Joshua and Ortiz vs Ruiz comparison

"but you was adamant Ortiz would win"

"Were" not "was", you illiterate.

And for the record I predicted a Ruiz win (actually a KO) due to Ortiz's diminished legs, punch resistance and engine. I did not expect Ortiz to outbox Ruiz for most of the fight and go 12 rounds!

Your concept of "noteworthy wins" has no qualification, it's nonsense. All opponents and performances are worthy of being scrutinised.

"How is Ruiz above Parker when Parker beat him"

This is another problem with your metric: you are very selective on which decisions you deem to be controversial or "robberies". Ruiz lost a MD in Parker's backyard, with Parker the A-side. Had that fight been in America or Mexico, Ruiz almost certainly gets the decision. Parker did not prove that he was a better man than Ruiz as it was a fight determined by politics and location.

Chisora's record is only more proven than Ortiz's in the sense that he is proven to have inferior power and skills, hence the mountain of losses. But even so, if he had been the A-side rather than the B-side he would have notched wins over Parker and Whyte. Chisora got these opportunities rather than Ortiz in no small part because Chisora is not nearly as dangerous as the highly skilled, power punching, then undefeated and never knocked down southpaw.

Whyte's win over Povetkin in the rematch was a combination of comical and horrific. The man was in no fit state to fight and makes most boxers commonly referred to as "shot" look like they're in their absolute prime years. We saw what Whyte's level was in the next fight when he couldn't land a solid punch on Fury and got one-shotted in 6.

If Whyte was to hypothetically rematch Fury in December, who would you pick to win?

 

AJ’s résumé has aged like an egg sandwich

15th fight. Whyte - went life and death with Chisora and won an A-side decision, went life and death with Parker in Britain, was dropped and almost finished in the 12th, had a highly competitive fight over 10 with a shopworn 40 year old Wach, sparked with one punch in 5 by a nearly 41 year old Povetkin in Britain, schooled and one-punch KO’d in 6 by Fury

Title. Martin - came to take a dive

1. Breazeale - KO’d in 1 by Wilder, schooled over 12 by Wallin in America

2. Molina - came to take a dive, as became his modus operandi

3. Wlad - retired after

4. Takam - legitimately KO’d in 8 by Chisora the fight after, stopped in 6 by Joyce

5. Parker - got dropped by and lost to Whyte, had a highly competitive fight over 12 with Fa, A-side decision against Chisora, who also dropped him and took him life and death

2nd Title. Ruiz - in good shape (by his standards) but got dropped by and had a hard fight over 12 with a 40 year old, 21 months inactive/retired, coming off a loss, injury prone Arreola, lost 6-7 rounds over 12 as the A-side to a 43 year old Ortiz with 2 KO defeats

1. Pulev - went life and death with Chisora in Britain, losing an A-side decision


The partial exceptions:

13th fight. Kevin - went the distance with Dubois and Hrgovic 3.5 years later but the win also aged well at the expense of Pulev and Ruiz

6. Povetkin - win aged well at the expense of Parker and Whyte

 

Relative to their hype at the time they have almost uniformly aged poorly. Povetkin and Johnson being the only real exceptions, and even this came at the expense of Parker, Whyte, Pulev and Ruiz.

 

You do realise that "Martin" and "Jennings" are two people and not three? You're exhibiting a very disorganised brain.

Jennings and Takam are on a similar level as seen in the Perez fights, clear edge to Jennings though due to his performances against Wlad and Joyce being far superior to Takam's against AJ and Joyce and not losing to Gregory Tony. Ortiz outboxed Jennings 4-2 and KO'd him in 7, Chisora lost most of the rounds to Takam, took almost twice as many punches as Ortiz did against Jennings and KO'd Takam in 8. 2016 Ortiz is also the only man I can think of who Takam blatantly ducked, which says a lot.

Ortiz didn't lose a single round against Scott and took fewer punches over 12 than Chisora did over 6. He also knocked Scott down 3 times and would have won by 4th round KO with Chisora's referee. Boring as Ortiz's fight with Scott was, it was boring in part because Ortiz was far more dominant than Chisora.

Hammer KO'd Price, as did Tony Thompson x2, so those wins are considerably better. Thompson was older but Ortiz schooled and stopped him in 6: no one barring Wlad had ever stopped Thompson in nearly 50 fights and Pulev and Takam struggled far more than Ortiz boxing him.

At the point Ortiz beat Martin he was in or around his absolute best and far better than Szpilka, whose punch resistance was totally shot.

In fairness to Chisora I think he deserved the decision over Parker the first time round. But he still has 12 losses to Ortiz's 3 and there are a lot of bad losses in there, both in terms of the level of opponent he lost to and how he was beaten.

When factoring losses in as well as looking at the details of the performances, Ortiz is clearly far superior to Chisora, which Chisora himself basically conceded. Hence Chisora's description of 2016 Ortiz as a "nightmare" and a "southpaw Mike Tyson".

One flaw with the "wins on paper" method that you (selectively) subscribe to is that ignores important details like certain fighters being avoided. In the period post-Jennings and pre-Wilder, no one was looking to fight a high risk low reward unknown but undefeated, highly skilled, southpaw power puncher. Chisora on the other hand with his greater name recognition, brawler style and lack of KO power was a different kettle of fish entirely, so he got the fights against name opponents who usually beat him, controversially or otherwise.

 

Arreola still had a solid chin and a good engine at 40, Ortiz's chin and engine were worse than Arreola's at 40 and he's not 40, he's 43. The aging process accelerates as you get older to boot. I've also never said that 40 year old Arreola who was in career best shape and giving Ruiz problems with his backfoot counterpunching was shot, so it's a BS strawman. Ortiz was a wide underdog and Ruiz was favoured to dominate the fight and stop Ortiz. Ruiz objectively underperformed in that regard.

How good a fighter was Bowe at 29? Or Tyson at 35? Ortiz is 43, with 400 career fights. And what's even funnier is that the same people who are pretending that Ortiz was exposed are the same people who claim that Ortiz is a decade older than his stated age and who will bend over backwards with age-related excuses for their favourite fighters defeats or poor performances, even though they were at least half a decade younger than Ortiz is stated to be now.

Martin was a green fighter when he fought Joshua and it was a bummy performance where he blatantly quit. Ortiz was facing opponents who were coming to win when he fought Martin and Ruiz and he didn't get stopped by or quit against either, even though he's 43 and not 29.

 

Ruiz has got far more determination (in the ring) and killer instinct than Parker, who is all too happy to come 2nd.

 

Fighters don't have equally strong constitutions you dimwit and age is a factor independent of wear.

Holmes was a skilled boxer, an "ATG" but he lost to fringe contender McCall in his 40's. Ortiz objectively overperformed expectations, outboxed Ruiz more than not and went the 12 round distance, didn't quit when he got dropped multiple times like AJ. Many had Ortiz winning in spite of the KD's but Ruiz was the A-side.

Martin and AJ both had 8 years boxing experience but AJ had elite amateur pedigree whereas Martin was a domestic American in the amateurs, so experience-wise AJ had a big advantage, aside from being much more talented. By the time Martin fought a 42 year old Ortiz he had almost double the time in boxing that he did when he fought AJ and critically, he came to win rather than to lie down.

 

"Larry hadn't been in a meaningful fight"

And Ortiz had been virtually 25 months inactive pre-Martin, where he was dropped twice. His last really good performance before that was nearly 4 years prior. Ortiz has obviously been a fighter in decline for a long time now but he was a big underdog and still went 12 with Ruiz at 43, losing a controversial decision.

"mcall was coming of a ko win over Lewis so how was he fringe contender"

McCall was seen as a journeyman at the time, let alone a fringe contender. He was a 5-1 underdog against Lewis, who wasn't even regarded as a proven commodity at that point. McCall had a 24-5 record with some disputed decisions thrown in. He was a fringe contender. But fringe contenders do occasionally become champions; their chances are slim/fringe but they are still "contenders".

Wear and tear is a factor and 43 year old Ortiz had plenty of it with 400 fights and getting brutally knocked out by Wilder twice in the previous 4.5 years. Some fighters can absorb tremendous punishment and still hold a good shot in their mid 40's but the vast majority cannot.

"And when did you become a psychologist to know Martin came in too lose"

He clearly allowed himself to be counted out when he wasn't badly hurt and could have beaten it, a la Scott vs Chisora or Molina in any number of fights.

Anyway, you're a dogmatist and I'm done with you.