Parker v ??

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

that was the greatest era for depth and quality IMO

and there isnt that much right now to get excited about ,

but its like comparing any sports from different eras ,

Joshua seems the pick of them , but there still remain question marks on him , but he is a monster compared to the fighters from the 70s ,so were the klitschko brothers, how much of an advantage that would be , we will never know the answer to that because it never happened ,

2 metre tall fighters around 115 kilos were unheard of ,

Always easier to compare the fighters from the restricted weight divisions IMO

Bigger ain't always better and all the guys I mentioned were fairly big roosters....most around the 6 2, 6 3 mark....

Agree wholeheartedly, Joshua appears the best of the bunch but the 'bunch' is pretty limited.

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

that was the greatest era for depth and quality IMO

and there isnt that much right now to get excited about ,

but its like comparing any sports from different eras ,

Joshua seems the pick of them , but there still remain question marks on him , but he is a monster compared to the fighters from the 70s ,so were the klitschko brothers, how much of an advantage that would be , we will never know the answer to that because it never happened ,

2 metre tall fighters around 115 kilos were unheard of ,

Always easier to compare the fighters from the restricted weight divisions IMO

Bigger ain't always better and all the guys I mentioned were fairly big roosters....most around the 6 2, 6 3 mark....

Agree wholeheartedly, Joshua appears the best of the bunch but the 'bunch' is pretty limited.

Bigger aint always better , I agree, which was my point further back , but some of these guys have been so big you wonder,

Heavyweight boxing is not the best, hasnt been for some time ,

I much prefer the area around welterweight - middleweight , plenty of quality there

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

He probably should have said Smokin Joe never fought anyone lighter than himself , that may have been correct I imagine ,

and wouldve made the point he was trying to make anyway , because Joe was one tough cookie .

It's funny. Whilst having a quick look on the net to prove my point I googled fighters of the 70s and 80s. Obviously the big three came up in Ali, Foreman and Frazier but do any of you think the 'lesser' ( for want of a better word ) fighters like Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes etc be troubled by guys of today? @raznomore would love to know your thoughts brudda.

Of those guys you mentioned Holmes was absolute class and although he fought Ali at the end of his career was pretty much the next era which he dominated ,

Norton was also class and gave Ali all sorts of problems , 3 close split decisions , Norton got one and lost 2 in controversial circumstances ,one where the crowd booed when the scores were read out , he deserves to be mentioned in the same class as Ali, Frazier and Foreman IMO,

Shavers was a good honest tough guy , Leon Spinks famously beat an over the hill Ali , but didnt achieve much else , Crack addict, his brother Michael was the better fighter , but was a Cruiserweight , went up to fight Tyson but was overwhelmed with Tysons power like the rest of them at the time .

Holmes and Norton could compete with any era , they would be the two.

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

He probably should have said Smokin Joe never fought anyone lighter than himself , that may have been correct I imagine ,

and wouldve made the point he was trying to make anyway , because Joe was one tough cookie .

It's funny. Whilst having a quick look on the net to prove my point I googled fighters of the 70s and 80s. Obviously the big three came up in Ali, Foreman and Frazier but do any of you think the 'lesser' ( for want of a better word ) fighters like Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes etc be troubled by guys of today? @raznomore would love to know your thoughts brudda.

Of those guys you mentioned Holmes was absolute class and although he fought Ali at the end of his career was pretty much the next era which he dominated ,

Norton was also class and gave Ali all sorts of problems , 3 close split decisions , Norton got one and lost 2 in controversial circumstances ,one where the crowd booed when the scores were read out , he deserves to be mentioned in the same class as Ali, Frazier and Foreman IMO,

Shavers was a good honest tough guy , Leon Spinks famously beat an over the hill Ali , but didnt achieve much else , Crack addict, his brother Michael was the better fighter , but was a Cruiserweight , went up to fight Tyson but was overwhelmed with Tysons power like the rest of them at the time .

Holmes and Norton could compete with any era , they would be the two.

Good summary. I admit I got the Spinks bros confused. Michael finished 31-1 and unlike so many of those guys he retired and stayed out of the ring for good. Shavers is probably the last one you'd want to get hit by but I read he has questionable stamina in later rounds.

I remember watching Holmes vs Tyson and the old man told me how good Holmes used to be until Tyson have him the only KO of his career.

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

He probably should have said Smokin Joe never fought anyone lighter than himself , that may have been correct I imagine ,

and wouldve made the point he was trying to make anyway , because Joe was one tough cookie .

It's funny. Whilst having a quick look on the net to prove my point I googled fighters of the 70s and 80s. Obviously the big three came up in Ali, Foreman and Frazier but do any of you think the 'lesser' ( for want of a better word ) fighters like Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes etc be troubled by guys of today? @raznomore would love to know your thoughts brudda.

Of those guys you mentioned Holmes was absolute class and although he fought Ali at the end of his career was pretty much the next era which he dominated ,

Norton was also class and gave Ali all sorts of problems , 3 close split decisions , Norton got one and lost 2 in controversial circumstances ,one where the crowd booed when the scores were read out , he deserves to be mentioned in the same class as Ali, Frazier and Foreman IMO,

Shavers was a good honest tough guy , Leon Spinks famously beat an over the hill Ali , but didnt achieve much else , Crack addict, his brother Michael was the better fighter , but was a Cruiserweight , went up to fight Tyson but was overwhelmed with Tysons power like the rest of them at the time .

Holmes and Norton could compete with any era , they would be the two.

Good summary. I admit I got the Spinks bros confused. Michael finished 31-1 and unlike so many of those guys he retired and stayed out of the ring for good. Shavers is probably the last one you'd want to get hit by but I read he has questionable stamina in later rounds.

I remember watching Holmes vs Tyson and the old man told me how good Holmes used to be until Tyson have him the only KO of his career.

Im 55 , watched all that era live as a kid growing up , its funny, remember all those fights like it was yesterday , but cant actually remember what happened yesterday

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

He probably should have said Smokin Joe never fought anyone lighter than himself , that may have been correct I imagine ,

and wouldve made the point he was trying to make anyway , because Joe was one tough cookie .

It's funny. Whilst having a quick look on the net to prove my point I googled fighters of the 70s and 80s. Obviously the big three came up in Ali, Foreman and Frazier but do any of you think the 'lesser' ( for want of a better word ) fighters like Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes etc be troubled by guys of today? @raznomore would love to know your thoughts brudda.

Of those guys you mentioned Holmes was absolute class and although he fought Ali at the end of his career was pretty much the next era which he dominated ,

Norton was also class and gave Ali all sorts of problems , 3 close split decisions , Norton got one and lost 2 in controversial circumstances ,one where the crowd booed when the scores were read out , he deserves to be mentioned in the same class as Ali, Frazier and Foreman IMO,

Shavers was a good honest tough guy , Leon Spinks famously beat an over the hill Ali , but didnt achieve much else , Crack addict, his brother Michael was the better fighter , but was a Cruiserweight , went up to fight Tyson but was overwhelmed with Tysons power like the rest of them at the time .

Holmes and Norton could compete with any era , they would be the two.

Good summary. I admit I got the Spinks bros confused. Michael finished 31-1 and unlike so many of those guys he retired and stayed out of the ring for good. Shavers is probably the last one you'd want to get hit by but I read he has questionable stamina in later rounds.

I remember watching Holmes vs Tyson and the old man told me how good Holmes used to be until Tyson have him the only KO of his career.

Im 55 , watched all that era live as a kid growing up , its funny, remember all those fights like it was yesterday , but cant actually remember what happened yesterday

I'm 40 and like that with Rugby hahaha.

My old man is a boxing encyclopedia but even he is a bit over the current era.

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

He probably should have said Smokin Joe never fought anyone lighter than himself , that may have been correct I imagine ,

and wouldve made the point he was trying to make anyway , because Joe was one tough cookie .

It's funny. Whilst having a quick look on the net to prove my point I googled fighters of the 70s and 80s. Obviously the big three came up in Ali, Foreman and Frazier but do any of you think the 'lesser' ( for want of a better word ) fighters like Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes etc be troubled by guys of today? @raznomore would love to know your thoughts brudda.

Of those guys you mentioned Holmes was absolute class and although he fought Ali at the end of his career was pretty much the next era which he dominated ,

Norton was also class and gave Ali all sorts of problems , 3 close split decisions , Norton got one and lost 2 in controversial circumstances ,one where the crowd booed when the scores were read out , he deserves to be mentioned in the same class as Ali, Frazier and Foreman IMO,

Shavers was a good honest tough guy , Leon Spinks famously beat an over the hill Ali , but didnt achieve much else , Crack addict, his brother Michael was the better fighter , but was a Cruiserweight , went up to fight Tyson but was overwhelmed with Tysons power like the rest of them at the time .

Holmes and Norton could compete with any era , they would be the two.

Good summary. I admit I got the Spinks bros confused. Michael finished 31-1 and unlike so many of those guys he retired and stayed out of the ring for good. Shavers is probably the last one you'd want to get hit by but I read he has questionable stamina in later rounds.

I remember watching Holmes vs Tyson and the old man told me how good Holmes used to be until Tyson have him the only KO of his career.

For a few eras there , it seemed every great champ finished on a humiliating defeat to the next great fighter of the next era .
Patterson v Ali ,
Ali v Holmes
Holmes v Tyson
Tyson v Lewis

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

He probably should have said Smokin Joe never fought anyone lighter than himself , that may have been correct I imagine ,

and wouldve made the point he was trying to make anyway , because Joe was one tough cookie .

It's funny. Whilst having a quick look on the net to prove my point I googled fighters of the 70s and 80s. Obviously the big three came up in Ali, Foreman and Frazier but do any of you think the 'lesser' ( for want of a better word ) fighters like Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes etc be troubled by guys of today? @raznomore would love to know your thoughts brudda.

"Lesser" compared to Ali, Foreman & Frazier but still Norton, Holmes & Spinks(sorry wrong Spinks was thinking of his brother) are all time fighters. They knew how to bang, lean and defend. If you look at Parker and Wilder they aren't good defenders. Parker gets tagged easily and Wilder employs the no defense, defense. His footwork is good but he's arms around his waist at all times.

I think Holmes especially would have killed both Parker and Wilder. Joshua is a physical freak and does a lot of good things. But his chin is suspect. Norton or Holmes in their prime > Joshua.

I do think Joshua is the closest thing the heavyweight division has had to a potential great since Lewis though. The Klitschko's were always consistent but they never had any real threats in the weight class.

But, in any case, I would take the old guys over this current batch.

@raznomore said in Parker v ??:

@mn5 said in Parker v ??:

@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:

He probably should have said Smokin Joe never fought anyone lighter than himself , that may have been correct I imagine ,

and wouldve made the point he was trying to make anyway , because Joe was one tough cookie .

It's funny. Whilst having a quick look on the net to prove my point I googled fighters of the 70s and 80s. Obviously the big three came up in Ali, Foreman and Frazier but do any of you think the 'lesser' ( for want of a better word ) fighters like Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes etc be troubled by guys of today? @raznomore would love to know your thoughts brudda.

"Lesser" compared to Ali, Foreman & Frazier but still Norton, Holmes & Spinks(sorry wrong Spinks was thinking of his brother) are all time fighters. They knew how to bang, lean and defend. If you look at Parker and Wilder they aren't good defenders. Parker gets tagged easily and Wilder employs the no defense, defense. His footwork is good but he's arms around his waist at all times.

I think Holmes especially would have killed both Parker and Wilder. Joshua is a physical freak and does a lot of good things. But his chin is suspect. Norton or Holmes in their prime > Joshua.

I do think Joshua is the closest thing the heavyweight division has had to a potential great since Lewis though. The Klitschko's were always consistent but they never had any real threats in the weight class.

But, in any case, I would take the old guys over this current batch.

I remember reading George Foreman saying Lennox Lewis was the best heavyweight of all time. Massive call.

Did Holmes ever fight anyone taller than him? If be interested to see how he'd go against Lewis or the Klitchkos.

I forgot King Kong. If he wasn't a drugged up mungo I'd put him out on his own in the current crop of Heavyweights. He is old school and I think he could have had all the belts by now if he wasn't on the juice, He never needed it, which is the most annoying this about his career.

Ive just seen Oscar Dela Hoya has called out Conor Mcgregor. After months of bagging the super fight out and saying how bad it was for boxing. Golden boy wants a piece of the action.

I hate Oscar.

Any one catch the fiasco that was the Parker presser yesterday. Fuck I felt sorry for Parker. Higgins is a muppet and no one should ever give Barry a microphone.

@raznomore Parkers camp seem overly keen to fight AJ, I'm no boxing officianado (in fact I cant spell the word) but it doesnt seem he is near enough yet...are they foxing or just more proof JP's camp are huge muppets?

@taniwharugby said in Parker v ??:

@raznomore Parkers camp seem overly keen to fight AJ, I'm no boxing officianado (in fact I cant spell the word) but it doesnt seem he is near enough yet...are they foxing or just more proof JP's camp are huge muppets?

JP is not ready.

His perceived strengths are not actually that great. Yes he's fast but wastes punches. AJ is a touch slower and throws less but he makes them count. JP has a chin but how tested has it been? Ruiz and Takam got him best but they didn't seem to actually have a ton of power in those fights. AJ has been dazed and floored, thats where Higgins clearly thinks he has the edge. But I'd Say the guys that got to AJ's chin, Whyte & Klitsckho, were in a better class than Ruiz and Takam. Certainly Klitsckho was and I'd say Whyte is more powerful than anyone Parker has faced.

Parker has shit reach, no footwork and does not defend overhands. When he started he used to pick his punches now he just throws and throws and throws. Theres a ton of slapping going on too. Parker does have KO power but fuck knows where is gone.

So in short. Higgins wants a payday asap because the longer JP is in the wilderness thes more likely he is to come up against someone who will beat him with out the payday.

^^^ exactly this

They know this is the best chance of making a few $$$ before losing the belt to someone in a fight for much less cash. If they were that confident they’d take 20-25% and get over there and fight ASAP but no it’s the money they want.

@kiwiinmelb yeah when I saw this the day after it happened I was so embarrassed. How the fuck Higgins and Lonegan before him have managed to get this far in the fight game fucken A-Mazes me. Imagine how good Parkers prospect could be with articulate, clever promoters and a more effective corner team. Im going to start backing Fa to be honest. Parker is a good guy and I hope he proves to everyone that he deserves his belt but I just can not see it happening.

Oh well at least Higgins is getting their name out there in whatever silly way possible. It worked before the Hughie Fury fight whether people like it or not. If Higgins is more patient then they probably will get what they want eventually but instead he keeps dropping the price. I'd be shocked if AJ was next for Parker anyway and expect him to fight Lucas Browne instead.

I have tried to look at this from an angle that would sell fights and these isn't one.

What sells a fight is exuding confidence, arrogance, menace, flamboyance and/or all of the above.

Misleading so called evidence , cringe factor, amateur antics and immaturity just gets you forgotten about.

Higgins does come across as an amateur but he got the result he wanted at that Fury presser, i.e., a change of the ref.