Parker v ??
-
-
Higgins has come out and said Parker was offered perhaps the lowest offer in boxing history.....Im pretty sure there have been some fights in this world where a cold cervesa and a burrito were what was on offer.
I have no doubt that Parker was low balled. He should be. He is the least exciting champion and less of a draw card. But he poses the greatest threat to AJ in my opinion. All the pressure is on AJ. Parker has probably one of the best chins among his peers and although he doesn't use them he has the tools to actually get the job done. But I can't see this fight happening anytime soon.
Parker either gets a clue by aligning himself with a better promotional team, turfs Higgins, does the same with Barry or gets some solid help for him, at the very least. Or its just going to be a middling career. Where he fights bums for 6 figures instead of names for 7 figures.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:
i think joe is too heavy ,
Looks like a slow piece of lard , needs to shred some of that fat off , every fighter has an optimum weight where he performs best , that is where you should be weighing in , forget about your oppositions weight .
An interesting stat , Ali and Tyson never fought a fighter lighter than themselves.
Ummmmmm.....
and.....
-
@mn5 said in Parker v ??:
@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:
i think joe is too heavy ,
Looks like a slow piece of lard , needs to shred some of that fat off , every fighter has an optimum weight where he performs best , that is where you should be weighing in , forget about your oppositions weight .
An interesting stat , Ali and Tyson never fought a fighter lighter than themselves.
Ummmmmm.....
and.....
There you go , last time I take what Joe Rogan says as gospel , he said the same about tyson when talking about ideal weight , thats prob not true as well
-
@raznomore said in Parker v ??:
Higgins has come out and said Parker was offered perhaps the lowest offer in boxing history.....Im pretty sure there have been some fights in this world where a cold cervesa and a burrito were what was on offer.
I have no doubt that Parker was low balled. He should be. He is the least exciting champion and less of a draw card. But he poses the greatest threat to AJ in my opinion. All the pressure is on AJ. Parker has probably one of the best chins among his peers and although he doesn't use them he has the tools to actually get the job done. But I can't see this fight happening anytime soon.
Parker either gets a clue by aligning himself with a better promotional team, turfs Higgins, does the same with Barry or gets some solid help for him, at the very least. Or its just going to be a middling career. Where he fights bums for 6 figures instead of names for 7 figures.
Pacman took 30 percent to fight mayweather , I think they would be dreaming to think they can get more than 30 ,
Dont have exact figures , but would imagine their PPV numbers are miles apart , thats what it comes down to end of the day , how many viewers does your name bring to the table .
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:
@mn5 said in Parker v ??:
@kiwiinmelb said in Parker v ??:
i think joe is too heavy ,
Looks like a slow piece of lard , needs to shred some of that fat off , every fighter has an optimum weight where he performs best , that is where you should be weighing in , forget about your oppositions weight .
An interesting stat , Ali and Tyson never fought a fighter lighter than themselves.
Ummmmmm.....
and.....
There you go , last time I take what Joe Rogan says as gospel , he said the same about tyson when talking about ideal weight , thats prob not true as well
Those were only the ones I could think of off the too of my head too.... I'm sure there were many others given neither was freakishly big or small.
-
@kiwiinmelb for all the entertaining comments you have to take Rogan with a grain of salt. It'll sound good but he is high a lot so he is going to say some outlandish shit on occasion.
-
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 .
-
@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.
-
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
-
@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.
Mike Tyson vs. Michael Spinks - Wikipedia
