Ron Lyle versus Deontay Wilder would be sanctioned murder.

This explains a story my Grandfather once told me.

My Grandmother's name was Joanne.

My Grandad thought it would be romantic to have her name tattooed on his Spitting Cobra. Problem was, he needed to be "excited" to fit in her full name.

The first time my Grandmother saw his vagina miner thereafter, he wasn't "excited", she saw the name "Jan" and left him.

A couple of years later and my Grandfather found himself stood at the next urinal to Sonny Liston. He glanced down to Sonny's @JohnThomas1 and saw the name "Iris" tattooed there.

He told Sonny the story and explained how lucky he was to not have to have the same fold issue.

Sonny explained it wasn't his good ladies name, but rather a message he wanted to deliver posthumously - "I really dived against Ali".

 

Parker is a prime fighting machine who has been been honing his craft against difficult opponents for 8 years or so. Helenius was a retread ten years past his prime boosted by figuring out a flabby little face first brawler. It's easy to be assertive against one of these things. Helenius just stood there like a mug (something he did even in his prime) waiting to get hit. It was target practice. Parker wasn't there to lay down.

That aside, if you've been around the game long enough, you've seen many fighters "get old overnight". It happens all the time. Sometimes they can find a willing foe that makes them look good for a night but there is no getting back when it happens.

 

I think this is overstating Parker a little and putting a silver-lining on what have been some close results, as well as some disappointing performances against the lower tier players of the recent/current scene.

OK - So, we can agree that Parker's performance contributed to Wilder's lack of the same?

This^ is quite plausible, but that was some dramatically accelerated fall against a relatively modest foe, don't you think?

 

@McGrain I had to quote you like this as it was too many characters, but i'm done with this debate now and this was my last post on the subject. But i've enjoyed our little back and forth and i hope we can come to some type of agreement have a good day mate.

1-3 against Joshua who would be Wilder's biggest win by far and Whyte who Wilder avoided when he was his mandatory for 2 years. Stirvene is average who won a vacant title off Arreola in a very fortunate set of circumstances then went 1-4 in his remaining fights.

So whilst Wilder slight edges Parker in wins vs ranked fighters a little bit of context is needed here, he fought Stirvene twice who is average and in reality is no real better than the likes Takam, Chisora. Parker's win over Wilder in the manner in dominated him is possibly the best win either man has had against a notable opponent plus Parker has a bit more depth regarding best wins.

Although if i'm being totally fair despite Ortiz being older than Wilder was last night, Ortiz was in better form than Wilder was vs Parker which means based on that the Ortiz win could be classed as better. But as i said earlier in the thread the age argument is hit and miss because fighters age differently depending on their careers and lifestyle.

As for Wilder's inactivity well as i said it's hard to gauge he destroyed Helenius who went on to give Joshua a good argument. We didn't learn much about the fight as it was only 1 round, but Wilder did show his old power knocking out a fighter who went on to give Joshua a good argument on only a weeks notice.

Inactivity is never a good thing especially at a advanced age but no one was saying Wilder was past it prior to last night, if we are being fair judging Wilder's performance last night he did look a bit past it. But again as i've said alot of credit also has to be given to Parker for his performance and i believe he's always a tough match up for Wilder which i think is a fair statement.

I don't think either man has a very good resume but for a fighter that has had almost 50 fights and had 10 world title win i would expect there to be alot more depth. The 10 world title fights look good on paper but when you look at context of the some of the opponents its not really.

I'm not a lover of Lyle either i just don't think either man should be a clear favourite over one another, 4-2 against ranked guys sounds good and i myself like using ranked opponents in debates. But i also think a bit of context is needed aswell like i said 2 of those wins are against Stirverne who is bang average, where as Lyle was facing the likes of Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, which is a considerable difference.

Fair enough i've always felt Parker lacked that extra gear myself and oomph if you will, which is why alot of people didn't think he had it in him to beat Wilder. Although i'm not trying to make out Parker suddenly turned into a H2H monster vs Wilder if that's what you think i'm trying to say to give Parker extra credit i'm not.

But really who knows anymore with Heavyweight division ? people thought Parker was past it after losing to Joyce. So should Joyce's win over Parker been seen in a better light now after Parker's performance Wilder ?

I really don't know anymore i just think personally alot of people jump on bandwagon too much with these Heavyweights who don't have alot of depth to their resume.

5 years is a long time so yeah coming back after 5 years at age 38 vs world class Heavyweight his performance could be overlooked. But i would still say Wilder has a fairly weak resume and is overhyped.

My point is bad losses can be overlooked depending on the circumstances, and if a fighter has shown considerable amount of notable performances against notable names you can overlook it, The problem is with Wilder and what you're saying you don't think Parker loss has much relevance on Wilder's legacy where as i do. Parker would've been one of his best wins of his career and would've heightened his resume considerably, the fact Wilder lost to Parker in a very one sided manner does hurt his legacy because there isn't much to fall back on regarding Wilder's resume. Wilder never fought Joshua, Usyk, Whyte, Zhang, Hrgovic, Povetkin, Jennings, Joyce, Pulev, Ruiz, etc. I'm not saying it was all Wilder's fault these fights didn't happen but we would've found out alot more about him had he fought atleast 1 or 2 of these names.

The issue i have though is that alot of people did rate him pretty highly based on this though i'm not saying you share this opinion. But for me Wilder got too much hype for losing to a grossly overweight Fury in their 3rd fight.

You can dismiss it to a certain extent i've already been fair and gave Wilder benefit of the doubt. But i also think if a fighter has a weak resume loses to one of the best opponents he's ever fought in a one sided manner, then it does effect his legacy to a certain extent and makes you question how good the fighter is.

When you say top 3 in his own time do you mean in the era or a certain time when he was ranked top 3 ? because i don't think he's proven he's top 3 of his own era personally.

No i get it and i understand what you're trying to say but i think it's a bit different, Dokes isn't that highly rated and is considered more a talented fighter who never fulfilled his potential down to his drug addiction. Wilder on the other hand has got alot of hype and his stock sky rocketed in the last few years which is a bit mystifying to me.

If you're saying Wilder was a solid belt holder with a big punch regardless of Parker loss that would be fine and a totally reasonable fair take.

 

I'm not talking about his results per se but that he kept fighting good opponents, win or lose, thus honing his modest abilities to their keenest. The Parker who fought yesterday is very far from the Helenius who came in at the last minute against Wilder.

To the degree that Parker didn't sit there like Helenius waiting for a merciful end. Sure. But I would pick a pre-Fury Wilder over Parker everyday and twice on Sunday.

If happens slowly until it happens all at once. It's pretty much the story of every fighter who stays on too long, especially when they aren't terribly active.

 

Oh - I am not unfamiliar with a fighter growing old overnight and I wouldn't rule out this having been the case for Wilder.

The point I was seeking clarity on (roughly speaking) was more around the extent to which Parker played a part in accentuating this state that Wilder found himself in.

 

All fair points and this has been a good discussion.

I'm going to have to drop off, for now, as Xmas Eve is getting properly underway.


Merry Xmas (One and All).

 

I thought Helenius had a week notices vs Joshua not Wilder ? or did he have that with both of them ?

 

I thought it was short notice for Whyte and normal training for Wilder.

 

You're right! My bad.

Don't get punched in the head, kids.

So, I had a spare minute and went back and watched the Helenius-Wilder affair. Robert was lunging, getting off balance when jabbing, swinging punches from his hips... a slower, clumsier version of what he did in his prime. The openings were wide as a barn door. Wilder, even in last night's shape, would have found a home for his right sooner or later.

And I guess Helenius was calling for a rematch with Wilder, after he beat Joshua! Boy needs to retire.

 

Merry Xmas, bro-ham! Time to enter libation mode.

 

Good God, read that too fast and you might misinterpret that Sonny literally had our esteemed member. @JohnThomas1 tattooed on his member.

To think, the damning evidence re a dive was right under Sonny’s navel. Who would’ve thunk to look there?

Reminds me of the time when Clive Lloyd and Big Bird Joel Garner were taking a leak off a bridge.

Clive said to Joel - “Maaan, this water is cold!”

Joel replied - “And deep too!”