Fine. So you have no problems with Ortiz's comprehensive points win over Malik Scott then. Pulev doesn't win fights on skill. He wins fights by fighting the worst opposition he can to still remain inside the rankings with paid off refs that turn a blind eye to his unholy levels of clinching. Forgive me for laughing at your mention of Calderon as if it was somehow relevant to anything being said here. I'm afraid it's very relevant when those wins were. You don't retain top ten status in perpetuity based on things you did years ago. Or do you think Robert Helenius still deserves a top ten ranking based on his KO wins over Brewster, Peter and Lyakhovich? You can favour Pulev over whoever you like. It doesn't mean anything when he's never going to fight them. Let what sink in? A response to a response to a comment you initially made to lessen Ortiz's achievement against a terrified Scott who refused to engage? I know boxing isn't all about being destructive my man. I wasn't debating that. I was responding to your comparison of Ortiz's victory over Scott to Chisora's. You seem to think that stopping Scott on a BS British ref call after getting comprehensively outboxed is a superior result to a completely one sided schooling of a Scott who spent the whole fight running around the ring attempting not to touch the canvas and make it to the final bell. You're free to think that but it's not a watertight opinion at all. My points about Thompson and Jennings were in relation to the fact that they were never stopped so badly in their careers, Thompson only by Wlad and Jennings never. Any time a tough or hard to stop contender gets stopped merits attention, which is why many people sat up and took notice when Ortiz achieved it in back to back fights. You can bring up age and wear and tear all you like, but bear in mind that Pulev fought Kevin Johnson shortly after Joshua had run him over and laboured to a tedious decision over him. Pulev just isn't operating on the level you think he is.
Why are you talking about Ortiz. We are talking Pulev. I didnt find it exciting to watch but he did win. With that comment, I guess you rate Ortiz in some way and Pulev had scored a win over Chisora who had taken the 0 of Scott who made Ortiz work 12 rounds Ustinov, Thompson and Dimitrenko one after the other wasnt taking on the worst opposition. It would pass for some world champs at this time who have done less. You comment on Kubrats recent comp which I dont think is as good as some of his other fights but I dont necessarily rate it any less than Parkers 2 recent fights or Wilders last fight Laugh all you like, though I think it is out of the side of your mouth as you have been reaching with your posts and trying to imply I was saying something different to what was written in order for you to get a foothold in your failed debate. Calderon isnt relevant per se. He was mentioned to explain how boxing doesnt always have to be destructive and Calderon was a good example with that. A loss can knock someone down the top 10 which is what has happened with Helenius, but Pulev only has the one loss at the very top and although not had any major big wins has comeback with a few clear wins. Helenius was just beaten. Give me the 9 HWs you sensibly rate higher than Pulev based on what they have done. D Haye is a big name fighter. Most of what he did was years previously but a win over Haye got T Bellew a top 10 rating even though I dont think Bellew would be big enough to compete with many HWs Why when Pulev has beaten undefeated HWs and fought W Klitschko after only 20 fights, do you not think he would fight them? Pulev in taking that fight took on a bigger assignment than any other active HW at this time (T Fury not being active). ??? You still out at sea? You havent made a sensible point. You just noted to a terrible fight to watch as if that is some sort of argument? A terrible fight to watch can happen regardless. If Ortiz had of finished the fight in round 12 with a destructive KO, would that have suddenly made it all entertaining? Of course not The fight was fairly even adn not a comprehensive outboxing either way. Scott didnt try and get up until right on the 10 count. How is that BS? If he got up at 9 or 8, I doubt it would have been stopped there. Still you forget Chisora was facing undefeated Scott rather than the fighter who had suffered a few losses. If you dont think a loss means anything you would be wrong as hype is built many times from fights between fighters with 0s And??? Do you not think that may have been a keep busy fight? J Toney used to have keep busy fights between title fights. With Ortiz he was with a new promoter and looking for his first title shot I dont think what you think I think. I pointed out that I think Pulev has done more than many of the other top 10 HWs and that I think he could cause problems for many of them and that I would favour Pulev to beat Ortiz at this time. That doesnt mean that I think Pulev is an ATG or HOFer. Its just that based on what he has done overall and what he does, I favour him to beat Ortiz and think he could cause problems to Wilder and Parker. Think Joshuas style would get to Pulev though