- Joined
- Nov 5, 2002
- Posts
- 13,556
Parker had the skills, he lacked the aggression and the ability to fight inside. He needed to get inside because of his massive range and height disadvantage, but every time the fighters got inside the ref pulled them apart.
But Wilder? The man is pure aggression, plus he has the range, speed, power, chin, and endurance to match. He just lacks technical proficiency. If anyone ever taught that man to box he'd be truly horrifying.
I felt Parker had a decent enough defensive game and was able to move around the ring well enough but like you say the reach difference was blatant. And I was a little disappointed to not see the explosive punching power I thought he might be packing though it's true the ref would get in when something seemed to be about to happen.
Joshua threw some dodgy punches, he wanted that KO at almost any cost though he was very reluctant to dig in. He knew he could get the belt if he fought clever and made it to the end. Still wasn't a clear cut victory, he got caught by a few shots that could have been decisive had the ref not stepped in
I like Wilder, just see him as quite untested and at his prime at a time when there is a lack of good boxing in his category. He's something of a circus freak to me. A bit like Frank Bruno was to the English, just wilder
If there where true heavyweights of a pre Klishko era today I think Deontray would either be a much better much more tested fighter, or something of a bullshit lie.
All this said I can tell you know a lot more about boxing than me, but these are the things I see from my point of view
Last edited: