent making it an inside fight, everyone knows Kovalev is not a good inside fighter.

What you said was inaccurate, because for the reasons I've said, they are not that similar. They are not similar in fighting style.

You said Kovalev is like a bigger and scarier version of Golovkin, again, limited knowledge

Guy Incognito's picture

'Golovkin probably doesn't have any individual attributes which are as good Kovalev's 1, 2,'
'Why do you think Canelo still landed more power shots than Golovkin the second time despite being hit with so many jabs?'

Due to Kovalev's increased power that comes with his height and weight.

'but he is a more solid, compact fighter, more durable, more versatile, can fight on the inside'

Mostly due to Golovkin's lighter weight. Usually, with lighter weight comes speed and endurance. But just because I said that Kovalev is like a larger version of Golovkin does not mean that he has the same chin and endurance.

'The difference is, Kovalev controlls opponents with the jab'
'Kovalev controls distance with the jab'

Due to Kovalev's increased reach.

'What you said was inaccurate, because for the reasons I've said, they are not that similar. They are not similar in fighting style.'
'You said Kovalev is like a bigger and scarier version of Golovkin, again, limited knowledge'

I disagree, but that is okay. I respect your opinion.

Champion97's picture

That's nowhere near enough of an explanation, Fielding was a piece of cake to get on the inside against and attack the body of, for Canelo, you can't put the difference down to pure size, because it's not enough, how many Kovalev and Golovkin fights have you seen?

Now you're taking the mick, it's not about weight, Golovkin is particularly durable, has an iron chin, Kovalev is known specifically for gassing ans being weak to the body, again, putting it down to weight alone shows a lack of knowledge. It's funny how vague you are and reluctant to be analytical when it comes to boxing.

Against light heavyweights! I wasn't just talking about Canelo, Kovalev is in against other light heavyweights who will obviously generally have longer reach than Golovkin and his opponents, come on, just accept you don't know much on this, and learn from what I've told you, watch them fight as well.

Here we go again, stop making it simply a matter of opinion, you are not backing up your opinion, all you have done is acknowledge the size difference between Kovalev and Golovkin, I've explained some of the reasons it isn't that simple, and it isn't something you understand, don't you want to learn.

Kovalev probably hits harder at 175 than Golovkin, he controls opponents at 175 with his jab better than Golovkin does at 160, do you understand the difference between that and the Canelo comparison? The difference is, it isn't fair to use the Canelo comparison because of the size, but size is not important when it comes to the fighters in general, in their own weight classes, do you understand that?

Guy Incognito's picture

'That's nowhere near enough of an explanation, Fielding was a piece of cake to get on the inside against and attack the body of, for Canelo, you can't put the difference down to pure size, because it's not enough, how many Kovalev and Golovkin fights have you seen?'

I never put it down to pure size. I just said that size is an advantage but not a deciding factor. And if you must know, I have probably seen about five Kovalev and ten Golovkin fights. Why do you ask?

'Now you're taking the mick, it's not about weight, Golovkin is particularly durable, has an iron chin, Kovalev is known specifically for gassing ans being weak to the body, again, putting it down to weight alone shows a lack of knowledge. It's funny how vague you are and reluctant to be analytical when it comes to boxing.'

Now you're taking the mick. Just because I said that most fighters tend to have better endurance and speed does not mean that I put it down to weight alone. You are just misinterpreting me, and that shows a lack of knowledge and understanding. It's funny how often you misunderstand and misinterpret me.

'Against light heavyweights! I wasn't just talking about Canelo, Kovalev is in against other light heavyweights who will obviously generally have longer reach than Golovkin and his opponents, come on, just accept you don't know much on this, and learn from what I've told you, watch them fight as well.'

Sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were just talking about the Canelo fights. And I do know a fair amount on this. Perhaps not as much as you, but I know enough. And I have watch them fight. Come on. You have got to better than that.

'Here we go again, stop making it simply a matter of opinion, you are not backing up your opinion, all you have done is acknowledge the size difference between Kovalev and Golovkin, I've explained some of the reasons it isn't that simple, and it isn't something you understand, don't you want to learn.'

I do want to learn. I am open-minded. You are the one who doesn't want to learn and accept other opinions and interpretations as valid.

'Kovalev probably hits harder at 175 than Golovkin, he controls opponents at 175 with his jab better than Golovkin does at 160, do you understand the difference between that and the Canelo comparison? The difference is, it isn't fair to use the Canelo comparison because of the size, but size is not important when it comes to the fighters in general, in their own weight classes, do you understand that?'

Agreed. I understand.

And by the way, MattDixon said this:

'I think the two of you need to chill out like. No need for insults. No need for smack talking. No need for sarky little swings at each other. Come on lads it doesnt matter if the earth is flat or not. Just accept each others viewpoints and language used to talk to each other. No need for this.'

Now it is not just me saying that you need to accept other viewpoints, calm down and stop using foul language. Come on, now.

Champion97's picture

That's exactly what you just did. If it's not a deciding factor then why was that all you could find to say? Because you haven't been able to back up your opinion with anything else. I ask because we're discussing them as fighters, but you need to understand that to increase your knowledge, you have to be willing to learn.

That's what you did! Look at how strong Golovkin was against Canelo II in rounds 9-11, Kovalev was gassed after 6 rounds in both Ward fights, how many more times have we seen Kovakev hurt than Golovkin? These are big differences which you could only explain with a 2 division size difference, the real answer is, Golovkin is far more durable, less weaknesses, because again, they are not that similar.

Why on earth would I just be talking about the Canelo fights, I pulled you up on what you said before Canelo even fought Kovalev. Not by the looks of it, I appreciate you admitting you know less than me, I don't think I'm better than you or superior because of it, but why not try to consider things you obviously haven't considered before?, just learn from what I'm saying. I've got to be better than what? I'm breaking this down logically.

I have seen no evidence of you being open minded, the absolute opposite, be open minded, and think about what I say, I guarantee you will have a better understanding of boxing. I am learning about boxing all the time, there's nothing I can learn from you about boxing, there's nothing you can say that will teach me anything about boxing, know where you stand, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm not insulting you, I'm saying, based on what I'm reading from you, that you know little about boxing, learn from someone who knows a lot about it.

Great, I don't think that's something you considered before.

He was right, but all I'm doing now is talking about boxing and trying to help you learn more about it, I don't think I'm better than you, don't get defensive, I'm only interested in taking about boxing, which is another reason I don't like talking to you. Let's keep this boxing related shall we?

Guy Incognito's picture

'That's exactly what you just did. If it's not a deciding factor then why was that all you could find to say? Because you haven't been able to back up your opinion with anything else. I ask because we're discussing them as fighters, but you need to understand that to increase your knowledge, you have to be willing to learn.'

I am willing to learn.

'That's what you did! Look at how strong Golovkin was against Canelo II in rounds 9-11, Kovalev was gassed after 6 rounds in both Ward fights, how many more times have we seen Kovakev hurt than Golovkin? These are big differences which you could only explain with a 2 division size difference, the real answer is, Golovkin is far more durable, less weaknesses, because again, they are not that similar.'

I disagree. I think that Kovalev is basically a big version of Golovkin. Sure, they have their differences, but you will find few major light-heavyweights that can be described as a big version of the Kazakh.

'I have seen no evidence of you being open minded, the absolute opposite, be open minded, and think about what I say, I guarantee you will have a better understanding of boxing. I am learning about boxing all the time, there's nothing I can learn from you about boxing, there's nothing you can say that will teach me anything about boxing, know where you stand, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm not insulting you, I'm saying, based on what I'm reading from you, that you know little about boxing, learn from someone who knows a lot about it.'

Accepting both sides of the flat-round earth argument is an example of being open-minded. There is your evidence. And I do not know little about boxing. I am willing to learn more, but I feel I still know a fair amount.

'He was right, but all I'm doing now is talking about boxing and trying to help you learn more about it, I don't think I'm better than you, don't get defensive, I'm only interested in taking about boxing, which is another reason I don't like talking to you. Let's keep this boxing related shall we?'

I do try to keep this boxing-related. You were the one who brought up the flat-earth and homosexuality arguments in the first place, so you are not exactly innocent of going off-topic.

Champion97's picture

I think Beterbiev is much more similar to Golovkin than Kovalev, so is Gassiev. If you believe they are that similar, I can't change what you think, but you don't have an answer for what I'm saying, because the only explanation is what I said, and that is that they are not that similar.

I think Beterbiev and Gassiev are more similar because they are pressure fighters, are aggressive fighters, can fight on the inside, don't seem to have many vulnerabilities, I know Beterbiev has been down twice, but he took Gvozdyk's power well, and I know Gassiev is likely more technically limited than Kovalev or Golovkin, but stylistically, Gassiev is more similar to Golovkin than Kovalev.

Well that's just flat out ridiculous, it's been scientifically proven time and time again that the earth is round, it's scientific fact. You aren't open minded when it comes to boxing, not because you disagree with me, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but I don't think you have a logical argument on Golovkin and Kovalev being roughly the same, and you stand by that opinion out of sheer stubbornness. With all due respect, you don't, keep having boxing discussions with myself and others, be prepared to possibly change your opinion, and you will learn a lot more about it. I don't think your stupid or incapable of being a boxing expert, but you have the knowledge of a casual, more knowledge that a non-boxing fan, but not a lot, read what I say, and take it into consideration.

You quoted Matt Dixon, you just brought up the flat earth topic and the topic on gays when you were defending Tyson Fury. Again, let's keep this boxing related.

Hughie Fury is not as bad as some people say he is, he can be a better fighter than he is, but I see no reason to think he can be as good as Tyson, and in rounds 5-7, 9-12 against Pulev, he landed neither more punches or the better punches, do you dispute that?

Guy Incognito's picture

'I think Beterbiev is much more similar to Golovkin than Kovalev, so is Gassiev. If you believe they are that similar, I can't change what you think, but you don't have an answer for what I'm saying, because the only explanation is what I said, and that is that they are not that similar.'
'I think Beterbiev and Gassiev are more similar because they are pressure fighters, are aggressive fighters, can fight on the inside, don't seem to have many vulnerabilities, I know Beterbiev has been down twice, but he took Gvozdyk's power well, and I know Gassiev is likely more technically limited than Kovalev or Golovkin, but stylistically, Gassiev is more similar to Golovkin than Kovalev.'

I disagree, but I respect your opinion.

'Well that's just flat out ridiculous, it's been scientifically proven time and time again that the earth is round, it's scientific fact. You aren't open minded when it comes to boxing, not because you disagree with me, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but I don't think you have a logical argument on Golovkin and Kovalev being roughly the same, and you stand by that opinion out of sheer stubbornness. With all due respect, you don't, keep having boxing discussions with myself and others, be prepared to possibly change your opinion, and you will learn a lot more about it. I don't think your stupid or incapable of being a boxing expert, but you have the knowledge of a casual, more knowledge that a non-boxing fan, but not a lot, read what I say, and take it into consideration.'

And you claim that I am the one who goes off-topic . . .

'You quoted Matt Dixon, you just brought up the flat earth topic and the topic on gays when you were defending Tyson Fury. Again, let's keep this boxing related.'

No, you brought those topics up. Do not blame me for things that you did. Let's keep this boxing related.

Champion97's picture

Do you dispute that Golovkin, Gassiev, Beterbiev are all better inside fighters than Kovalev? Do you dispute that they are less vulnerable and have less weaknesses? Do you dispute that Kovalev can control distance with his jab and use it to set up the right hand better than the other 3? My question is, do you logically disagree? Or are you just stubborn? Because there is a difference.

You just did go off topic, you brought it up, I responded to it, one day you will laugh at yourself for the flat earth nonsense.

Don't lie, it was you.

What's your answer to the questions about Pulev vs Fury?

Guy Incognito's picture

'Do you dispute that Golovkin, Gassiev, Beterbiev are all better inside fighters than Kovalev? Do you dispute that they are less vulnerable and have less weaknesses? Do you dispute that Kovalev can control distance with his jab and use it to set up the right hand better than the other 3? My question is, do you logically disagree? Or are you just stubborn? Because there is a difference.'

I think that Kovalev is better on the inside than Bivol. One could say that Beterbiev is similar to Golovkin, but they are relatively similar in height, so Beterbiev is not really a *big* version of Golovkin. And Kovalev's jab can be used to control distance, but it is also, like Golovkin, used like a power punch. They both have strong jabs.

'one day you will laugh at yourself for the flat earth nonsense.'

And one day (hopefully) you will laugh at yourself for your inability to accept interpretations that disagree with your own, and your shameful use of foul language. Although I would rather you look back on that in shame one day.

'Don't lie, it was you.

no u. Don't lie.

'What's your answer to the questions about Pulev vs Fury?'

I think that one day, he could be as good as Tyson if he improves what needs to be improved. He is still young and learning. And I stand by my scorecard.

Champion97's picture

You didn't answer any of these questions?

Do you dispute that Golovkin, Gassiev, Beterbiev are all better inside fighters than Kovalev? Do you dispute that they are less vulnerable and have less weaknesses? Do you dispute that Kovalev can control distance with his jab and use it to set up the right hand better than the other 3?

I don't think so, but he is definitely more of an outside fighter, Bivol. Height is certainly a big aspect of size, but it is not everything, and Beterbiev is only an inch shorter than Kovalev, he is also a lot bigger than Golovkin, possibly even bigger than Kovalev. It can do damage itself, and it is draining to keep taking that jab, definitely, but is isn't used to damage itself, certainly not exclusively, it's supposed to control the diatance, keep the opponent on the outside, and it sets up the right hand. Golovkin controlled Lemieux with his jab, Kovalev esc, but Lemieux is very limited, and his jab was important in th first Canelo fight, but he his jab, in general, is nowhere near the factor that Kovalev's jab is, clearly, and he might hand landed the jab against Canelo, very often, but he didn't control Canelo with the jab, because if he had been able to control Canelo with the jab, Canelo wouldn't have been able to pressure him consistently, push him back and make him work hard, as he did, and he wouldn't have landed so many clean power shots. The difference is, Kovalev controls opponents with the jab rather than just scores points with it, because Golovkin didn't control Canelo with the jab, still a point scorer, but Kovalev's jab, in my opinion, is on a different level to Golovkin's, it's certainly better.

I disagree with people I get along with on boxing all the time, no problem with disagreeing, as long as their opinon is based on something, do you understand the reason why you and I have conflict and I get along with others I disagree with all the time?

You have a lot to learn about how to interact with people from different walks of life, if you don't like swearing, that's fine, but stop forcing your beliefs on others, younare the only person on this site who think swearing on here is doing any harm, we all do it. .any people see swearing as harmless, this is a boxing forum, stop taking swearing so seriously, if this is about religion, you can swear and still be a faithful Christian. For the record, with my grandparents, children, in certain environments, professional, sensitive, I wouldn't swear, but this goes back to what I told you about times and places. Don't make me out to be a villain because I swore, because there is nothing objectively bad about swearing on a boxing forum, because you are the one who should be ashamed, you say merely unusual people are as bad as paedophiles, nowhere in the bible does it say they are as bad as paedophiles, to condemn them because that's what you were raised to believe is understandable, but is is disgusting, and unrelated to relgion to accuse them of being as bad as paedophiles.

Fury can improve, I agree, he's young and he doesn't have so many miles he will age too early, but again, in rounds 5-7, 9-12 against Pulev, he landed neither more punches or the better punches, do you dispute that?

Guy Incognito's picture

I did answer all your questions, and of course it is fine to disagree. But it is not fine to call other opinions invalid merely because they differ to your own. You can say that all you want, but it is not really okay. You have a lot to learn about how to interact with people.

And swearing is never okay. Also, why should I be ashamed for thinking otherwise and following the teachings of the Bible. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. I follow those teachings as a Traditional Roman Catholic.

It is also worth pointing out that you brought up these unrelated topics here. Do not try to deflect all the blame onto me for starting this here. Do not lie.

Champion97's picture

No you did not, 4 questions unanswered, you had the nerve to lie about me losing a debate because did the adult thing and suggested we stop talking, well dodging questions as you are, that's losing a debate, it's clear from this discussion you know very little about boxing and have no desire to learn. Your stupidity is beyond the joke! How many times, it's nkt about disagreeing, it's about being able to back up opinons, which you can't!

Again, stop forcing your beliefs on other, you are the only person on this site who cares about swearing. A Christian doesn't even force his or her religios beliefs on atheists, so they obviously don't force the rule about never swearing, if swearing is never ok, why does everyone else on this site, who knows more than you, swear?, swearing, to most people, is harmless. Again, some Christians say it's a sin, others can still worship god without any sort of discrimination, but sin or not, whether you follow that or not, they are not as bad as paedophiles! It's very unchristian of you to keep going around looking for trouble, a christian should promote harmony, remember that.

What's worth pointing out is that you made the first post, don't forget, it's no good lying and deflecting it into me when anyone can see you posted first as you have before, stop looking for trouble.

I hope we're coming to the end now, you are the stupidest person I've ever come across online, you know very little about boxing, no desire to learn, said some disgraceful things, you need to sort yourself out, I feel sorry for you, I mean that. If you don't like swearing, maybe you should fuck off, delete your account, you don't know boxing.

Guy Incognito's picture

Again, calm down. You are getting triggered by losing a debate to someone on the internet who disagrees with you. That is pathetic. And I am not forcing my beliefs on others. I am recommending that others be more chivalrous, but not forcing others to do so. There is a difference. And swearing is not okay. And I am not looking for trouble. And I am promoting harmony. By using vulgar language, you are doing the very opposite. That is unchristian. A child could see these horrible things. It should at least be NSFW'd or censored in some way so that minors cannot see it. If that is done, you can swear all you want. I would rather you do not, but that is your choice. And if you think that I am stupid, you have not met people like AOC. You are embarrassing yourself. I think that if anyone should delete their account, it should be you. I recommend you do so before you humiliate yourself further. Either do that, or you should change your ways. Good luck. I wish you well.

Champion97's picture

More shit talk.

You don't wish me well, you are bitter, but that's fine, I wish you well.

Guy Incognito's picture

I do wish you well. I wish you the best. You become enraged whenever you run out of things to say and throw a tantrum. That is unchristian of you.

Champion97's picture

You always seem to go quiet when I make it about boxing, you have plenty to say about language, manners, opinions, but as soon as it's about boxing, the point of this site, you have nothing to say. You have a life outisde this site which is why your replies are delayed? You had no more of life that me in the last hour, when it wasn't about boxing, so that's obviously not the case, this proves you have no interest in boxing and only want to make a nuisance of yourself.

Guy Incognito's picture

I quite literally just replied to your comment. Twenty-four seconds afterwards, to be precise. I do not go quiet when you 'make it about boxing'. If you are going to closely analyse the amount of time that it takes for me to reply to each of your comments, then you really do not have a life outside of this website. You may not believe me, which is fine because I know that what I say is true, but it was sheer coincidence that it took about five minutes longer or whatever to reply to your most recent comment that your previous ones; I just did not notice your comment as quickly as I noticed your others because I just happened to be busier at that time. Also, my reply to your most recent comment was significantly longer than most of my others. Now please stop over-analysing the time it takes for me to reply, because it causes me to do the same in order to respond, and also because it is rather creepy and shows how desperate you are becoming. So do not jump to conclusions and claim that my few minutes delay is because of my lack of interest in boxing and wish to make a nuisance of myself. That is just sad.

Champion97's picture

You are the one who is sad, with the unfathomable things you say, you are very strange, to put it lightly.

Long comments about manners finished in 1 minute, then it takes you 10 to reply about boxing, fair assumption to make, at least you replied, now let's see if you are willing to learn.

SalTnutZ1's picture

Don't understand his interjections in a conversation that he wasn't mentioned or involved in. Just seems like intentional escalation for no other reason than to argue and get you fired up. I'd just ignore his silliness.

Champion97's picture

Hopefully I'll stop myself getting sucked into it again, but I don't mind taking him to school in a boxing discussion, he dodging my questions because he doesn't know boxing. We should all hang our heads in shame, we've sworn, for all we know the earth could be flat or a doughnut. I've never come across such a stupid idiot, online or in person.

Guy Incognito's picture

'I don't mind taking him to school in a boxing discussion'

Haha. That was funny. You were the one 'Taking me to school'. Hilarious.

I do hope you weren't serious, though . . .

'he dodging my questions because he doesn't know boxing'

Incorrect. I answered all your questions, and I do know boxing.

'I've never come across such a stupid idiot, online or in person.'

Calm down. Do not get triggered by someone who disagrees with you and successfully counters your debates and takes you to school in a boxing discussion. That is pathetic. You claim that you do not insult me, and that I have little knowledge, not little intelligence, and then you call me a 'stupid idiot'. That is pathetic. You claim that I am the one brining up random topics when it was you. I merely replied to you, and you tried and failed to pin the blame on me. That is pathetic. You swear, throw tantrums and lose your temper at someone on the internet who you disagree with. That is pathetic.

And if you think that I am a 'stupid idiot', you haven't met AOC.

Champion97's picture

You are a moron, so stupid I almost wonder if you are doing it on purpose. You can't counter anything, all you do is talk shit, you've not won anything, but thisnis back and fourth, even, the boxing other discussion on the other hand, you obviously lost because you have little to no knowledge, and no desire to learn. You can pretend you've won something if it makes you feel better, but again, you pussy, stop talking to me.

Guy Incognito's picture

Here we go again. Calm down. You have lost it yet again, and begun begging that I stop talking to you. You do this whenever the debate is slipping away from you. It is a repeating pattern. It is just sad. You should seek help. This is not normal. This is embarrassing. It is unchristian of you to do this. Christians are supposed to seek harmony. You are doing the opposite. I wish you well, and hope you overcome whatever problem(s) you may suffer from.

SalTnutZ1's picture

It’s not even worth it. His debate tactics are to gish gallop, which shows the level he’s at; he’s not good at this. I did competitive debate in HS and college, and would take him apart on any topic of his choosing, and that is without a doubt. I just wouldn’t get sucked into it, as suffering fools isn’t worth it at all. I’ve dealt with you for a year and a half now, never let anything anger me, and I assume I’ve not said a thing that angered you. We’ve had vigorous debate on fights, fighters, scoring, techniques, etc, but never got carried into anything more. We both justify our thoughts with evidence and reason. Can agree or disagree, but we’ve always managed to be civil. And you know I’ve always encouraged everyone to be cordial, but this guy, from my view, is just trying to start engagements to drag you into his nothing burger arguments. And stepping away from a convo doesn’t mean defeat like he’s implied, some just know when someone isn’t worth their time. To use his tactic, commenting on AOC(who would decimate him on any topic in our US politics), I don’t suffer Trump supporters for the same reason, because some folks won’t learn, even when presented with every piece of evidence available. Stay strong Champ. I may miss scoring the Wilder-Ortiz fight live due to a get together, but will get to watch it. The end of this year should be good for the HW scene. Did you see Kuzmin is our with injury? Zhang has had trouble finding opponents so often, I wonder if he’ll ever get a step up fight to show if he is or isn’t a legit fighter at the top 25-30 level.

Champion97's picture

I did school him on boxing, but the problem is, with him, it's never about boxing, he always makes it about something else, like my manners towards him, who started it, gays/pedos, flat earth, swearing worst thing since sliced bread, the proof is there, I asked him if he disputed my evidence for the point I was making, and he didn't answer because he knew he had lost the boxing debate.

Guy Incognito doesn't bother me as much as you might think, for the reason that he is so stupid and makes so little sense, you can't take him seriously, I have no respect for him, having said that, man did he take advantage of me being the bigger man and stopping the ridiculousness, he sent me just about the most stuck up, ignorant, hypocritical messgae full of lies, saying stopping the pointless non-boxing related discussion was pathetic, even had the nerve to tell me to leave the site, and I didn't respond, he played the 'I've silenced you' card, but I was able to leave it, for me, that's good.

Yeah I saw that, pity, was an interesting fight, I don't know what opponents are available, 9 days out, but there should be time to get a decent replacement. I'd imagine Takam is an option, or Jennings, Bakole would be a great replacement but I don't see that happening. Who do you think would be a good, realistic replacement?

SalTnutZ1's picture

I know you did. And throwing all that stuff at you is the gish galloping I was talking about, it’s a trademark tactic from bad faith actors.

I’m not sure. Seems as if he’s affiliated, albeit potentially loosely so, with Matchroom, so would have to imagine it would be with one of their mid tier HWs. I doubt they’d risk Bakole having another Hunter incident at this point. Takam is possible. Maybe the likes of someone like Dave Allen, should he want to return, or a Kevin Johnson or Joey Dawejko type. I’d really like to see him against a Hrgovic, but doubt they’d throw him in on such short notice, even if they imagine he’d win, and with the Molina fight scheduled, would make it a tough proposition anyway. Maybe a Lucas Browne, as he was already planning a short turnaround fight in December. Only others that would fit the bill seem to be a Dimitrenko or Dinu. The gap between the top 15-20 and the rest is pretty big, so he’ll either get a firefight, or a soft touch, hard to really tell.

Champion97's picture

It's hard to say where Zhang goes from here, because at his age, he will decline as soon as he gets the experience he needs, he isn't being built up like other prospects, heavyweight boxing isn't big in China, he hasn't been the chief support on any big cards in China as far as I know, I don't know where he ranks, but he hasn't had any 12 round fights, no intercontinental title fights or any fight which gets yiu a higher ranking, he has a long way to go before he's in line for a title shot.

SalTnutZ1's picture

Yeah, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens with guys like him and Joyce, given their ages. Zhang was a WBO Oriental champ for awhile, which had him in the top 25 within their org at one time I believe. Not sure where that stands now given how inactive he’s been. He’s actually fought on more cards here in the states than he has in his home country. We have m ay large Chinese communities across the country, so I would think he could get some decent run if they were able to match him up, even if he isn’t a guy who will be a title contender. Until they throw him in with a live body, we won’t know. It’s not great at his age and record, when his best/most known opponents are Rodney Hernandez, Byron Polley, and the guy who saw Ajagba and said nope, haha.

Guy Incognito's picture

I was trying to stop Champion97 from being unfair. And you just interjected in a conversation that you were not mentioned or involved in yourself. Do not be a hypocrite like Champion97. And I am not intentionally trying to annoy Champion97. He is just easily annoyed. Ignore his silliness

Champion97's picture

Last post to you Guy Incognito, never talk to me again, I'll never talk to you again, and don't twist that into something it's not, what it is, is the logical solution, the adult thing, it is irrational for either of us to keep talking to each other.

Don't ever talk to me again, I will never talk to you again.

Guy Incognito's picture

Then it looks like I have finally silenced you. If that is the case, then I hate to say this, but I am afraid you have met your match. Ignoring someone because of losing debates in not 'the adult thing' to do. It is the opposite. It is childish. It is pathetic. It shows that you are incapable of debating any further. You can make excuses about giving up all you want. I know the truth. The top user of EyeOnTheRing has indeed been vanquished.

And this is a boxing forum. An Internet site where users can post comments about boxing and reply to other users' postings. If you do not like that, then you have no place here.

I wish you the best!