If Joseph Parker had a bit more Mongrel in him he'd be no.1 Heavyweight.

Absolutely correct, it cost him a couple of times in earlier fights. How does he lose to White, FFS! His lack of 'mongrel' or 'killer instinct' if you will has been glaringly obvious when he went over to the UK and stepped up his opposition. He's back on track for now.

 

I dont think he has it in him tbh. Despite his size and build, he's incredibly weak. It's insane how powerless he is.
He threw EVERYTHING at Joyce, and it bounced off him like 7.62 on a tank. He put EVERYTHING behind that big right hand that landed on a shot, over the hill, chinny Wilder, and still couldn't drop him. He gets ragdolled in clinches too.
On top of that, he has a weak mentality. What kind of fighter puts himself in a situation where he's a goon for another heavyweight? He's Fury's orbiter. That's not the mindset of a killer in the ring. He's just too passive by nature.
He's got a lot of people in the fanbase fooled for some reason. Parker looks bad or loses EVERY TIME he steps up in competition.

 

As long as you align intent with abilities and strengths.

A pillowfist like Haney for example going out aggressive is stupid.

A glass chinned fighter going out aggressive and trading is stupid.

 

I wasn't completely disagreeing btw - intent is good, as long as it's the right intent for the fighter and their abilities.

Speaking broadly.... So the Haney example still applies - sometimes the extreme cases make the logic more obvious.

Parker trying to go gung ho and trade doesn't usually work because his power isn't elite and his chin is very good but not quite cast iron.

Matching up styles with attributes is key to getting elite fighters at their best - and why styles vary.

Sometimes a fighter can use a non-ideal style for their attributes and still be successful ("kronk" Fury for example) against a certain level of opponent... But to be their best, they need to use their best style.

Parker's at his best when he's calculating and a bit more cautious - he's not a KO machine anymore than Wilder is capable of being successful on cards... And you wouldn't expect Wilder to try delivering masterclasses so why would anyone expect Parker to be super aggressive?

 

I think Parker deserves a lot of credit for Zhang win. I don't think it was boring at all. Parker didn't get outwork Zhang, he hurt Zhang with a big right hand, i believe in round 4.

Zhang has always had stamina issues. The fact is he was coming off the 2 best wins of his career and Parker beat him fair and square.

 

I'm not sure if he did beat him, but he got the nod, and he did it in the most boring way possible, which is par for the Parker course. If Zhang wasn't ancient, he'd have done him in.

 

I disagree. He didnt hurt Zhang, their feet got tangled up and Zhang hopped back on him. Zhang came in overweight and over-confident. He's an old man with the gas tank of a child's motorbike, and he almost won that fight. He had the supposed iron-chinned Parker down twice and hurt multiple times. Had he lost one more round, he would have had a draw.
And Wilder is shot to bits. He 120'd him, sure, but Wilder has always been overrated and protected, and Fury already ran a train on him.
Parker's wins over an old Zhang and shot Wilder does not make him some elite killer.
He's the same timid, weak and boring fighter he's always been.

 

This guy gets it

 

Then you need to define your terms, because I think to most "mongrel" would imply scrappy and aggressive as opposed to a more pedigree technically oriented approach... And that suggests are bit more gung-ho, which again I think would be all wrong for him.

Styles make fighters - how a fighter is trained to fight and how successful that is depends on training the right approach as much as practicing the techniques to make it work.