DDD v AJ II OFFICIAL.

Should be free from the badman act as long as Daniel doesn't disrespect him at the sit down again

 

AJ thought he was back invading the student halls and threatening to crack glass jaws

until DDD reminded him “you can’t intimidate me”

Of course, since DDD isn’t a shot to pieces old name fighter, or a 0-1 wrestler, he was correct.

 

you think josh has it in him to go toe to toe and sling it out? I’ve never seen the warrior code from him anywhere inside the ring

 

It is all over as soon as DDD lands but it would be his best chance.

He failed the Warrior Code examination in New York scoring 0% and he has done nothing since to indicate any improvement.

 

I didn't say anything to legitimise AJ fights, I said parker was already world champ when u said he hadn't been given a title shot, parker has had plenty of opportunities. Zang, hrgovic, Joyce all lost their last fights.

AJ was the favourite in the first fight, no one was saying he wasn't deserving of a fight V DDD.

 

I can’t remember watching a women’s fight with a knockdown they’re so featherfisted. Worst thing they always go the distance and still can’t believe people were saying they should be boxing three minute rounds.

 

I (twice) said the resurgent Parker hasn't been given one. As in the recent iteration who has gone on a deserving run. Obviously I know he's been champ in the past, that's not relevant here.
Anthony Joshua has lost fights before two of his previous shots and the other one was a win against a 0-1 MMA pensioner. Plenty of people were saying he wasn't deserving against Dubois, because he wasn't.
All the fighters mentioned are far more deserving of a shot than him and have yet to receive one solitary one.

 

Nonsense as was said parker is out the equation he has title fights so your statement is wrong. All the other fighters lost their last fights, last being the imperative word.

 

You seem to be the only person who is having trouble understanding so I'll put it in simple terms. Every fighter I named has done way more in recent years than Joshua and has deserved a shot but never received one. Joshua has had three to himself despite having a comparatively pitiful record. Not rocket science.

 

I understand you tried to pass fiction of as fact.
All the fighters you named out with kabayal and parker lost their last fight, that doesn't equal deserving of a title shot in your next fight, stop being a moron.

 

The point is their overall body of work is far more deserving than Joshua's who gets them like they're going out of fashion whilst they receive none. This is quite clear but it's obviously upsetting for you which is why you keep focusing on irrelevant and perceived language errors as opposed to the actual point (which everyone else seems to get just fine)

I've also pointed out several times that Joshua has lost three times prior to his title shots but still got them. I guess your arbitrary rules only apply to the rest of the division. They were more deserving than him prior to their losses. They lose - world acts like they don't exist. Joshua loses - to the front of the queue.

 

No fighter should ever get to challenge for a title on the back of a loss unless it's a rematch clause.

 

I would go further and totally BAN rematch clauses and voluntary defences for all Title Fights at every level.

A genuine champion should not need a rematch clause and should be made to work his way back up the rankings after a defeat.

The deprivation of opportunites for new challengers working their way up the rankings is shocking, particularly in the Heavyweight Division.

Paper Champions need shredded.

 

I agree with this but how do you deal with past champions that will presumably remain ranked - they have to wait past 2 further defences before getting another shot, or something like that? It'd need the alphabet bodies to agree those rules across the belts, and avoid someone skipping from (say) WBC to WBA to steal the next defence there...

 

Set criteria should be agreed and established across all bodies.

The current set up stinks.