Ron Lyle versus Deontay Wilder would be sanctioned murder.

He certainly didn't look worse than Ortiz to me. He looked way better defensively and more durable to boot.

At least Parker has fought some good contenders. Ortiz win column is shyte. Parker is the only guy to beat Ruiz before he whooped Joshua. Ortiz was down every time a Ruiz punch got within a foot of his chin.

Ortiz looks good, well schooled etc but that chin is a liability. Bit of a glass cannon in ways.

 

I’m not talking about a 43 year old Luis Ortiz. He was obviously significantly worse than his prime by the time he fought Charles Martin.

 

Value placed on performance or lack thereof is relative for the most part.

As already said, performances aren’t absolute, a fighter’s quality from one fight to another is not robotically static for a good number of obvious reasons.

Some might take the line Usyk > Joshua > Parker > Wilder > Wallin or some other deductive arrangement.

However, inheriting and absorbing the credits of a defeated opponent doesn’t necessarily see a logical run, of course.

Styles and individual H2H quality as at the time makes fights. That’s why in theory, fighters should be facing one another rather than be afforded “assumed” edge on paper - the latter practice imo, being employed far more now than it ever was before due to more narrow and less active resumes.

Certainly, Joshua closed the gap between he and Usyk from fight 1 to fight 2 and appeared to discover the true benefits of body punching - but it was a case of too little, too late.

Even just between themselves, the dynamic wasn’t exactly static.

Had Joshua improved, had Usyk lost a step or was it a combination of both? Lots of possibilities to consider.

Going back in time. - Ali beat Foreman but being better informed, we know it would be nonsensical for Ali to absorb full credit for Foreman’s own wins over Frazier and Norton.

Because Ali fought them all, including Frazier and Norton, we already knew (and it was also later affirmed) that Joe and Ken would give Ali hell most of the time.

Foreman himself “absorbed” credit from Joe and Ken when he so easily rolled Frazier and Norton, the very two guys that gave Ali so much trouble - but that credit didn’t figure in Ali’s own H2H match vs George.

Just some random musings.

 

Well that explains Garner's distinctive gait during his run up to bowl.

And some bowler he was, too.

 

True, but Wilder's style is somewhat different than Young's.

 

Wilder threw 16 punches over the first 6 rounds....yeah...I can see him kicking the S**T out of prime Joe Louis..."HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

 

I'll raise you this -

This content is protected

 

Very different eras though in terms of training, nutrition, etc. These guys are fighting to a much later age than they did 40 years ago. The excuse that Wilder is over the hill is laughable. He’s been in very few wars and fought a lot less rounds compared to a lot of guys who are younger.

The fact is that Wilder is not washed up, it is just that he’s a bog average one trick pony.

 

When he played, I believe a special third leg umpire was appointed to keep their eye on Joel.

 

Excellent joke that will be lost on too many on here.

 

Yep, an oldie but always a goodie.

I’m guessing, in part, you possibly mean “lost” in so far as not recognising the names?

A sort of analogy was when I was first learning to drive in the 80s, my Dad gave me ONE lesson (that was as much as either he and I could stand - haha) - Dad said I drove too fast (lol) - and he added “Who do you think you are - Fangio?”

I thought, “What the hell is a Fangio?”

Years later, the wheel turned and I gave my own sons driving lessons - not a pleasant experience, at least not in the very early stages but they eventually “got it” and are now excellent drivers.

 

Yes, if you don’t know cricket that joke crashes. But being from Australia and copping 20 years of beatings at the hands of the Windies those names are well known to me.

 

I don’t follow cricket that closely but being an Aussie, it was impossible not to know and be enamoured of the peak Windies line up back in the day - names like Lloyd, Garner, Holding, Richards, Roberts, Ambrose etc.

Maybe I’m crossing over on some eras but they’re the names I remember- superstars.

It seemed to become standard thinking that, even if the Windies needed say 20-25 runs off the last over, they still could NEVER be counted out - their history for defiance preceded them.

Too many times I saw the Windies bash out the required runs - even when the rate required seemed a bridge too far - they sure knew how to put the pedal to the metal which made for some very exciting games.

 

Agreed.

As you suggest, Parker is obviously tougher in the whiskers department and he has, at least, demonstrated that he can hold an effective game plan together for 12 rounds.

Ortiz is ostensibly quite capable but, in practice, a bit of an ineffective plodder at the relatively higher levels.

I think it now reasonable to consider Parker as being better than Ortiz.

 

No, he cannot.

Ortiz, Fury, and Parker utterly shattered the notion Wilder has actual boxing ability. He's just tall, athletic, and hits like a truck. How many rounds did he win against these 3 (his best opponents), 6? 7? And many of those rounds won were due to knockdowns.

Wilder cannot box worth a damn. He is simply a taller and more gifted version of Ingemar Johanson. 6'7 but cannot even throw a decent jab on a regular basis to keep guys off of him, its a travesty. Mark Breland was right: he's uncoachable. There is no way a boxer with his size and talent should be getting outboxed in basically every goddamn fight where he can't just rely on his power to bail him out.