Matt Skelton v Dillian Whyte

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Unforgiven, Nov 2, 2021.


  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    The ratings don't really matter.
    They don't really denote quality.
     
  2. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    Last time I checked, a guy called Otto Wallin was itching to fight him.
    Both of the belt holders would easily beat him.

    The British heavyweight title still changes hands a lot. Whyte won it vacant against Ian Lewison years ago then vacated it.
    Whyte would have his hands full with Joyce, Dubois or Hughie Fury .... to put it mildly. He has hardly cleaned up on the domestic front.

    It is Whyte who TURNED DOWN a chance at AJ and three major world title belts, and chance to avenge his loss, and about six million pounds .... so perhaps he knows his limitations. The idea that he has been avoided is laughable.

    It is funny that we are even having a discussion like this about a guy who was knocked out brutally by an old geezer just two fights ago.
     
  3. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    I am not saying Skelton was much good. And yes he was old.
    Williams wasn't much good either.
    Whyte isn't much good.
    An old Povetkin isn't much good.
    Hunter isn't much good.
     
  4. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,692
    9,895
    Jun 9, 2010
    Perhaps this^ should have been you’re opening post then.
     
  5. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    I don't think I've been at all confusing or ambiguous. Skelton and Whyte, both decent "British level" brawlers. But not much good at world level at all.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,090
    48,292
    Mar 21, 2007
    They do. It's almost irrefutably true that they do.

    They aren't always right but they usually do reflect some level of ability. Skelton was never ranked, because he fought almost exclusively against bad fighters and exclusively beat fighters who aren't that good, and Whyte was ranked in the top two, because he has. That matters to most people. I completely understand that rankings mean nothing to you in terms of denoting quality, and accept it, but you must understand you are in a minority.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,090
    48,292
    Mar 21, 2007
    I'm not sure if it's you having fun with the forum or if it's really a thing you heavily belive, but there's always been a heavyweight that's current that you believe "isn't much good" and you're always wrong, or have been for the last decade. You really really didn't rate Fury for a long time and all the posts in this thread you've made about Whyte, you also made about Fury. To your absolute credit as soon as you realised you were wrong you altered how you posted about him.

    Then it was Usyk. You weren't as vociferous about Usyk but then the forum just wasn't as interested in him because he's a cruiserweight. I think, in part, you have a reaction to HW bummery, and I totally get that.

    But you are, once more, incorrect. Whyte is way better than you are saying he is. The good news is, you aren't as wrong as you were about Usyk and Fury. You will see Whyte get beaten by Fury and it will be quite badly, too. You're still wrong though.
     
    Man_Machine likes this.
  8. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,692
    9,895
    Jun 9, 2010
    If we take your last two sentences above, as your core opinion... ...this has not been backed up by a balanced view of the facts, just by more of your opinions (in big, sweeping statement form), which could be perceived as both confusing and ambiguous.

    In your mind, a fairly long-time Ring-rated Boxer, who is certainly a serious contender for any of the Titles, and has also fought other Ring-rated opponents, is merely a decent, domestic-level fighter, alongside the likes of Matt Skelton and Danny Williams. Ok - that seems a fairly clear position, albeit a little off the mark.

    However, your approach to supporting this view is the dismissal of any current and recent Ring-ratings, as well as any fighters of a certain age and simply state that any opponents associated with Dillian Whyte aren't any good - and that even the opponents of his opponents aren't any good. (Just to add that your blanket refusal to acknowledge the Ring-ratings seems a tad disingenuous since I seem to recall that you recently referred to and used the same Rating system, of the Holmes' era, to defend Larry's record).

    At the same time, you don't fully consider Skelton's clear lack of achievement, his age, his poor performances and have to overrate a past-it and woefully out of shape Danny Williams, as well as Audley Harrison ( :lol: ), to big him up and narrow the clear gap between him and Whyte.


    No - Not confusing or ambiguous at all.
     
    Tonto62 likes this.
  9. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    The Whyte hype HAS clearly infected the classic forum. To think there are posters here who are quick to doubt the possible value of Bruno's 1st round KO of Coetzee but don't seem to bat an eyelid at Whyte going 1-1 with 40/41 year old Povetkin.
    Seriously, I think people are influenced by Whyte's personality and the current hype that has successfully sold him as a premium ppv-worthy heavyweight.
     
    Charles White likes this.
  10. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    I haven't bigged anyone up.

    Larry Holmes doesn't need defending, his greatness is beyond doubt. Oh yeah, he is accused of being scared to fight prime Greg Page, who several people here think Dillian Whyte would beat!
    That is what I am hearing here.
     
  11. Tonto62

    Tonto62 Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    5,040
    4,974
    Mar 26, 2011
    Whyte better all round than Skelton,he stops him in about 8rds.
     
    Man_Machine likes this.
  12. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    They do not mean much.
    Ruiz Jr. was unranked when he beat Joshua.
    Getting ranked is about getting the right fights at the right time, and in some cases getting the right judges decisions.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,090
    48,292
    Mar 21, 2007
    Writing off every ranking system in history because underdogs sometimes win is not sensible or reasonable.
     
  14. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,692
    9,895
    Jun 9, 2010
    You have an inflated view of Danny Williams' form, when he and Skelton met.


    Let's not get caught up in petty semantics. You are a regular proponent of Larry Holmes, in threads involving a critique of his record and you have used the Ring's ratings to do so, in the past. Yet, you will casually dismiss that same Ratings system here, to support your view of Whyte being no more than a good domestic-level fighter.


    So you just want to stick it to Whyte then? Is that it?
     
  15. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    You are missing the point.
    It is not about underdog, it is about quality.
    Ruiz Jr was better quality unranked than he was ranked.