Publish Date: 06/25/2018
Fact checked by: Mike Goodpaster
After missing a week because of Father’s Day, your highly-anticipated Monday morning write-up is back. The last two weekends provided loads of head-scratching stuff and I’m highlighting but a fraction of it. But you are getting the crème de la crème of low-brow fandom, so sit back and enjoy.
Also, don’t forget to let us know when you come across something like what you see below at @Gruelingtruth, @GriffosHanky, @TGTN_Boxing, or notify us on Facebook, either on my Page, TGTN, or TGTN Boxing. You get a write-in at the bottom of the articles.
Every time some big boxing name earns a showcase victory some turd comes of out the woodwork praising him as if he’s a demigod, or a man amongst mortals. I appreciate Spence, he’s a hard-hitting, physical southpaw who bangs consistently to the body. There are not enough of those types. But until I am blue in the face, a resume that reads Chris Algieri, Leonard Bundu, Kell Brook, Lamont Peterson, and Carlos Ocampo is not going to place him on footing with any great welterweight. The sport is too rich for that and anyone who has followed the sport long enough can vouch that the “eye test” isn’t always an accurate barometer.
Sure, a fight against Felix Trinidad sounds interesting in the hypothetical, but we had questions answered about “Tito’s” makeup, questions which Spence has yet to have answered. Give the kid time.
One win over a top-2 guy at 147, a 7-10-ish pound-for-pound placement, and arguably being the top guy in a solid class is a credible track record. I understand Floyd verbally passed the crown, as well. But until he overcomes Terence Crawford or establishes some longevity, comparisons like this are to be heaped to the trash bin.
I’m no women’s boxing expert, but if you sat down and watched the Serrano sisters (Amanda and Cindy) fight a number of times, as this fella claims, you would have to be daft or blind to not see a big weight disparity between them and Claressa Shields. Either that or you think women’s boxing is like 1993 MMA and divisions don’t exist.
I’m not sure what to be bothered more by, why HBO is asking this nonsensical question or why 11% voted for Miguel Cotto. One nickname implies the best to ever do it, regardless of division; the other denotes you were a prominent figure on an island.
It is possible that Joshua can become a great heavyweight. The guy has sharp technique, quick hands, and good pop for a man his size. He’s still young, as well. The problem is that his division is weak and his potential two biggest rivals–Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury–aren’t exactly seen as Hall of Fame material. Sure, Wilder can crack for a chocolate stick figure, but I’m not entirely unconvinced a guy like Michael Grant couldn’t have overcome his opposition. I also think that it’s highly likely Tyson Fury will not be back to his Klitschko form. It’s hard to disconnect mentally and come back to it.
More to the point is that Wilder and Fury won’t turnout as good as the best men Lewis faced–Holyfield, Klitschko, etc.
Note: Just for fun I polled some knowledgeable guys about Deontay Wilder and Michael Grant. The first questions was: ‘Who would win at their best, Deontay Wilder or Michael Grant?’. The second question was: ‘If you put Michael Grant against Deontay Wilder’s competition, would he be undefeated?’. The former netted me a response of 18-10 in favor of Wilder; the latter had a tally of 7-2 saying that Grant could have beaten them.
Thanks to Buddy Gibbs, Bill Demas, Frank Lotierzo, Jeff Jun Wei, and others for participating.