HOW Exactly PARKER Beat WILDER - Best Film Studies

What’s confusing about it? I think you are the one with an issue. I give Fury credit for beating Klitschko and Wilder who were world class heavyweights. However his performance against Ngannou was embarrassing and there is simply nothing you can do or say that will change that fact. It was a professional boxing fight and Fury lost (he was given a gift thanks to some dodger officiating). Is he past his best? Probably, doesn’t excuse nearly losing to a guy with 0 fights. Fury can prove everyone wrong by beating Usyk.

 

I'm not even sure Fury is right now - his career definitely peaked at Wlad and whether he's been close to the same level since is questionable... It'd be hard to class him as a true great with such a short peak.

 

This isn't an apples to apples comparison...............

Prime Sugar Leonard was arguably faster and a better combination puncher than Terry, he was also physically stronger (even though he was a WW). He wasn't the same fighter as the one Terry Norris embarrassed.

"prime" Wilder wouldn't be faster than this Parker or a younger Parker, also "prime" Wilder fought in the same manner (lulls in activity until he started winging shots, then he would go into another lull until he thought he could wing shots again). That was the same fighter that fought Parker.

 

I disagree. A shot fighter getting his ass kicked has no bearing on how the fight would've gone. I happen to think that a prime Wilder would brutally KO a 38 year-old Parker, but that would also have no bearing on how a prime for prime fight would go.

Wilder was demonstrably slower, less authoritative with his jab, and less... well... WILD. Deontay was too shot to even be wild and unpredictable. Every single thing he did was telegraphed and slow.

I know that I am supposed to pretend that Parker put on a master class performance and that he was facing the best version of Wilder, but I will not. Wilder is 38 years old, inactive, has been brutally KO'd multiple times by Fury. He is Not. The. Same. Fighter.

Sorry.

You are entitled to your own opinion, though.

 

I can't agree with your reasons for wanting a pointless 3rd Ortiz fight. Yeah Ruiz struggled to beat Ortiz but he still beat Ortiz, so he's the better opponent.

Why would you want Wilder to face someone that does nothing for his resume, pays him little and who hasn't fought in 16 months. Might as well ask for a 3rd fight with Stiverne while your at it.

 

It depends a lot on the Usyk fights, so hard to say yet. If he beats Usyk and then Joshua coming off of wins over Hrgovic and Zhang, then he's clearly the best of the post Wlad era and would be in the discussion for top 10. But if he loses to Usyk and then doesn't do anything else worthwhile, it's more on the level of Bowe.

 

That sounds about right to me - right now it needs more evidence, and that'd be pretty compelling.

Personally I don't think he'll fight again after Usyk, including a rematch... Regardless of who wins.

 

Still more of the same Stevie ?
Still bitter ?

You don't seem to be familiar with the old adage, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Still missing the point.
Are you being willfully ignorant here, or just lacking self awareness ?

A fairly arrogant comment, especially as @Kiwi Casual has been comprehensively owning you throughout the thread.

Of course you make it pretty easy for him when you post something as utterly asinine as this:

setting up the inevitable comeback / slapdown:

I'm tempted to laugh out loud, or maybe shake my head.

I handle people disagreeing with me all the time.

It's ironic that you, who very clearly can't deal civilly with alternate viewpoints, should preach about handling disagreement.

 

Look, I don't know who you are, but you come off as very fake to me. My opinion of the fight is different than yours; that doesn't make me bitter about anything. What's aggravated me is strangers -like you- making psychoanalytical posts based on my differing opinion of a boxing match. It's perturbing to me how your sanctimonious self hasn't addressed people making comments about people's lives for discussing boxing on a boxing message board.

Because you also don't know me, let me help you out: I am a married father of three boys. I make 110k base salary. My wife makes close to the same. We have a committed and loving marriage. I am a deacon and ministry leader in my church. I have a beautiful family and a beautiful life...one that Deontay Wilder does not factor into.

...In my leisure time, I like to watch boxing and will occasionally log on to discuss boxing matches. It appears that you disagree with my take. That's fine. Several times now, I have invited you and others to agree to disagree.

If that's too hard for some, I would say don't share your opinion publicly... or just log off.

Log off, cuchulain. Or maybe just keep the discussion to boxing???

 

Maybe Wilder isn’t at the peak of his powers but it was a good win from Parker. He came forward and didn’t let Wilder set to throw the big looping shots. Parker came in in good shape, can carry that pace vs any version of Wilder and Parker can take a good shot too. I think he beats any version of Wilder personally

 

When exactly was Wilder ever “authoritative with his jab?”

Given his reach and size his jab is pathetic. It’s barely improved since Lewis tried teaching him how to use it in that hotel car park.

 

Honestly now you're just coming off desperate. Just take your L and move on.

 

Why not take your W and move on with your life? Not sure why we need a film study for a guy landing 89 punches over 12 against a corpse, but I digress. I will stop posting in this thread and see where discussion of this great technical mastery goes.

Enjoy.

 

Ruiz was a bit better than Ortiz 4.5 years, 7 fights and 2 KO defeats after Wilder beat Ortiz first time. Stiverne got blown out in a round and didn't land a single punch last time Wilder fought him, Ortiz was orders of magnitude more competitive and is vastly more active at a good level than Stiverne. It's deranged to even make the comparison.

Your claim is that Wilder is basically as good as ever, that he'd still beat 2018 Ortiz. Mine is he's utterly finished and Franklin would beat him at this point. He's mentally broken and shouldn't even be in a boxing ring, I think an Ortiz trilogy would expose that.

 

This kind of insult seems to be your stock in trade, Stevie, when you don't like what you read.

- call @Brighton bomber clueless
- state that no one is learning anything about boxing from someone named @Kiwi Casual
- call me fake

I have not discussed my opinion or your opinion of the fight with you here, Stevie.
The fact that you believe the issue here is a difference of opinion about the fight, shows you haven't been paying attention.

If you go back to where I first responded to one of your posts ( post # 84), you will noice that I didn't debate the fight with you. What I said was:

This content is protected

This was in response to two snippy responses from you to two other usually non-confrontational posters, in one case calling the poster clueless, and in the other case, giving him a lecture about how and what he should post, including some nonsense about armchair psychology and Dr. Phil.

It was those two posts that pointed to you being bitter, not our respective opinions of the fight.
You and I never even discussed the actual fight.

And in my post, only the first sentence related to you. The remaining five sentences were laudatory of Wilder, expressing my view that he seemed to be happy and in a good place despite the defeat.

Strangers like me ? Everybody is a stranger on here, and I have made no psychoanalytical posts. I pointed out that your snippy, insulting responses to two decent posters indicated bitterness.

And as I have already stated, our opinions on the boxing match were never even discussed.
It was your tone I was commenting on, and as I said, most of my post was about Wilder's positive attitude.

If you actually go back and take a look, all this should be obvious.

And regarding your comments on posters "making psychoanalytical posts," I would draw your attention to some of your own posts that would seem to fit into that same category.

Some examples from the past:

and

and

And there are lots more.
It would seem that you're espousing posting guidelines for others but don't feel they should apply to you.


As a man of the cloth, you might be familiar with Matthew 7: 3-5

In case you're not, it counsels removing the beam from your own eye before tackling the mote in someone else's

And Luke 4:23 says essentially the same thing.
Medice cura te ipsum
Physician, heal thyself.

Nothing I have posted points towards being sanctimonious, other than perhaps in your mind.
So again, just another ready insult ?

And if you're perturbed by posters making idle, speculative comments about other posters, then you might just be a tad too sensitive for the banter that goes on in this forum.

But then again, you've been here for a while, years and years in fact, and as evidenced by the examples above, have made speculative comments of your own that by your parlance, would be deemed "armchair psychology" or even psychoanalysis.

That's all very nice, and I'm glad to hear that you, like Deontay, are in a good place at this time. However, I have no idea why you thought I needed "helping out" or why you thought that any of that mini-bio was germane to this dialogue, or why you engaged in such detailed personal disclosure.
In fact, providing that little life-summary strikes me as profoundly bizarre.

No, I don't believe I have disagreed with your take here.
I have made no comments on your take, one way or another.

You may well have invited others to "agree to disagree."

You did not extend any such invitation to me. Had you done so, this would probably have been over some time ago.

You have so far, made three responses to me, and here is how you ended them:

This content is protected

None of those sound remotely like "let's agree to disagree."


I think much of your problem here is that you are not reading the thread closely and are confusing what others in this thread have said to you with what I have said. That might be evident if you go back and look at the dialogue more carefully.

I have no problem sharing my opinion publicly. I have discussed boxing with many on here. Sometimes I agree with their take, and at other times, I agree to disagree.

I hope this clarifies my position on the issues raised.