Joe Joyce vs Filip Hrgovic

I basically agree with this analysis. Hrgovic really needs those Hunter/Parker/Whyte type fights to prepare himself: Eric Molina to Joe Joyce is too big a jump. I'd slightly favour Joyce but Hrgovic is a very live underdog.

 

Stone man wins.

 

Joyce isn't above Whyte or Parker. Joyce is the stepping stone to them until he proves himself more.

 

Whyte and Parker are fringe contenders who have failed against a shot Povetkin and an old and worn Chisora respectively. Joyce already has better wins, no defeats and 10x the amateur pedigree.

 

Yes because getting tagged up by a old ass Takam until he gassed, stopping an unproven prospect and loosing 3-5 rounds against Jennings while going the distance against the same Jennings that got stopped by short plodder Rivas is very impressive.

Joyce is good, but that resume is a bit deceptive. He seems promising for whatever time he has left and I'd favor him to beat Whyte and Parker but until he adds on to his resume I'll keep him on the very bottom of the top 10

 

Whyte is currently a top contender, and Parker is a former world champ, and depending on which rankings you go by also a top contender. Not exactly what I'd call "fringe contenders".

And failed? Both Povetkin and Chisora were beaten by Whyte, and Parker beat Chisora. No defeats doesn't mean much these days, and Joyce doesn't have a better win.

 

They might be marketed as genuine contenders but 95% of this forum don't believe Parker will be a world champion again and I imagine similar numbers write off Whyte's chances. If only a tiny % of hardcore fans believe that these prime fighters will become champions, they probably aren't top contenders.

I find your arguments nauseatingly dishonest. 41.5 year old Povetkin looked like a corpse when Whyte beat him and he'd KO'd Whyte in Britain while shot in his previous fight. Chisora lost to Whyte and Parker due to highly subjective refereeing and judging calls and he officially lost SD's to both, while in his mid-late 30's having taken many beatings and losses and being a heavy underdog in each of these bouts. Usyk by contrast beat Chisora very clearly, yet most people are writing off his chances against vulnerable champion AJ because he didn't look good against Chisora.

Parker's loss to Whyte was also controversial because of subjective refereeing (the headbutt KD) but he allowed himself to be roughed up and bullied, just as he did against Chisora and said that he wouldn't have complained if he'd lost the decision, a pathetic attitude. Saying defeats don't matter is absurd, if you get defeated by fringe contenders or shot fighters then you are not a serious contender. Joyce's wins against Dubois and Jennings and his outstanding amateur pedigree are far better than Whyte scraping a win over Rivas or Chisora or Parker getting gifts against Ruiz and Chisora and strongly indicate that Joyce is a genuine contender, while the others are not. Both Parker and Whyte have also already lost to the vulnerable champion AJ and would have even less of a chance against Fury.

 

Except it isn't dishonest. The records show that Whyte beat both fighters by KO, even if he lost the first fight with Povetkin.

They are top contenders full stop. Whether or not you wrongly disagree is up to you I guess, but then again apparently you know more than the guys who actually set the rankings.

And didn't bother reading your third point because I don't have time reading another essay on your nonsense triangle theories.

 

Are you so bereft of subtlety that you can't look at the context of a win and evaluate its worth? Did Kevin MacBride beat a prime Mike Tyson? Should he get as much credit as Douglas or Holyfield for his win?

The "guys who set the rankings" are hardly objective and boxing is a dirty business. Some fighters are overranked for various reasons, some are underranked. We don't have to agree with some arbitrary authority (which one?) because we have minds of our own, or at least some of us do.

Triangle-based arguments (or in this case, comparing the mutual wins and losses of several fighters against common opponents) are not right 100% of the time but they are usually useful as a means of determining who is likely to win. It's just one tool of evaluation that you can use.

If you're going to reply without reading my posts in full then I have no interest in talking to you further.

 

You blatantly ignore the facts in favor of your opinion on who's a top or fringe contender without any consistency, and try and prop it up with a theory you've just admitted is flawed. You're the sort of guy who'd say Ali is a bum because he "lost several rounds" to someone. It's just total rubbish.

 

Hrgovic was 20 years old, Joyce 27.

 

Funny thing was back then at 20 Hrgovic was the boxer with more international experience. Hrgovic started boxing at age 13 so had 7 years of boxing experience while Joyce only took up the sport at 22 so only had 5 years experience, hence why Hrgovic was the more experienced international amateur at the time.