Let me get this straight, you're using a loss against Dillian Whyte to somehow bolster his resume? It was a loss, you know. With that logic, you could say that Joseph Parker did actually lose to all of Andy Ruiz, Hughie Fury and Carlos Takam. Absolutely none of those results were clear cut. I definitely think he lost to Dillian Whyte. He got a knockdown at the end due to Dillian Whyte's exhaustion which seems to have skewed the view of a small minority (who seem to have an agenda). I definitely think he lost to Hughie Fury. He was hitting thin air all night. I would rather score for tapping shots than no shots at all and I will never score a guy simply for moving forward. You need to land something. Both the Andy Ruiz and Carlos Takam bouts could've been scored either way. I gave him the Carlos Takam bout by 1 point and I had the Andy Ruiz bout a draw.
Have you actually seen the fight? Dillian Whyte won on 2 judges cards, soley because he knocked Joseph Parker down with a headbutt. Write another essay to show when Parker did that during Takam, Fury or Ruiz. Fair enough, those fights can be viewed through a different lense, but it's biased and subjective. Headbutt KD that wins the fight is not subjective.
I'm starting to think that you don't know a thing about professional boxing. I'm giving you my thoughts on each bout, not what a bunch of judges have come up with. I thought Dillian Whyte won the Joseph Parker fight clearly, and I had it wider than the seemingly precious judges. There's so much wrong with "biased and subjective" that I don't know where to begin. Concisely, I'd just point out that boxing scoring is largely subjective, hence why in the aforementioned I informed you that I'd rather make my own mind up on evaluating a bout than a bunch of potentially crooked judges. To deny that this is the case means that you are either biased and using this as an agenda to elevate your stance in this discussion, or have been living under a rock! There are countless ways that bouts can be scored in the realm of subjectivity, hence why there was controversy in every single one of Joseph Parker's wins against Carlos Takam, Hughie Fury and Andy Ruiz. Boxing matches are scored on shots landed, first and foremost. Joseph Parker landed about 3 shots of any kind on Hughie Fury the entire night, none of which were anything of note. Hughie Fury landed many more weak jabs. Please explain how awarding Joseph Parker the fight on the basis of moving forward and throwing some wild air shots is systematic analysis and not in any way subjective (and also clearly biased). I look forward to your response.
This old chestnut, always a gem of a counter. Isn't it a bit arrogant to think you consistently know better than the professionals paid to do the job? Yup, that's why I mentioned it. There's that arrogance again. Bit wordy mate. In real time, when I watched it, I couldn't call a winner, probably because I completely shut off for more than a couple rounds and just chatted to my pals, so I deferred to the judges, y'know, the people who are qualified to score a bout. Hope you got what you were looking for bud.
Defo Ruiz II, fought on the hoof against an even fatter belly Ruiz but the dude had smashed his chin all over the shop 6 months earlier.
He was past his best but he wasn’t “that past it”. He was still very good and a top world level heavyweight when he fought Joshua. Still dangerous asf and very experienced.
Chisora and Hammer aren't that bad. Chisora has been competitive with Whyte, and KO'd both Szpilka and Takam. Not incredible wins for Fury, but not too bad.