Hearn: "If Fury gets tonked out by Wilder, the Joshua fight will never happen"

Double standards buddy.

You're judging different fighters to different standards.....be fair.

 

How so ?

 

You said Ortiz > Parker because Ortiz beat Cojanu quicker.

Therefore, using the same standards, Joshua > Wilder because Joshua beat Molina quicker.


You set the standard....so you have to stick with it.

 

This content is protected

Hearn's chatting about it again

 

You don't seem to fully understand.

Parker went 12 rounds with a guy he should have knocked out within 5 rounds, every Top 5 Heavyweight would
have made short work out of Cojanu.

It's not only Cojanu, Parker struggled with EVERY decent opponent he has ever fought and won by close decisions.

Ortiz dominated EVERY fighter he has ever fought except for Wilder.

I never said Ortiz is better because he beat Cojanu quicker, he is better because when you look at the resumes
of both, he beat all fighters on a similar level in much better fashion than Parker.

Molina is a better fighter than Cojanu and Wilder did the SAME Joshua did with him, he only needed longer but
he didn't need a dodgy decision, he knocked Molina the **** out.

The only fighters Wilder genuinely struggled with are a bit with Szpilka and heavily with Ortiz, mainly because both of them are southpaws and in the case of Ortiz because he is a highly skilled fighter but Wilder knocked both of them out regardless.

 

"Molina is a better fighter than Cojanu and Wilder did the SAME Joshua did with him, he only needed longer but
he didn't need a dodgy decision, he knocked Molina the **** out."


You know that Joshua completely destroyed Molina in the 3rd right?

Where's the 'dodgy decision'?


The more you talk, the more you expose yourself.

It took Wilder nearly 9 rounds, even losing some and even getting wobbled, to beat Molina.
Joshua took him out in 3.

Molina was in survival mode against Joshua, and almost got knocked out the ring.
Didn't he get up like 3 times against Wilder?




You claimed that comparitive performances are the only way to assess who the better boxer is.

We're playing by your rules, and you're just exposing Wilder here.

 

You're an idiot, i didn't mean Joshua with dodgy decisions, i meant Parker.

Comparative performances are not the only way to assess who the better boxer is, it's also actual understanding of the sport and the eye test but you don't seem to understand anything, your username speaks volumes.

 

You're calling me an idiot....

1. Without trying to be a grammar nazi, it's your terrible sentence structure which allows your statement to be interpreted differently from what you just stated.


2. You were the one who brought up the 'Comparitive performance' argument....not me. This is the third post now where i've explained that they were your rules not mine.

I didn't disregard styles/form/external circumstances....You did.





And finally.....

When you fail to see the irony in my name, and you sink to the low of insulting it, you've lost the argument buddy.

 

Here....

"Parker went 12 rounds with a guy he should have knocked out within 5 rounds, every Top 5 Heavyweight would
have made short work out of Cojanu."


You're using comparitive performance again as a sole reason

I believe Parker is a extremely limited fighter.

I explained this before the Joshua fight.....And even made a whole thread after the Whyte fight about how he's so incredibly limited, he needs to take at least 12 months away from World level opposition.


Parker should have been KO'ing Cojanu if he was as good as he was predicted pre-Joshua, I completely agree.

I gave that as a reason why he stood no chance against Joshua ffs!




But to accuse me of disregarding styles etc is plain incorrect.

You failed to even mention that Cojanu has actually been a regular sparring partner with Parker.
Like Duhuapas was with Wilder......a fight where Wilder struggled to find a KO.



'Comparitive Performances' as a measuring stick is as 'Casual' as it gets.

So just stop before you make yourself look more stupid.

 

English is not my native language you idiot, i have the highest educational level in my native country and i speak
3 languages.

I brought the comparative performance argument up because it makes sense with Ortiz and Parker imo but it's
not my only reasoning as to why i think that Ortiz is a better fighter.

It doesn't make sense with Joshua and Wilder because they both beat their opponents in a similar fashion and
dominated most of them.

 

Your first sentence is irrelevant, I don't care about your education.....It doesn't make an opinion anymore or less significant - Don't play that card.


And to suggest you can use 'Comparitive performances' to judge Ortiz/Parker but not Joshua/Wilder is, as I said before, double standards.


Both pairs have only fought 2 of the same opponents.

Joshua is 2-0 against Wilder with 'Comparitive performances'.
Parker and Ortiz is 1-1.



So even though you set out the rules, they don't actually fit your agenda.

 

Johann Duhaupas >> Dillian Whyte because he KTFO Robert Helenius and Whyte couldn't even drop him on route to a boring 12 RDec

 

Chisora > Ortiz because Chisora KTFO Malik Scott and Ortiz couldn't KO him inside 12 rounds.....

See how useless this 'Comparative Performance' nonsense is?

 

Not really because Scott quit against Chisora and he tried to quit out against Ortoz as well but the ref wouldn't allow him.

 

'Double Standards' again.