Anthony Joshua vs Alexander Povetkin Scorecard by Gold


scorecard by GOLD
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ANTHONY JOSHUA
9
9
9
10
9
10
56
ALEXANDER POVETKIN
10
10
10
9
10
9
58

Fight:



More:

Anthony Joshua

Alexander Povetkin



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Gold's picture

Povetkin did a lot better than I expected. Joshua looked pretty vulnerable in the first few rounds to Povetkin's hooks but it was inevitable Povetkin, who is not a very good defensive fighter, was going to get caught. Not a good look for Joshua overall, I think everyone who isn't a Matchroom FC fan thought Joshua would win pretty easily.

Champion97's picture

In my opinion, Joshua did great in this fight, he was ahead in the fight, Povetkin was not consistent, Joshua can be hurt, he might have a nose issue, seems to bleed easily, but he boxed well in my opinion, defended very well, used the jab to break Povetkin down, and the shot which hurt Povetkin, very well timed. In my opinion, there have been no mediocre performances from Joshua, his last few fights haven't been easy, because his opposition has improved, beat Parker clearly, did the 12 rounds quite comfortably, didn't have a single bad round against Takam, stopped Povetkin decisively, and was not officially behind in the fight, nor had he won less than 2 rounds in anyone's opinion as far as I know (2 rounds is not many, but not as bad after 6 rounds). I'm convinced Joshua and Hearn are doing everything they can to get Wilder, and before, the only roadblock was the financial disagreement.

You agree Joshua vs Whyte II should be next? Or still against the fight?, and if so, assuming the highly likely Wilder vs Fury rematch happens, who should Joshua fight instead? Pulev?, Miller?

Gold's picture

Joshua vs. Whyte rematch is the best available fight, not a great fight but it should be decent. If it is Joshua vs. Miller it will be an embarrassment. Pulev is mandatory but the IBF hasn't called it yet and I heard Pulev may fight Helenius on the Crawford vs. Khan undercard, a fight that will likely be terribly boring.

Nery is apparently signing a five-fight deal with PBC. Will debut on the Spence vs. Mikey undercard and likely sets up Nery vs. Oubaali in the later part of the year. What do you think?

Champion97's picture

I agree, and Whyte, by beating Parker, earned the shot, knocking out Chisora and Browne as well. Embarrassment as in the fight itself wouldn't be good?, or just an embarrassment in that Miller doesn't deserve the opportunity yet?, if the former, I disagree, if the latter, I agree. I know, and I heard that as well, surprised it will be in America, never seen eituer of them fight outside of Europe before.

Great, Nery's biggest issue at this stage seems to be how he is managed and promoted, so if he fights on a bill like that, that's great for him, and Oubaali proved himself at the weekend with the Warren win, so that's a great match up. I hope the WBSS doesn't fall apart, has the potential to be great, and if doesn't fall apart, Nery vs Ouballi is a great, logical fight for the same reason as Ramirez vs Hooker is, because all the other good fighters in the division are in the WBSS.

Gold's picture

I think Whyte should rematch Parker, it would be a competitive fight between top five-ish Heavyweights. If Whyte doesn't drop Parker on a headbutt and get it called a knockdown, the fight is a split draw, and Whyte fought dirty throughout the fight, so I don't rate that win very highly. I don't rate Browne at all and I think there was something to the story about Chisora chinning Browne a week before the fight, but Whyte did well versus Chisora and he is the best available opponent. Whyte has definitely improved since he fought Joshua and is a legitimate contender, so why not. Miller is a gimmick to me and he is tailor made for Joshua who can use his length and very good jab to box Miller. Joshua does not have fast feet but Miller has extremely slow feet. Miller won't be able to get into range to find Joshua, so he will just get picked off before being stopped. Miller has only fought in the US, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I understand the business element of why they want to have Joshua fight Miller in the US, but it is not a competitive fight. It will make good money and will give Joshua more of a profile to have a showcase bout in a place like MSG in the US before he eventually fights Wilder in Las Vegas.

It is tough, he is a Bantamweight in Mexico, he has headlined cards there but he doesn't speak English to my knowledge and most casual fans outside of Asia don't follow Bantamweights, add in the drug and weight controversies and he is a hard fighter to promote. I think he will beat Oubaali but Oubaali's volume and skills will give him something to think about. I hope things work out with the WBSS as well, I have heard conflicting things regarding the status of the WBSS. Hopefully, things work out because I want to see the competitive matchups the series will bring.

Champion97's picture

I will reply in a bit, but I meant Pulev and Helenius fighting out of Europe, not Miller

Gold's picture

Pulev signed with Top Rank or is co-promoted by Top Rank, so that is why he is fighting in the US.

Champion97's picture

Ok, surprised to see Pulev sign with Top Rank at this stage, but that explains it. I wonder when Joshua will fight in the US, Joshua vs Wilder would get 90,000 into Wembley, no doubt, but Vegas or New York are great fighting locations as well.

Gold's picture

For Pulev I think it makes financial sense to have a real promoter to help him get the most out of the final stage of his career. It will help him get the most out of the eventual Joshua vs. Pulev purse bid. How many people watch the fight in person means very little. Wlad vs. Joshua made 10 million dollars at the gate to fight in front of 90k people at Wembley, Canelo vs. GGG made 27 million dollars to fight in front of 17k people at the T Mobile Arena, and Nevada doesn't have a state income tax, so it is easy to see the financial incentive to fighting in Las Vegas even if Wembley has a much better atmosphere.

Champion97's picture

Does it not say a lot about the level of publicity they generate? I do agree overall though, it isn't that much about arena attendance when it comes to paydays, I don't believe Mayweather ever fought in front of as many as Froch vs Groves II, I don't know how many the MGM grand holds, but I know it isn't 80,000

Gold's picture

Canelo and Golovkin could have fought in front of 100k+ in Estadio Azteca as well but they would have made far less than they did at T Mobile. Ultimately, as Mayweather said, this is prizefighting and to make the greatest prizes, fighters have to travel to Las Vegas. MGM Grand is similar to the T Mobile Arena, about 17k.

Champion97's picture

I think Whyte deserves the shot, next. True, but at the end of the day, that's what sport is like, Sergio Martinez wouldn't have beaten Martin Murray without the false knockdowns, Lamont Peterson wouldn't have beaten Amir Khan without the dodgy point deductions, a win is a win at the end of the day, and when it simply comes to achievements, Ortiz, Povetkin, Pulev, definitely Miller, do not have wins like Whyte's win over Parker. He fought dirty, but don't a lot of fighters fight dirty and do what they can get away with? Was Klitschko not very guilty of that against Povetkin?

I don't agree on Miller, I think his conditioning is better than you think, he isn't obese, has a lot of muscle, and is physically stronger than Joshua, doesn't hit harder, but he has 50lbs on him. He does have slow feet, but he is good at the breaking down process, he is no front runner who banks on an early night and 4 or less destructive rounds, I have never seen him hurt, his size means he can soak up shots better, and I think any fighter struggles to work under his pressure, especially in the middle rounds, he goes to the body very well, Miller, only problem with him is, he hasn't proven himself, not his fault, but we'll find out, if Miller is a gimmick, he wouldn't get past Ortiz, Whyte, Parker, Pulev, etc, so if he takes a fight like that, he wouldn't earn the shot at Joshua without proving you wrong to some degree, but I suppose he might be overrated, I was not that impressed by his performances against Wach and Duhaphas.

That's a very good point, Leo Santa Cruz is a small guy, Mexican, I know he speaks English, but I suppose he wasn't well known until maybe 2015. I agree, but he is a puncher who has been dropped twice, so he will probably be an entertaining fighter when he is challenged.

Gold's picture

I agree to an extent, and I gave credit to Whyte for fighting the fight he had to fight to have success. The Murray fight is questionable to if Martinez slipped or was knocked down in the 10th if that's what you mean, and Martinez still would have won a decision 114-112 x3 if he was counted in the 10th. The Peterson fight was fixed in my opinion, but both of those are different circumstances. In the Whyte vs. Parker fight, there was a clear foul that was counted as a knockdown and it affected the outcome. In the Martinez vs. Murray fight, there was a questionable knockdown that wasn't counted which wouldn't have affected the outcome. In the Khan vs. Peterson fight, a referee decided to deduct multiple points for pushing, something that is essentially never deducted for and affected the outcome of that fight. I agree, but part of it comes down to that Whyte's background, it has been extremely tough for guys like Ortiz and Povetkin to get opponents as Whyte has. I agree generally, it is fine in my opinion to fight somewhat outside of a strict interpretation of the rules, but dropping someone on a headbutt is too much for me, especially when it affects the outcome of the fight. The difference between Wlad vs. Povetkin and Whyte vs. Parker is that Wlad was winning the fight easily and clinches are going to happen when there is that big of a height difference, given Wlad did fight dirty in that fight by throwing Povetkin down and excessively clinching. Whyte fighting dirty made the difference in the result of the fight.

He has never really been pushed in his professional boxing career, so it is hard to say definitively either way. He is definitely obese, if he had more muscle than Joshua he would gas extremely easily, Joshua was in incredible shape when he fought Wlad and he still gassed because he had too much mass. Miller is over 300 lbs, there is a reason you never have seen that in boxing, because it is inefficient. Miller has to close distance to break Joshua down, like you said he has been able to do that before, but Joshua is on a totally different level to those guys. Joshua will be timing him with jabs, straight rights, and when he tries to come in he's going to get nailed with the uppercut. If he fought one of those guys and won, I'd have to respect him as a challenger, but that isn't going to happen. Just because he hasn't beat one of those guys doesn't mean he can't. Caleb Plant's best win was old Porky Medina before he beat Uzcategui. However, due to the decreasing number of fighters with increases in level, and my opinion of Miller's eye test, it is more unlikely than likely he will be a legitimate world level challenger.

That's true, and there was some doubt about Santa Cruz early on in his championship reign. Santa Cruz had some things going in his favor that Nery doesn't have. Santa Cruz comes from a boxing family, his brother was robbed of a world title versus Casamayor, so he already had some relevant connections. Santa Cruz also fought a good amount of his prospect level fights in the United States and has fought his entire championship reign in the United States. Nery has an entertaining, fan-friendly style like Santa Cruz, so if he can win and avoid controversy I can't see why he wouldn't become at least a mid-level draw given the importance of Mexican and Mexican-American markets.

Champion97's picture

Joseph Cooper is the worst referee of all time, we don't like Quarterone and Mercante, you don't like Ian John Lewis, I don't like Drakulich, but Cooper is the worst, he let Williams hit Colon in the back of the head, when Colon was on the floor he told him to get up, didn't take Colon seriously when he was complaining of extreme dizziness and pain in the back of the head, and look what happened. Back of the head shots are lethal, any good referee will make sure it is under control, Tony Weeks took a point from Fury against Klitschko, Cortez did the same thing to Hatton in the Mayweather fight, because when a fighter gets hit in the back of the head, something has to be done, I think a fighter should lose a point for turning his back and putting himself in danger.

Why are you under the impression Whyte dropped Parker with a headbutt deliberately? It wasn't intentional.

I agree, but I saw Klitschko throw Povetkin on the floor and get awarded a knockdown, the again, the reason why the clinches were out of control, and the false count, because the referee was not good enough. So when you talk about Whyte fighting dirty, you are referring to the headbutt?, not the general rough and tumble of the fight? I see what you are saying in terms of it being the difference, but I don't know, because Whyte won those rounds by landing his jab, bullying Parker around the ring.

I'm not going to agree on that. Wouldn't he gas even more easily with fat rather than muscle?, muscle is strength, but not stamina, fat is also not stamina, it is also not strength, so if Miller is obese, why is he so physically strong?, I've seen Miller gas, against Duhaphas, he was tiring in the early rounds, he finished stronger as he found a second wind, like Joshua did against Klitschko. Miller carries fat, that is obvious, but the question is, if he cut all that fat, how heavy would be on muscle and natural size?, 260?, I would say something like that.

I understand that, but the same can be said for any fighter who doesn't have a good resume, Wilder has always struggled to get opponents, and Povetkin, Ortiz, might not beat Parker if they fight him, they might, might not, but Whyte has the win over Parker.

'Just because he hasn't beat one of those guys doesn't mean he can't', that's been my argument against you when you've been talking about resumes.

Gold's picture

I agree, hitting behind the head is the most dangerous foul alongside hitting someone while they are down.

He was leading with his head coming in. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but he fought dirty for the entirety of the fight. The facts are that he was dropped on a headbutt and he was incorrectly counted by a bad referee that affected the outcome of the fight.

The referee definitely should have deducted Klitschko earlier. Mostly I am referencing the headbutt because that actually affected the outcome of the fight, but if Whyte was an unknown B side, more often than not I would say he would have been deducted at some point in the fight.

No, because the body has to provide oxygen to the extra muscle for it to function when it doesn't have to do that with fat. If Miller was 300 lbs of pure muscle he would gas incredibly fast. Carrying around the extra weight of fat without the function of strength muscle provides obviously is taxing on the body though. Miller comes from a kickboxing background where there are only three rounds in a fight, so cardio isn't as important as in boxing. It is one thing to gas against Duhaphas though, if he gasses versus a top-level opponent he will be in trouble because he won't be let off the hook. If Miller was 260 lbs he would be a lot better off. I don't really think Miller is that physically strong, or carrying that much muscle, why do you think that?

It is a very low-quality win, but I get your point.

The problem is that it is more often wrong than not. Logically, there are only a small amount of world level fighters, an even smaller amount of top fighters, and a very small amount of elite fighters. Therefore, if someone isn't proven, it is more likely than not that they will fail to advance to the next level.

Champion97's picture

It's his mentality, boxing is fighting, it is hard to fight within the rules, bit at the end of the day, he was landing clean punches as well, and it was unintentional, he did not deliberately headbutt Parker to the floor, I highly doubt.

I don't know, I didn't see any malicious fighting, didn't try to kill time by clinching excessively, he was just pushing and shoving to get Parker in position so he could bully him with punches.

That's a very good point, Lennox Lewis had that issue in fights, but like Joshua, he found a second wind in fights, often, maybe because a well conditioned athlete's body can adjust the extra oxygen requirement. Fat weighs you down, muscle can accelerate you, that's why Joshua has good hand speed, and sprinters tend to have stocky legs, and at the end of the day, muscle is still strength, and if Miller was fat, would he be able to bully and overpower his opponents easily as he does? I don't think so.

Miller is not pure muscle, but he is more muscle than fat, muscle is hidden beneath fat, is what I'm saying.

I know, but he is not new to boxing, is not a kick boxer now, he is a boxer, has had over 20 professional fights, and he has been 12 rounds, so his kick boxing background isn't that relevant.

Definitely, Duhauphas is not Joshua, but my point there was, he gassed, and picked it back up later, a bit like Joshua against Takam.

Well he says he was too light against Wach, but I find that hard to believe. I think Miller is physically strong because of how easily he bullies and overpowers his opponents.

I fully understand that, I have never denied that when a fighter is unproven, they are just that, but when you say a fighter is great, without it being proven, that is called tabbing a fighter, I tabbed Tyson Fury as great, Marcus Browne as good, I also tabbed the Charlos as great fighters, sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, but at the end of the day, when a fighter is undefeated, they are unproven as good, unproven as not good, so how they rank is decided on opinion only.

You predict a competitive fight tonight?, or an easy UD win for Thurman?

Gold's picture

Plenty of guys have no issue fighting within the rules. Regardless, it is indisputable that the headbutt changed the outcome of the fight, and therefore there should be a rematch.

Disagree, but we aren't going to get anywhere on this topic so I am just going to leave it at that.

In my opinion, Miller has not faced an opponent that can test anything about him really, including how strong he is. If I had to bet, I would say he will get muscled around by Joshua. However, this is another topic that will just go on and on without a definitive ending. When we inevitably see Miller versus Joshua we will likely find out, so lets just wait until then.

Miller was actually a lot lighter in kickboxing as well which I forgot about, he was 272 lbs when he lost the rematch to 39-year-old CroCop.

Joshua hasn't had the stamina issues since either because he went down from weight lifter weight of 254 lbs into the 240's.

I understand that people could debate all day about who will turn out better between Shakur Stevenson and Devin Haney. However, do you understand my point that logically, the unproven boxer is more likely than not to reach their peak potential?

I thought Thurman would basically do what he did for the first six rounds throughout the fight and win a wide UD. Credit to Josesito Lopez for being a game fighter, but Josesito Lopez was not supposed to perform that well versus Thurman. I was really surprised when Thurman got hurt, he was nearly finished. I think he will improve but I don't think he has the physical ability or will anymore. His defense was leaky once again, punches don't have the snap they once had on them, and his chin looked questionable. I think Thurman vs. Pacquiao would be a good, competitive fight. I don't know if Thurman can beat Porter unless he improves significantly from this fight. Guys like Spence and Crawford would tear this version of Thurman up.

Champion97's picture

That is stylistic to an extent. I'm not disputing that, it is basic maths, Parker was winning the round, Whyte needed to hurt him to win thr round, the fight would have been a draw, good point, definitely note worthy, but still, that is the way sport works, a win is a win, sometimes, it is that simple, that being said, the unintentional but decisive headbutt knockdown, was the difference on the cards.

Ok.

It's just the ease he has, he wasn't even in second gear against Washington at times, he seemed to effortlessly push him around, I don't think Miller is a puncher, I don't think he beats Joshua, Wilder, Fury, but I think he is the physically strongest in the division, we will see if and when he steps up. Time will tell, for now, agree to disagree, fine.

He's probably gained muscle which he is adapted to carrying since then, but obviously, not 40lbs, so he shouldn't be over 300lbs.

Very true, because he carries less extra mass than he is used to, at championship, probably worth the strength sacrifice.

I don't know exactly what you're saying. Debating is all hypothetical at this stage when kt comes to young prospects, I understand they are likely to reach their full potential because fighters learn and progress throughout the early part of their careers, if that's what you mean, but I also know we can't know what the full extent of Lopez, Haney, Stevenson's potential is. Based on what I've seen, I'm most impressed by Stevenson, it wasn't the same Simion that Quigg fought, but still, that was a statement. 126, in terms of prospects, brilliant, Conlan, Gill, Nyambayar, Stevenson, it's a good division.

No he wasn't, and he did brilliant, I thought he won the second half of the fight, didn't lose a landslide, I think we can put that partly down to training in arguably the best stable in boxing. I was surprised, Thurman did well to grit that out, took fitness and toughness to get through that, Lopez dominated the round, but he couldn't stop Thurman moving. He should be better next time, if he comes back in July-September, but in boxing, you push yourself to the limit, and an injury might never stop being a factor on some level. I think Thurman is simply not good enough to beat Spence, Crawford, Pacquiao if he was younger, Mikey if he was bigger, but D Garcia, Porter, good but not great fighters who he is better than, has beaten, I think he can't beat them now, not because he isn't good enough, but because of the timing aspect, specifically, because of what the injuries have taken from his career. It sounds crazy, but I would rank Thurman 7th at 147.

Gold's picture

What I am saying is that there are a large amount of prospects right? Only a part of that group will become title contenders, and only part of that smaller title contender group will become champions, and only part of that even smaller champion group will become great champions, etc. There are fewer and fewer boxers at each advancing level, therefore, it is more unlikely than not that a prospect will pan out, and in general, it is better to bet on the proven rather than the unproven.

I'm not sure how much credit I can give to Garcia in this particular instance, it seemed like the same style Lopez has been using for years. I agree, and the injuries Thurman had are the kind that will continue to be problems. Who would you rank above Thurman at this point? I definitely think Spence and Crawford would beat him, Porter would likely beat him, and Pacquaio and Danny Garcia are competitive fights. I think his size and movement would still be too much for Mikey Garcia, but we haven't seen him at Welterweight yet so it is hard to say.

Champion97's picture

I know that, you can't have two gold medallists, can't have two undisputed champions, can't have 5 legitimate world champions.

I understand your argument, but in the past I've argued that fighters who's futures look promising might not be as good as you think, and another fighter might keep upsetting the odds.

I understand that, at world level, how many great fighters are there?, 10?, that's of you define great the same way I define it, and good, at world level, maybe 100?, again, if you define good the same way I do.

I still stand by my argument about this before, if I'm wrong about a fighter being good, I accept that, but looks like I was right about Browne for example.

Liklihood is a good thing to consider, but at the same time, I didn't change my prediction for Haye vs Bellew, Klitschko vs Fury, I was proven right, my point is, boxing is unpredictable, Stevenson, Haney, Lopez, we don't know who will be a world champion or a great fighter, and you can't call someome wrong until they are proven wrong, I mean let's compare to a generation earlier, Crawford when he fought Prescott, at that time, what set him apart from other prospects?, why was he any more likely to be a great fighter than Berto before his first world title fight, Alexander before his first world title fight, Peterson before the Bradley fight? Crawford didn't have better amateur pedigree or a longer amateur career than these guys.

I stand by Mikey Garcia being completely unproven at world level, potentially, for all we knew, not top 50, before he fought Barros.

I do accept what you say about likelihood when it comes to unproven prospects, Steve Farhood talked about a few things, one of them was amateur pedigree, at 9-0, Stevenson has great footwork, accuracy, combination punching, for a reason, and Lomachencko did beat Russell comfortably after just 2 fights, it is just finding that balance between getting carried away and thinking the sport is more predictable than it is, and on the other side, disregarding amateur background.

Well the game plan was great, Garcia got Lopez's fitness up to a career high level for him, so I don't agree you can't put it down to Garcia. Those 6, Crawford, Spence, Mikey, Porter, Danny, Pacquiao. I think Mikey is a great fighter, top 5, if Thurman was at his best, it would be a 50/50 figyt in my opinion because of Thurman's size advantage, but Thurman isn't at his best, we don't know exactly how well Mikey will do at 147, but we do know roughly, he is bound to be still strong, athletic, still medium power, but just poor by comaprison to a lightweight Garcia. I have looked at their records, and I believe there was a time when Mikey was a 126lb champion, around the time he beat Salido, and Spence, probably as a non-title fighter, was fighting at 154-160, 3 inches height, 4 inches reach, this is a big ask for Mikey, I think the extra experience he has puts him slightly above Spence in the rankings, but the big size difference more than compensates.

Gold's picture

Forgetting about the prestigious IBO belt? Hahaha

I agree both of those are possible and do happen, but those are the exception, not the rule.

I don't believe I have ever said I thought Browne was bad, rather that he was unproven and fights dirty. It will be interesting to see him versus Bivol or Gvozdyk assuming they order the mandatory on them. He looked huge compared to Badou Jack but I doubt he would look that big compared to Gvozdyk.

Boxing is more predictable than not, favorites usually win, champions usually retain their titles, that is why upsets are upsets. Like I have said before, it is fair to believe someone is not good until they are proven as good, but it can't be known for a fact. As you said, you can tab a prospect for greatness, but until they prove it, it is still an unknown.

I have already argued this point about Mikey to what I feel was its completion, so I am not going to discuss it again.

Someone like Lomachenko or the various Thai boxers who have won titles in their 3rd, 4th, or 5th fights are exceptions to the rule because they have massive amateur experience or Muay Thai/Kickboxing experience respectively that prospects normally do not have.

I don't know, I have seen Lopez box similar to this before in his most notable fights versus guys like Ortiz, Maidana, etc. I don't agree with ranking Mikey at Welterweight above Thurman before seeing him there, but we'll see how he fares versus Spence.

Champion97's picture

Yeah, they are not areal organisation, just a website, and a group full of people who have tried to create their own world title, but the people who give the title any improtance or power are the fighters who pay the fees, it was good that Groves didn't pay.

You didn't talk like you thought he was on the same level as Gvozdyk, you said Castillo was a non-factor, and you didn't think he'd beat a 35 year old Jack, whether you thought he was bad or not, he proved you wrong, proved me right, like Gvozdyk proved me wrong, proved you right. Well Jack is not a new or small 175lber, and I saw Browne boxing well going backwards, controlling the distance, out boxing Jack, wasn't so much about size, I think Browne proved against Jack that he is on the same level as the champions.

True, but it is easy to underestimate the value of a fighter who wants to win, and there are other aspects like an untested chin, but still, upsets are upsets for a reason, an upset isn't that rare, there has been a couple this month, was a couple last month as well. I was more saying that although you can get a good idea of someone's potential based on amateur pedigree and how good they look in early fights, but there is still never a guarantee, good amateurs don't always make good pros, and fighters who look a million dollars at a low level can sometimes be made look better than they are, just like amateurs that weren't great can be great pros, and fighters who look poor in a couple of tough learning fights in their careers, can later prove to be great fighters, and it is nkt only not impossible, it is also not extremely rare. Ryan Garcia seems to have a reputation as a hype job before he's had a chance to prove himself, Teofimo Lopez is considered a guaranteed future world champion, when really if one was going to be a great fighter, Lopez seems like the safer bet because of a couple of more dominant wins, but if he is more likely to be a good fighter than Garcia, at this stage, he can't be that much more likely to be.

Ok, well I stand by my argument, agree to disagree.

Fair enough, but that is something I think is fairly predictable, if Mikey pulls it out he might the pound for pound best.

People seem to think Khan is a real threat to Crawford, I think it's an absolute mismatch, you?

Gold's picture

I agree, and the fighters and promoters need to not feed into it. Both PBC and Matchroom have fighters with the IBO title.

I don't think he is on the level of Gvozdyk right now and I still believe Castillo is a non-factor. Browne was definitely a lot bigger than Jack which matters when Jack fights a lot on the inside. Also, Browne held on the inside consistently which he isn't going to be able to do versus a bigger guy or with some referees.

What were the notable upsets in the last few months? Plant and Browne were near even betting odds by the time of the fight. The only big upset I can think of was Rivas over Jennings but that is at a lower level. I agree for the most part, but remember that people are biased to remember the prospects that did work out rather than those that didn't work out. My point that it is more unlikely than likely unproven fighters will advance in levels stills stands.

If Mikey wins he is indisputably the #1 pound for pound and could retire a Hall of Famer. It would be the best win of this decade if he beat Spence. There are only a handful of fighters in history that have gone directly up two weight classes and beat a pound for pound level champion, such as Sugar Ray Leonard beating Marvin Hagler.

He is better than the performance he put in versus Vargas. You disagree, but Khan was very poor strategically with Goosen compared to how he was with Hunter. If he can be strategic and patient like he was with Hunter previously, he can be competitive, but he will eventually get timed and stopped by Crawford because Crawford has an extremely high ring IQ and will fight to neutralize Khan's strengths and expose Khan's weaknesses. It isn't an absolute mismatch because Khan has a lot of physical talent still and he can potentially be more strategic than he has been lately. It is certainly more competitive than Lomachenko vs. Crolla for example, and it is the best fighter Top Rank could get for Crawford, so I won't complain. I have also heard that they want to line up Crawford to face Lajarraga down the line, what do you think of that? Better or worse than Khan?

Champion97's picture

Well I strongly disagree, I think he is definitely on his level, beating Jack that wide was impressive. He is bigger than Jack, I don't dispute that, but I don't think you can put the win down to that, not overall. He can't overpower a bigger guy, but he could still apply those tactics, just not as easily, he is a dirty fighter, Browne, I don't like him, if he fought Gvozdyk, I would be rooting for Gvozdyk, but I think when you dislike a fighter for whatever reason. I think in no particular order, Bivol, Gvozdyk, Beterbiev, Alvarez, Browne, top 5 at 175, very hard to rank them. Do you admit Browne is better than you thought he was before he beat a guy you thought he would lose to, and beat him by a landslide? Because I admit Gvozdyk is better than I thought he was after he stopped a champion I thought would blast him out early.

Charlo vs Harrison, Linares vs Cano. I know, I'm not disputing that, not sure what makes you think I disagree.

Can't argue with that, I think given that Spence is the champion, beat Brook, is one of the most dominant fighters in the world, people won't be able to play the 'not an impressive win, Spence was a hype job' card.

I agree, he will be better than he was in that fight. I don't know, Goosen might not be doing as good a job as Hunter did, but I didn't see Khan fighting the wrong fight, he just has a weak chin, was rusty, past it as well Vargas came to win. Khan had bad nights with Hunter as well, was poor against Diaz, wasn't great against Algieri.

Here's my question, what is your problem with Crolla?, he is an inspiration, a very hafd working fighter, an over achiever, Crolla might not be top 100, but he is no bum, Lomachencko would probably win every round against and stop Crolla, but what is new? There aren't a great deal of fighters in that division. I think Crolla does better against Lomachencko than Khan does against Crawford, Khan has talent which is levels above Crolla, but Crolla has been much more active, is an over achiever, Khan is an under achiever.

Good question, I think better, definitely very different, Khan and Lejarraga are not similar. Lejarraga is another one of these, could be a good world level fighter, could also not be, he can punch, is slow, but is a good body puncher, but his adaptability, ability to cut off the ring, defensive abilitu when he needs it, untested, to say the least, experience would be an issue for him, going from Skeete, Gavin, straight to Crawford, but if he is a good world level fighter, which he might be, definitely better than Khan, if he isn't, maybe worse, but definitely just a punch bag. You?

Gold's picture

He could apply those tactics usually but Browne held on the inside every time, a lot of referees would deduct for that. He is better than I thought he was but I don't think he would beat Gvozdyk, Alvarez, or Bivol. I don't rate Beterbiev highly, I heard he may fight Barrera on ESPN. If he does I will be picking Barrera to win. What do you think?

Good point. Just that you have historically preferred unproven opponents over proven opponents.

Khan was too wreckless versus Vargas. I can excuse his performance versus Diaz to an extent, Diaz was not a bad fighter and it was Khan's first fight with Hunter and his first fight at Welterweight. Algeri fought a good stylistic fight versus Khan, but I agree Khan's performance was poor. Overall, his performances have been better with Hunter than with anyone else and he has shown a more complete style with Hunter than with other trainers. I would be much more pessimistic about Khan's chances if he was still with Goosen.

I don't like fighters that get big fights because of out of the ring reasons, especially when it takes away better fights. It seems to me that Crolla gets the "he's a good lad" treatment and is a draw because of that. He is not a worthy opponent for Lomachenko, Crolla beat Daud Yordan to get the title shot and it was a competitive fight, and he hasn't shown anything impressive otherwise. Top Rank and Lomachenko have signed to fight the IBF title winner which would be a much better fight, but Hearn wants to try to force the mandatory. Crolla has a decent style to trouble Lomachenko but ultimately it is just about levels. Lomachenko will look great versus Crolla because Crolla will pressure him and Lomachenko will box and move on him like he did with overmatched opponents like Sosa and Marriaga. Even if that is true, like you said, Khan underachieving is miles better than Crolla overachieving is because of the gap in ability. I don't think Khan will underperform either because he understands this is his last real opportunity. Regarding activity, Khan has had two tune-ups, and he went rounds versus Vargas, so I think he will be as ready as he will ever be. Khan is arrogant but he has earned it to an extent. Crawford will be Khan's fourteenth former, current, or future world champion, opponent, and he fought many of them away from home. He has overcome a lot of challenges to earn the career he has, he didn't get the "he's a good lad" treatment and favorable home matchups.

I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty, I would like to see Lejarraga versus an actual world level contender first. He can definitely punch but I don't think he has a lot of ability beyond that. Frankie Gavin was boxing him easily before Lajarraga stopped him, but again, there is a lot of uncertainty. As you said, he doesn't have the experience and hasn't been tested. He is signed with DiBella so hopefully, he will make that happen, because Lejarraga won't be able to draw world level contenders to fight in the Basque country.

Champion97's picture

It was ugly, but it was still a great performance in my opinion. That is true, he did lose a point, had it been a less lenient referee, could have been 2, but a DQ warning, forcing him to change his tactics would have made the fight very interesting. You admit he is better than you thought, good enough for me. I know, but I do, he doesn't have a good chin, time is against him, but he has great skills, puncher as well. I would definitely say Beterbiev by KO.

I have ranked them higher because I tabbed them to prove themselves to be be even better than the proven fighter, that isn't the same as saying an unproven fighter has sealed his legacy, I understand that in boxing, you have to beat a good fighter to be confirmed a good fighter, same with being a great fighter.

Second, and more importantly, that was not a prime Diaz, that was after he got stopped by Holt, I mean, look at hiw easy Thurman beat him. Definitely, for 4 rounds, he boxed great against Canelo, and a 2014 Khan, against Collazo, Alexander, definitely the best Khan we've ever seen, but I think it was mostly because he was young but consistent and experienced, now he is not young, has not been active, and has been in 5 very damaging fights.

Ok, but Crolla beat Burns, Yordan, he has worked his way up, and in sport, you get behind people who deserve to be champions, Crolla's story is inspirational, if anyone deserves to get an opportunity, maybe with an element of good luck, it is Crolla. If you don't like good people getting shots because they are good people, ok, but with that, it is not fair to like seeing trash talkers do outlandish things to get their shots. Because Crolla is his fighter, of course he is trying to get him the fight. I don't think Commey gives Lomachencko a much better fight than Crolla, better, but not that much better. Is it? I'm not so sure, I think if they were the same size a prime Crolla would have a chance against this Khan, he isn't better, but Khan is an under achiever, Crolla is an over achiever. I understand that you think Commey deserves the shot more than Crolla, I don't really disagree with that.

Nearly as ready as he will ever be in my opinion, he could do with 1 more fight, but I don't think he will under perform against Crawford, I just think it will be a mismatch, because Crawford, having had 2 fights at 147, would beat a 2014 Khan, he is a level above him anyway, slightly younger, much fresher, and Khan is not used to not have speed on his side, Khan can't outbox Crawford either.

Come on man, he's been given a lot, had it a lot easier than Crolla. That is because Crolla is a good lad, Khan mocked Roach for Parkinson's disease, he is not a nice guy. You never earn arrogance, never, the best fighters aren't arrogant, Crawford, Lomachencko, Usyk, Mikey, Spence, I see no arrogance from them.

I don't think Khan or Lejarraga deserve the shot more than Kavaliuskas.

I'm going to put something to you, Bellew out boxed Usyk for 3 rounds, Usyk landed that good left in round 4, started to outbox Bellew, outboxed him in rounds 4-6, hurt him at the end of round 6, hunted him down in round 7, set him up and knocked him out in round 8. I get that the answer to the overall question, "did he out box him?", is no, because when you out box your opponent you take more control than Bellew did, you have to do it for more than 3 rounds, and Bellew didn't do that, but, for 3 rounds, a portion of the fight, Bellew out boxed Usyk, like Nelson said he would. You predicted Bellew to do better than Gassiev, but I don't think yiu expected Bellew to do that technically well, Bellew was not great, but he was a good world level fighter.

Gold's picture

It wasn't, but he was fresh off drawing Porter who went on to win the title a year later. He was still a serviceable fighter. Khan hasn't lost his physical abilities yet in my opinion, but he definitely isn't as good as he was when he beat Collazo and Alexander. According to Khan at the press conference, he wanted to work with Virgil Hunter but he had been sick which is why he worked with Goosen.

Burns is shot, he hasn't been a relevant world level fighter since 2015, Daud Yordan arguably hasn't ever been a relevant world level fighter. That is just not the caliber of opponent you want to see for someone to earn a world title shot, but Hearn is good with the WBA so it doesn't surprise me too much he was able to make it happen. Commey is a lot better fighter than Crolla, he doesn't get the credit he deserves. He could have got the decisions versus Easter and Shafikov, and he has proven he can compete at a championship level. Khan's "underachievement" is beating Maidana, Kotelnik (at 22), Judah, Alexander, Collazo, robbed versus Peterson. Crolla's "overachievement" is beating Perez and Barroso. That's the massive difference of level between the two. Prime Crolla would get thrashed by prime Khan if they were the same size, Khan's physical ability would be too much. If Crolla couldn't pressure Linares, who has had massive issues with pressure fighters throughout his career, he surely wouldn't be able to versus Khan.

Yeah, he would beat a 2014 Khan but that doesn't mean it is an absolute mismatch. Khan has faster hands than Crawford, Khan can start quickly and Crawford takes a few rounds to figure out his opponent. Khan can box Crawford for a little while just off his speed, but I don't know if he has the versatility or variety in timing to keep that up for more than a few rounds.

Definitely not, I usually wouldn't discuss this but Khan has faced a lot of racism even to this day. People wanted him to fail just because of who he was. Khan was also arguably the genesis for the explosion of British amateur boxing that happened from 2008 on with how much attention he gained from his amateur career at just 17 years old. He deserves a lot more positive recognition than he has received. Many great fighters throughout history have been labeled arrogant. Muhammad Ali, Roy Jones Jr, Floyd Mayweather Jr, just to give a few examples.

I don't either, and Kavaliuskas is mandatory, he will get the shot next after Khan I assume. Also, Lejarraga has Avanesyan lined up next, which is a good step up in my opinion.

Usyk is a slower starter like Crawford, Zab Judah outboxed Floyd for four rounds, meant very little in the scheme of the full fight, because he was outboxed. That is just the "he was winning until he wasn't" type of mentality which misses the point, Usyk was always going to beat Bellew because he is way more skilled and outboxed Bellew once he got into gear.

Champion97's picture

Porter is an another over achiever who has progressed a lot, but good point, still, it was a poor performance in my opinion, dropped, pummeled, close win. He has surely lost them to an extent.

Crolla, in my opinion, deserves the Lomachencko shot, because he works hard, you can only beat what's in front of you, then again, I'm not saying he is at the front of the line, at the same time, if the fight gets made, you don't have to like it, but to call it a joke, get upset about it, in my opinion, is unreasonable.

Khan has the same issues with pressure fighters, he moves well, but so does Linares, they are similar in my opinion, once they are caught, they are caught, but I don't think Khan is better than Linares. I don't know about Khan vs Crolla, a 2014 Khan against the Crolla that beat Perez and Barroso, I could see Khan winning by a landslide, to be honest, I agree on that, but Crolla would maybe win a couple of rounds, but more importantly, Crolla is closer to his best than Khan is to his, so if they were the same size, not saying Crolla would beat Khan, but he is a step up from Samuel Vargas, I could see Crolla giving Khan real problems.

I accept the points you made about Khan, but the reason you have frustrated me in the past, is nitpicking, now, if I wanted to nitpick, I could talk about how washed up Judah was, how relatively unprepared Maidana was (obviously not the same Maidana who beat Broner), I accept that Khan was a very good fighter, but you have to live life, he has been inconsistent, what's his last real good win? Alexander?, beating Alexander, nothing Bradley and Porter hadn't already done decisively. I 100% stand by my argument that you don't give Crolla enough credit for beating Perez and Barroso, we both make good points, but it's a circle, because it's just two different ways of looking at it, one of us is defending a fighter, the other is against the fighter, so neither of us give a good breakdown.

I know it doesn't, but what is in Khan's favour against Crawford?, experience?, no, weight?, no, Crawford has been past 8 rounds at 147 twice now, movement?, no. I think it will be a mismatch, I could be wrong, let's see.

Khan still has faster hands than Crawford?, I don't think so, he used to, but not now. When it's necessary he does, but when the right shot is there, the right shot is there, and if he catches Khan, Khan's lack of recovery and survival skill, Crawford's attacking ability, the only way Khan can survive is if he is caught and hurt well inside the last 30 seconds of the round, but I would not be surprised if this went beyond 6 rounds, because Khan still has speed, will be better than he's been for a while, and Crawford doesn't fight with urgency, like you said, still, I think Crawford, early.

I know, but that can't be avoided, we all face that to a degree, there are black neighbourhoods in the US, as I'm sure you know, where a white man's in trouble, to this day, black people are discriminated against, Pakistani's as well, of course, is that an excuse for Khan? Not at all. I know that, but I Khan, in my opinion, is something else, nasty piece of work.

Bear in mind that it wasn't a case of Bellew just putting all his eggs in one basket ams swarming or vastly out working Usyk, he tagged Usyk clean on the counter, made him miss, I believe Floyd just took time to adapt to Judah's speed and aggression, rather than actually struggling, with his technical ability. After 3 rounds, Bellew was boxing out of his skin, give him credit for that. Yes, but what I'm saying is, if Bellew wasn't a good world level fighter, he wouldn't have tested Usyk's adaptability, Usyk passed the test with flying colours, but he needed a good opponent to bring that out of him, he is much more skilled, he turned the tables on him in rounds 4-6, technically that is, before fighting aggressively, but Bellew boxed very well.

"he was winning until he wasn't" type of mentality which misses the point", I get it, you only really like interesting fights where both guys have a shot to win, but when there is an underdog, you praise him for not making it close but winning 2 or 3 rounds.

Gold's picture

I disagree, his hand speed still looked good versus Vargas and that is his primary skill. It was that he was reckless that got him decked, and as I said at the time, I didn't like Goosen as his trainer. He fought more strategically under Hunter.

Loads of fighters work hard, doesn't mean they deserve a title opportunity. Normally a fighter has to beat a better opponent than Daud Yordan to become mandatory. I don't like it because I have never rated Crolla, he is just another Sosa or Marriaga for Lomachenko to beat up on. You haven't made a point about what Crolla can do effectively versus Lomachenko. He just doesn't have the technical ability or physical attributes to win a round or push Lomachenko at all.

Khan has operated at a much higher level than Linares, and his problems with pressure fighters haven't been as bad. Linares lasted four rounds combined versus Salgado, Thompson, and Cano. Linares's best win is probably Oscar Larios? He has a very thin resume, Khan in my view is definitely a better boxer in a head to head sense and a more proven one. If they were the same point I agree, I could see Crolla winning a few rounds, but ultimately if Crolla couldn't beat Linares who is a similar fighter stylistically and in weaknesses but is less physically talented, he wouldn't be able to beat Khan.

The thing is that if you were as pessimistic about Khan's resume as possible, it would still be considerably better than Crolla's. This whole time I forgot about Paulie, another decent win for Khan. Judah was washed compared to his peak, but he was still serviceable. He beat Matthysse less than a year before and didn't embarrass himself versus Danny Garcia over a year and a half after he lost to Khan. Maidana was obviously not as good as he was versus Broner, but Khan wasn't as good as he was versus Alexander. Alexander was his second to last real opponent he fought before he cashed out versus Canelo, so it isn't like he has fought a lot of relevant opponents since. I agree to an extent that we should agree to disagree, but there is a point of objectivity where Khan has beat a number of good champions and Crolla's best win is Perez.

I don't think experience will be a factor, Crawford knows what he is doing, but Khan has definitively has more experience. Khan is also more experienced at Welterweight, he was never a real Lightweight, he has been a division above Crawford throughout his career until Crawford moved up to Welterweight. As I said, it can take Crawford a few rounds to get started like Floyd did as well, they like to feel it out and get the timing of their opponents. Khan can have success early, the question is just how long it takes for Crawford to time him, and if Khan can make any counter adjustments.

I think so, but it is hard to say definitively either way if his hand speed is better or not at this point. What I will say is that Khan looked fast versus Vargas, that wasn't the issue in that fight. I think he will make it into mid rounds before he gets finished.

Khan has had it worse than any fighter in the 21st century as high profile as he is. I am not a Khan fan or anything, he is delusional, but the news and actual broadcasters have said coded racist things about Khan to this day that would not come up for other fighters. Very few fighters from the UK have achieved what he has achieved in his career and he is constantly criticized when other fighters would be given a break. Carl Froch is as delusional if not more delusional and has received very little grief compared to Khan.

Exactly, Usyk took time to adapt to Bellew's style as Floyd did with Judah. I said before the fight I thought he would do better than Gassiev, meaning he would win rounds, so I don't think I have to explain myself in that regard. Put it this way, both of the times that Bellew stepped up and faced a legitimate top world level opponent he got chinned, I don't rate him at all historically.

It isn't just that, I just want the opponent to not be a no-hoper, if they can have some success or at least make the favorite show something new I don't have a problem with it. As long as people are making the best matchups possible I won't really complain. I wouldn't be happy about Joshua vs. Whyte if Wilder or Fury were available but they aren't, so I will happily take Whyte over Miller. As I said, I predicted Bellew would do better than Gassiev, he did, so he didn't overperform to my estimation.

Champion97's picture

Well we'll see, I'm 80% sure Khan speed in hand and foot is now less than that of Crawford.

To be honest, I am biased to a degree, but were you that unhappy about the Sosa and Marriaga fights? Let's look at it from a different angle, Lomachencko, realistically, will not fight a top 5 lightweight every time, maybe 75% of the time, by the standards of an easier fight for him, Lomachencko vs Crolla is not a bad fight.

I think that makes Khan look better than he is and Linares look worse than he is, because Khan didn't improve so much, learn that much later in his career, but Linares came of age. Resume isn't everything, Devon Alexander has a great resume, beat Maidana, Matthysse, Urango, Kotelnik, Terence Crawford doesn't have an outstanding resume (I'm talking names), so just became Khan has a better resume than Linares, does not make him better. A 2014 Khan against a 2016 Linares, who wins?, very interesting fight that.

I am not saying Crolla has a better resume than Khan, I'm not saying he is better, I'm just saying, be neutral, find that balance between saying Crolla is as good as Khan, and exaggerating the difference. I have not said Crolla is better than Khan, but if they were the same size, now, he would give him problems because he isn't as far past it as Khan is, and based on the last few years, Khan is no more deserving than Crolla, beating Lo Greco and Vargas doesn't put you in a better position to challenge for a world title than beating Burns and Yordan. If you are going to argue Khan is deserving of the shot, you have to go back a few years.

I didn't say it would be, but Khan doesn't have it on his side, he doesn't have anything on his side, not everything is that much against him, but a lot of things are, and experience, pretty much even, that's the most positive way of looking at it for Khan.

No it wasn't the issue, but his speed is not what it was 4 years ago.

Name one, one racist remark. Khan will always be extremely unpopular in the UK, why?, because he talked a good fight vs Brook, but he keeps turning it down, 'can't blame him, Crawford fight, opportunity of a lifetime', yes, but this is not the first time he has turned down the fight. Carl Froch has achieved more than Khan has achieved, Joshua already has, Calzaghe did, Hatton did as well I think, the list goes on. It's funny because you say Bellew got chinned the only times he faced a prime world level fighter, same for Khan. Because Froch isn't as nasty as Khan is, Khan deserves to be unpopular. Froch has a better resume than Khan, Kessler, Pascal, Dirrell, Groves, Bute, Taylor.

What I'm saying is, he not only took time to adapt, but he got cleanly out boxed for 3 rounds, made to miss, tagged on the counter, not just out worked, beat to the start, as Floyd was and he was against Briedis, Bellew really frustrated him, give Bellew credit for that, and Bellew was still boxing well, getting narrowly outboxed in rounds 4-6. Bellew beat Haye twice, 'Haye was shot', well the rematch was surprisingly easy, Bellew has always been underrated, was a world champion in a fight he was expected to lose, I think a fighter who pulls out 3 upsets is almost the definition of an underrated fighter, like it or not, Bellew will go down as a British boxing legend, not a world boxing legend, but a British boxing legend.

You laughed at Nelson saying he could outbox him, 3 rounds is not a long time, but long enough that to outbox them for that amount of time means that out boxing isn't the laughable state you made it out to be.

Well it looks like Joshua vs Miller is very possible now, Whyte claims they lowballed him. Whyte, by my estimation, is worth 35%.

Gold's picture

Well see, don't be surprised if Khan is able to land jabs and straight rights early on though.

I just don't like how they are discussed as relevant fights by some people. Like I said, the IBF champion is signed to fight Lomachenko, so Crolla is directly taking a better fight away from us. Lightweight is a weak division so he may be top 5, but remember Lomachenko can also fight Berchelt after his next fight, Crolla is entirely unnecessary.

I think at least part of it is that Linares just started taking stylistically advantageous fights. You disagree, but I feel strongly Zlaticanin would have beat him when Zlaticanin was mandatory for Linares's title. Kevin Mitchell was not bad but he should not have pushed the "improved" Linares as much as he did. In terms of head to head I think Khan at his peak was much better than Linares, Linares is an outside boxer that has stamina and focus issues even against non-pressure fighters. If they were equal size I think Linares would wilt with Khan's speed and combinations, Linares was overrated by a lot of people including myself to an extent.

Khan deserves the shot because he is the best opponent available. Don't think there is really a lot of dispute about that.

Are you really going to dispute that Khan hasn't been unfairly discriminated against? Perhaps read the selections from this book and these articles:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GJteBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT115&ots=uPjSDNfVaf&...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/jul/03/amir-khan-andreas-kot...

https://www.boxingnews24.com/2010/02/does-criticism-of-amir-khan-reflect...

This predates the Brook fight being a relevant conversation. Khan owes nothing to Brook and nothing to the British public. Brook was a non-factor draw for the vast majority of his career because he refused to step out of his comfort zone in the UK. Okay, so Lennox Lewis, Joe Calzaghe, Carl Froch, and Anthony Joshua. I don't think Hatton beating old Tszyu, Paulie, and scraping a win versus Collazo puts him over Khan, but that is up for debate. So four or five guys maximum in modern UK boxing have achieved more than Khan. Definitely, disagree that Khan has only been chinned when he stepped up considering his resume. There are some substantiated rumors that Froch has ties to UK political groups with racist views, and unsurprisingly, Froch is one of the most vocal critics of Khan. Makes you wonder why he is so critical of Khan. In addition, Froch may be one of the only people who is more delusional than Amir Khan in boxing. Watch the interview Froch does with Floyd before the Pacquiao fight where he is supposed to be asking Floyd a question but ends up talking about himself and his own achievements to Floyd Mayweather of all people. Look at how he talked about Groves's retirement, by patting himself on the back and talking down about Groves. Look at how Ward lives rent-free in his head to this day because Froch is so delusional he can't accept he got outclassed by Ward. The guy is properly deluded.

Have you watched Floyd vs. Zab? A knockdown should have been called on Floyd. Judah was landing good counters on Floyd but Floyd like Usyk knew it was a twelve round fight and he stayed composed and adjusted. The difference is that Judah came forward and pushed the action, Bellew walked around the ring with his hands down being negative and landed twenty punches total in the first three rounds at a whopping twenty one percent connect rate. He was not "really frustrating him". He was winning rounds but no need to exaggerate on how well he was doing. Bellew was acting like a clown, like he was actually Adrien Broner. I was happy to see him knocked out for that. Bellew won a vacant world title and his best win is barely beating Isaac Chilemba in 2013, he is yet another "he's a good lad" fighter. If Bellew looked like Khan, I have no doubt in my mind there would, unfortunately, be a very different public perception of him.

And I can still safely laugh at Nelson, who would say Hearn could beat Anthony Joshua if his paycheck depended on it because as I said before, Bellew wasn't landing anything meaningful in terms of volume or quality. It was all show acting like a clown and fighting in a very negative style.

The end goal for having Whyte signed to Matchroom was to have him rematch Joshua correct? That's what I don't get about this whole thing, why is it so difficult for them to make a deal? I understand the financial appeal of Miller but this is poor planning.

Champion97's picture

Crolla isn't, he's taking the opportunity of a lifetime, let's get that right, don't blame Crolla, because he'd be mad as a hatter to turn down a Lomachencko fight. I understand where you are coming from with Crolla, but be fair, the facts are, it is easy to talk about Barroso not being good at all after he loses, but at the time, Crolla showed a lot of fighting ability, the desire of a champion, to get through those early rounds and find a body shot like that, and he knocked out Perez with a body shot, Gamboa couldn't do it, it took Campbell and Dadashev a lot longer.

He had him down and in bother in that fight, but Linares wasn't losing the fight at the time of the stoppage, that was also the best Kevin Mitchell I've seen in the ring. I disagree, because he beat Crolla twice, built on the first fight with a second victory, and look at what he did against Lomachencko.

Sorry, Kavaliuskas?, Lejarraga?, no dispute that Khan is the best?, come on, not saying any of the 3 are necessarily the best, not saying he isn't the most proven fighter, but you could argue either would have a great chance against Khan now.

I appreciate the information, I will admit my historic knowledge on that kind of semi-boxing related topic is limited, but one I thing I will say is this, I know of people who have been the victim of that very type of discrimination, still good people, there is no excuse, and jwoever racist some people have been, Khan was lucky enough to have those opportunities early in his career, he was lucky to fight a shot Barrera to earn the Kotelnik shot, he is a gifted fighter, he does not have anywhere near the story of having to work hard as Crolla does, racism victim, or not, and there is no excuse for arrogance, like I say, would you want your son to look up to Khan?, or Crolla?, answer me that question.

It's not Brook he owes, it's the fans, his fans more than anyone else, he has trash talked and build that fight up for years, do you know how long their rivalry has lasted? Do you know how many times Hearn has tried to make the fight? And do you know about Khan's demands when the fight was close?, this was when Brook was the IBF champion, Khan wanted it in Bolton, he wanted a 70/30 split in his favour, insisted he walks to the ring second, and is treated as the A-side.

Refused to step out his comfort zone? That's not true, I remember, for years Brook waited for a shot, the Malignaggi fight was close in 2013, Brook was clearly not ready based on yne first Carson Jones fight, but after the rematch, the guy who beat Hatton, the win over him, and a couple of other dominant performances, he travelled across the pond, didn't make a meal of the negotiations, was more than happy to travel. Brook was waiting for a world title shot like Whyte is waiting for one now.

Haye did more than Khan as well, Brook's win over Porter is better than any of Khan's wins, Hamed as well.

I don't like Froch, but who gives a monkeys? You can't one minute make out like you don't get influenced by personalities and non-boxing aspects, and then make a case against Froch for those reasons, but for the record, I'm well aware, I remember Froch being happy to say it was all over for Khan after Garcia KO'd him. I heard Froch and his brothers are flat earthers.

Bellew fought a smart fight, don't criticise his stature when he's winning consecutive rounds against Usyk, and maybe he was backing up for a reason, look what happened when he was coming forward, when Usyk's defence improved, Bellew got countered, Bellew backed up, but there is nothing wrong with that as long as you land more leather, and for 3 rounds, Bellew did that. Zab fought a more confident, positive first few rounds against Floyd, Bellew fought a smarter fight against Usyk, they both did well for 3 or 4 roundd for different reasons, but Bellew had less expected of him than Judah did of him, Judah, at the time was a good fighter, had a good reputation.

Honest question, do you still like to antagonising me? If no I will happily discuss boxing with you, but it seems based on that last paragraph that you are not being fair,

'a whopping 21%', don't look at stats, and let's just look at it like this, if you throw 5 shots, get your opponent to retreat, block, cover up, just to land one shot, and then you move, don't let your opponent counter or respond, that's good work, and doing that, is essentially out boxing your opponent, if you aren't making them miss, miss a alot yourself, if might not be Mayweather level of technical skill, but Bellew out boxed Usyk for 3 rounds.

Bellew was frustrating Usyk, that was clear, it is frustrating, if you are getting out pointed, the rounds slip from you, that's always frustrating.

'Bellew was acting like a clown, like he was actually Adrien Broner. I was happy to see him knocked out for that'.

Now that, is well, well out of order, fighters pull faces in the ring, he didn't tanut Usyk much, he was feinting, but that isn't disrespectful, in the ring, fighters talk to each other, stick out their tounges, like Fury, like Hopkins, Wilder, it's just cheek, I'm still here, you are going to call Bellew Broner esc for that, and be happy to see him get sparked, for that, come on, you are well out of line there, Bellew gave the most sportsmanlike post fight interview you could ask for after getting knocked out, told the fans not to boo Usyk.

What is it with you? 'He's a good lad', fighters deserve opportunities, Bellew has two wins over Haye, a win over Makabu, beat Chilemba as you said, he gets credit for his wins, and trying his best, boxing is about respect, remember that, and that is something you lack in this scenario.

Everyone gets discriminated against for some reason, Wilder didn't lose it before the Fury fight for no reason, Fury and his family go off on the public for a reason, most people have their beliefs attacked. You will never catch me making a racist remark about Khan, I dislike him because of his nastiness, not his religion. So basically, you are almost jealous of Crolla and Bellew on behalf of Khan? People aren't saying Linares, Stevenson, Usyk were lucky, people aren't calling Lomachencko vs Crolla a 50/50 fight, in sport, good people get talked about from a positive angle, nasty people get talked about from a negative angle.

So? Fury wasn't landing anything meaningful against Klitschko, Bellew landed more than Usyk, didn't let Usyk hit him, contolled the fight, just for 3 rounds, that's all you need to do, if your opponent can't get his shots off, you only need a few shots to split the difference, obviously, Fury did what he did against Klitschko, for most of the fight, won clearly, which is why Bellew is just good and Fury is potentially a great fighter, but don't make a special effort to build a case against Bellew just because you are jealous of him on Khan's behalf. Johnny Nelson is a good pundit, and at the end of the day, you laughed at him, for 3 good rounds, Bellew did what he said he could, Nelson knows a lot more about boxing than either of us, is not too biased, said Burns has little to no chance against Broner.

'It was all show acting like a clown and fighting in a very negative style',

There we go, that is bang out of order, negative style, so that's a criticism?, a lot of fighters have negative styles, and clown show acting, you mean boxing smart and winning rounds.

It's a financial disagreement, Whyte wants more money that Hearn is offering him, Whyte is saying he got lowballed, same problem with Joshua vs Wilder. If I was Whyte, and I didn't get the Joshua shot, I'd leave Matchroom. You?

Gold's picture

I don't think we should have this conversation anymore, it is just getting to the point where it is endless and we both have our own biases so we won't get anywhere with it.

Champion97's picture

Ok, I respect your honesty, no problem.

I would like to discuss Lomachencko vs Crolla further, but not whether or not Crolla is a worthy opponent. Against Pedraza, I saw Lomachencko have 2 bad rounds, try and fail to stop Pedraza, struggle almost throughout, to produce his usual output, it was not a bad performance, but by Lomachencko's standards, it wasn't impressive, Pedraza is good, but I don't think he is top 60. I don't doubt Lomachencko has had the best surgery, paid for the best rehabilitation, but a torn labrum is a very serious injury, and there probably is some permanent damage and limitation from that injury. Do you think Lomachencko's is now significantly a lesser fighter now because of that injury?

SalTnutZ1's picture

Not to inject myself into the conversation or compare myself to Loma, but the Labrum injury is a bad one. I’ve had a torn labrum for nearly 6 years. Have done rehab, but haven’t had the time or money for the surgery. Even with the surgery, the frontal shoulder dislocations can still occur much easier than they did previously. I think he was being very cautious in that fight, trying not to throw too many looping shots with that arm out of caution. Once it’s completely healed and he regains confidence in it, I bet his arsenal opens up again.

BTW Gold, I remember you saying that you lived in the Midwest. Cold enough for you today? Approached -20 where I’m at in KC last night.

Champion97's picture

What do you make of Lomachencko vs Crolla?

SalTnutZ1's picture

I don’t love it from a fan perspective, but I understand the business of it. I’d prefer Loma vs Berchelt, or even Tank, as other than Teofimo, there aren’t a ton of current Lightweights that I’m both a fan of, and that I think deserve a shot/can actually compete with Loma(would have Mikey in there if I thought we’d ever see him below 140 again, but I don’t). If it’s only people currently at 135, he will either have to fight guys who are past it, or near past it that he will obviously beat, or fight an up and comer in the division. Either way, someone will complain about his opponent, but that’s the nature of it all.

Gold's picture

Hopefully, that is true, no one likes to see fighters fail to reach their potential because of injury.

This weather is terrible, luckily it wasn't too windy where I was so walking in it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Supposed to warm up on the weekend though I think, so at least we will have a short break from the freezing cold.

Gold's picture

I don't know if I would say he truly struggled. Like you said it wasn't impressive by his usual standards but he still won easily. I just think he is at his weight cap at Lightweight and he will struggle with big Lightweights. It is possible the injury could still be affecting him but I don't think so. I guess we will see in the future. I saw the WBA will likely give an exemption for Loma vs. the IBF winner, so assuming Commey wins it will be interesting to see how he deals with Commey's size. Lomachenko's size is overbilled in my opinion, Commey will have a two to three inch height advantage and at least a four inch reach advantage. Like you said, Pedraza is good but I don't rate him highly, I think Commey is better.

Champion97's picture

Good point, but Pedraza had not been at 135 that long either. Definitely not a bad match, I think Campbell would be better, but still a good fight, and I understand it is about the IBF more than Commey himself. I think an eliminator between Campbell and Easter would be good, then the winner fights Lomachencko. Is Commey better than Easter at this stage? Or has Easter improved more since their fight?

Gold's picture

Pedraza has a bigger frame than Lomachenko though. I am not that high on Campbell, I don't think he is bad but I think his performance versus Linares is more about Linares's limitations than how good Campbell is. Campbell deserves a title shot though, no doubt. Campbell is the WBC mandatory and Mikey may drop that title so I really doubt he will take a high risk fight until he gets the title shot. Commey is not bad, he would beat everyone at Lightweight sans Lomachenko, Mikey, and Easter in my opinion. Perhaps that says something about the division's depth though. I don't think Commey has improved much, Easter is likely better.

Champion97's picture

We don't agree kn everything, but we surely agree this is great new for boxing.

Date not decided, but venue confirmed for Wilder vs Fury II!

Gold's picture

I saw that. Fury seems to have the right mentality after the "draw" which makes me hopeful for the rematch. If he has kept at it like it seems he has he can definitely improve on his performance. History is kind to boxers in rematches versus punchers, he can improve more than Wilder can.

Ring Magazine reporting it will very likely be Joshua vs. Miller in June at MSG. Hearn is going to have to eat the date he booked for April at Wembley he promised would be for Joshua.

Champion97's picture

Yes, but don't write Wilder off, the rematcn favours the boxer often, not always.

If that is Joshua's next fight, just this once I will agree with you on the Hearn bashing, because that would be poor, they should give Whyte a fair share.

Gold's picture

Name some rematches on this level where the puncher beat the boxer?

Champion97's picture

I think based on their first fight, Pacquiao is the puncher, not Marquez, same against Bradley.

I cannot think of many, but there are a couple there, and I said it was rare, Wilder has an incredible KO ratio, is adaptable, he can do what most punchers can't do, if we are wrong, that is.

It is rare, doesn't mean it can't happen, don't get carried away. If you think Fury wins, that's fine, I agree, but don't write Wilder off.

Gold's picture

Pacquaio vs. Marquez arguably was not a puncher vs. boxer matchup after the first fight, Pacquiao's boxing ability came a long way in a short time. Bradley lost all three fights, of the two Pacquiao has better boxing ability, but that doesn't mean Bradley didn't have some advantages such as work rate. How is Wilder adaptable? He will do the same thing until it works, but it may not work in the rematch. He is not someone who can adjust his timing, use feints, etc. Kovalev and Golovkin respectively are far better boxers than Wilder and saw their boxer opponents make more adjustments, and they did worse in the matchup.

Wilder has the same win conditions he had before, he can knock Fury out but Fury will likely come in better shape, and will make adjustments that Wilder simply cannot make.

Champion97's picture

Wilder is adaptable, he isn't a heavyweight Lemieux, he has good eyes, good reflexes, he is a counter puncher, he can set up, execute a KO with more than just power, is versatile, great variety. Kovalev isn't a good technical fighter overall in my opinion because he lacks head movement, variety, but that jab is a great weapon, but Ward did win the rematch with every bit as much aggression as skill, considering how the fight ended. Like I said, Golovkin lost the Canelo rematch because he was 36, if it had been a prime Golovkin, I think he would have won, at 36, fresh for his age, relatively speaking, nowadays, fighters last longer, but 36 is still old for a middleweight, still physically impossible not to be declining to some degree, but Golovkin won 5 or 6 rounds, very close fight, going off topic, but about Wilder, if he wasn't adaptable, the first fight would have been a piece of cake for Fury, that knockdown in round 12, that was a good shot Fury didn't see.

They can both make adjustments, Fury's chances look good because he's the better technical fighter, never disputed that, more improtantly, he won't have the ring rust issue next time, but I believe Wilder had an arm injury in the first fight, that might have been a big factor, we'll see in the rematch, should be a great fight!

Gold's picture

He isn't adaptable, he went for home run shots for the majority of the fight instead of trying to adjust and set Fury up. He has three punches really, straight right, left hook, and jab, he does not have a great variety of punches. Kovalev was a much better fighter technically than Wilder. In the fight with Hopkins and the first fight with Ward he shows how technical he was, he had a great measure of range, better defense, and counters than people often give him credit for. Kovalev is like Wilder in that he only has a few punches but they are really good, but yes I would agree he lacks variety. In the rematch, Ward made a much greater effort to go to the body early and more consistently than he did in the first fight. This allowed him to be more aggressive because Kovalev wasn't able to keep and dictate the range which exposed Kovalev's lack of an inside game. That is by definition adjusting. Kovalev was not able to make the counter-adjustments to keep the range and keep Ward from going to the body. Golovkin was without a doubt surprised and confused by the adjustment of Canelo to pressure Golovkin. You believed that Wilder would stop Fury, as did many others, so why is the expectation now that for Fury to have had a good performance, it would have had to have been a piece of cake? Fury had a bunch of things going against him, activity, physical conditioning, etc. and still optimistically won nine rounds. Fury gassed in the twelfth round and still pressured Wilder after being floored. Again, Wilder can win by knocking Fury out, but Wilder is not a boxer and cannot adjust.

Wilder cannot adjust because he does not have the technical ability, ring IQ, or focus to do it. Add that to the litany of excuses fighters make after they lose fights, do you believe Pacquiao hurt his shoulder before he fought Floyd?

Champion97's picture

Wilder is adaptable in my opinion, definitely. He tried to make adjustments, but Fury takes away your weapons. He did try to set Fury up, throughout the mid rounds, he used his jab, I have seen Wilder execute great KOs, he almost did against Fury. That's not true at all, he throws the left hook from range, and on the inside, same with the right hand, lands windmills, also lands short counter rights, like the shot that sparked Szpilka, and he throws the right uppercut plenty, actually the finishing punch against Ortiz.

Better defence?, I don't think so, and Ward had Kovalev figured out, dominated the second half, and against Hopkins, Hopkins didn't throw punches, Kovalev bullied Hopkins, it was a survival mission from Hopkins, Kovalev did not outbox the boxer like HBO said.

Kovalev like Wilder?, I don't think so, Kovalev is a 6 round fighter, doesn't have a good chin, can't take body shots either (vodka damages and weakens the liver).

I agree, he did work the body more, he did cut the distance, and Kovalev can't fight on the inside, but I thought as well, Ward just did a better job of keeping Kovalev occupied, never backed off to think about his own offence too much, wasn't too cautious, took full advantage of Kovalev's stamina issues. Ward against Kovalev is the definition of adaptability, 100% agree on that. Exactly, and the reason why is just that Ward is that talented and experienced a fighter, like Paulie was talking about, doesn't lose positioning when Kovalev throws shots, can be one step ahead, telegraphs the shots, and in terms of timing, was just a notch up from Kovalev.

I don't dispute that for a second, brilliant game plan from Canelo and his team, Reynoso is trainer of the year for a reason, but I believe if Golovkin was younger, he would have dealt with those tactics from Canelo better than he did, I think they waited until the age aspect worked very heavily in Canelo's favour, before taking the fight.

Fury was much closer to his best than I thought, I expected him to get stopped late, but based on his well he boxed, how would Wilder have changed anything without being adaptable?, also, I said, Wilder will win by KO because he is good enough to beat this Fury, I said before the fight that he was adaptable. Wilder turning the tables on Ortiz and stopping him, that was adaptability.

Fury's powers of recovery are phenomenal, most fighters who are concious would get up from a knockdown, but I thought he was out cold at the time, and he did well not to just drop back down, great recovery, Wilder didn't put him away because he punched himself out, and Fairy leaning on him, that is a rest for Fury if anything, draining for Wilder, that is a testament to Fury's recovery and survival skill, not proof Wilder isn't adaptable.

I disagree on that, he is not a technical, nip and tuck fighter, but that doesn't mean he isn't adaptable.

I have no idea whether or not Pacquiao was lying, I'm not saying Wilder definitely had an injury, I'm saying it is a possibility, and if you lokk back at the fight, he couldn't straighten out his right hand, there was some trouble there, but I'm not making excuses, a possible injury is worth noting though, Mayweather had an arm injury in the first Castillo fight, people don't talk about that, but there are reasons why rematches can turn out differently.

Pages