Ron Lyle versus Deontay Wilder would be sanctioned murder.

Let me break down your comments mate so we can agree to disagree here so we're not going round in circles because i don't feel like i've explained myself properly.

Oh no i don't think Wilder last night was a true representation of himself, but my issue is has Wilder ever shown he can beat a 250 pound motivated Parker ? as i said earlier if Wilder had more notable wins you could overlook certain losses. But when Wilder has a very thin resume, and he gets dominated by one of the few notable names hes fought with a solid chin i might add. Then its hard to not think Wilder was over hyped.

But no i don't think Wilder showed a true representation of himself but i still think style wise Parker is always a very tough assignment for him. And there's nothing really on his resume to suggest he should necessarily be favoured over that version of Parker last night at any point in his career quite honestly.

I do think the inactivity would of effected him but i don't think the result changes even if he had one more fight in between. And no i don't think it was Wilder in his prime but as i said there's no clear indication that Wilder could ever beat Parker really.

Honestly i think it was a fairly significant fight for his legacy, i was debating with @swagdelfadeel earlier in this thread before the Parker/Wilder fight. And i was saying an impressive stoppage over Parker would do wonders for his resume against a solid world class opponent with a solid chin. The fact Wilder did lose this fight despite being at an advanced age does effect his legacy to a certain extent, and its quite hard to overlook when Wilder has a weak resume as i said earlier.

Agreed.

 

I'm just going to assume that some people are using the depleted version of WIlder we witnessed yesterday as the archetype around which to build the prime Wilder that Lyle would defeat.

 

Would you require this "burden of proof" for a heavyweight who stopped a bunch of blown up lightheavies and old men when considering how he would fare against the young, big athletes that would go on to dominate the division?

 

Parker has wins over Ruiz, Takam, Wilder, Chisora x2, which is about the same level as Wilder's best wins and maybe even a bit better overall.

But if we are talking strictly without hindsight before the Wilder fight then just the flip the argument. If what you are saying is true that nothing on Parker's resume suggests that he could beat Wilder and Wilder was a massive favourite i believe ? then isn't it even more of a glaring loss for Wilder that he got dominated by Parker ? most people believed Parker was past it after losing to Joyce.

I'm also judging it based on resume and the fact i've not been overly impressed by Wilder the few times hes stepped up. That i don't think anything really suggests he should ever be classed as a clear favourite over Parker based on last night or based on his resume.

But to be quite frank i think alot of Heavyweights now not just Wilder, haven't got alot of depth to their resume and people are too quick to jump on the bandwagon Zhang is another one.

I think sometimes Parker has lacked a bit of fire and a extra gear in some notable fights one example is vs Joshua. That's one of the reasons most people didn't think he had it in him to beat Wilder. But he showed alot of purpose and aggression especially in 9th round onslaught that's probably the meanest i've ever seen Parker look in a big fight.

The issue i have is that when Wilder hasn't got much of a resume to speak of it's hard to overlook this glaring loss. To use an example Mike Tyson had a pretty bad glaring loss to Buster Douglas who was brilliant though to be fair. But even though it's a glaring loss on his record, you can look back at his amazing run from 86-90 and pick out notable wins and performance against quality fighters.

Can you do the same with Wilder ? that's the issue lacking quality wins against notable names so the loss to Parker even at 38 is still a fairly bad one for his resume.

 

I agree. Wilder looked off yesterday. And once more, Lyle was as different from Parker as the mind can conceive.

 

The thing is Swag there is alot of double standards going on from both sides.

Luis Ortiz was a solid win for Wilder but Ortiz was older than Wilder was vs Parker who people are calling shot so which is it ? me personally i think the age argument is not a very good one and all fighters age differently.

But lets be real no one was saying Wilder was past it after destroying Helenius, and most had him the favourite vs Parker and Joshua. I think it's fair to say Wilder wasn't at his best and the inactivity would've of hurt him, but i think it's also fair to say Parker did alot of good things in the fight and should be praised for his win, lets also not forget most believed Parker was past it after the Joyce loss.

I also don't think there's any real indication that Wilder or Lyle should be a clear favourite over one another.

 

It's OK. I've found a prime example of what I think you must have been referring to...

This content is protected

Wilder... ...the best timed windmill on the planet!

 

um......

 

Wilder has no concept on how to Box but he does have an excellent rt hand along with the way he delivers it. Lyle does everything so much better. Lyle by beat down

 

Why would you assume that, when you have posts on this thread backing Lyle before the Wilder/Parker fight even took place?