Pulev out, Carlos Takam in

First topic message reminder :

Kubrat Pulev has withdrawn from his fight with Anthony Joshua with Cameroon born French fighter Carlos Takam coming in.

Pulev suffered a shoulder injury in sparring. Takam was placed on standby by the IBF and Eddie Hearn so he has been training for this fight in case of a problem for either fighter.

Takam's record (35-3-1 27KO) is OK but the biggest names he has fought have all beaten him (Povetkin and Parker), drawn with Mike Perez and beaten washed up versions of Thompson, Sprott, Grant and Botha

Shame for Joshua as I think Pulev would have asked some questions of him. Takam should be easy work for AJ.

LionsV2 wrote:

B.A. BARACUS wrote:

It is a disgrace to british officiating when there are stoppages like this.

Read some of the comments on other sites, the americans in particular laugh their asses off at the weakness of our officials.

This is where it gets ridiculous, there are terrible stoppages in America all the time so that's a load of drivel quite frankly.

So that's okay then, seeing as it happens elsewhere makes it acceptable for British referees to stop fights at the slightest hint of a fighter getting a slap.

The pathetic judgement of some of our officials is laughable.

It's boxing for god sake not a knitting class.

There may be poor stoppages in the US but generally from what i have seen, they let the fighters take some punishment before calling it off.

Nobody wants to see fighters get seriously injured, but it's getting to the point where certain referees are doing the fighters a disservice by not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Takam was given a golden opportunity by getting a crack at AJ, why not let him go out on his shield after having fought so bravely.

You're now changing the goalposts because your initial point was garbage; American refs may have let fights go on but that was many years ago now and refs all around the world are in general quite trigger happy with stoppages.

"Generally from what I have seen...."

Who are we to argue with a statement like that ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

B.A. BARACUS wrote:

catchweight wrote:Nah. The stopage was a bad one. I dont see any comments disputing joshua was winning. Some saying he was tiring. Some saying the stoppage was done to preserve joshuas ko record. Fair enough if you ask me.


It precisely that kind of officiating that tells you what you need you know. It spoils boxing. Joshua was likely going to win anyway but thats not a valid reason to dismiss poor officiating. Leo santa cruz benefited from one the other week and the same hypocrite who criticised that stoppage attacks people for criticisng this stoppage.

Exactly.

The argument that AJ was bossing the fight and was going to win anyway is nonsense.

If that's the way certain people want to look at it, then why bother having set 12 round fights - why not just call a fight off once one fighter has built an unassailable lead??

Why over react and get silly...

Why did Dave Allen lose his Commonwealth fight a few months ago ??...Why did Hearn prospect Cardle lose to a journeyman a few months ago ??...Why did Eggington lose last week ??....Why didn't Crolla get the nod in the first Linares fight ??..Why did Campbell a hot prospect lose a reasonably close fight to that French guy in England ?

None of those were good business for Matchroom....

Not everybody is corrupt and why does it only ever seem a problem to some  when they don't like the result ??.

Whether it's good business for matchroom is irrelevant - it could have been a meaningless fight in some two mule town but the fact remains the stoppage was ridiculous.

How can you definitively say that stoppage was legitimate when it has been roundly criticised by a lot more knowledgeable people than you an i.

Frankly, i could care less what anyone else's opinion is, I can only testify to what i saw - which was a referee who was hell bent on ensuring that fight did not go distance and/or Joshua's 100% record remained intact.

One of two things led to that stoppage and both are unpalatable, given that this was a title fight.

1) The ref was corrupt

2) The ref was completely incompetent by calling the fight off at that point

Either way it's yet another stain on boxing in general and British officiating in particular

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Generally from what I have seen...."

Who are we to argue with a statement like that ??

You just did numbnuts.

I don't know if it was legitimate but as I'm not the jumping to conclusions... I'm not the one lumbered with the burden of proving my case....Which you can't.

I do believe some officials are open to corruption though in most sports and even more are just incompetent....Without evidence you have to go with the latter.

My guess is you don't want a rematch..Which you would had there been a real injustice.

Move on and relax my friend.

LionsV2 wrote:You're now changing the goalposts because your initial point was garbage; American refs may have let fights go on but that was many years ago now and refs all around the world are in general quite trigger happy with stoppages.

Oh many years ago now was it? Well that's quite a broad statement, care to quantify it any further, are we talking 5, 10, 20 years ago or am i being too presumptuous with my timescales.

'Refs around the world are quite trigger happy'

You must be quite the boxing connoisseur if you've seen bouts from all 4 corners of the globe - i bow down to your worldly wisdom oh great one.

my god it's like talking to a big mac

Not got anything sensible to say now so having to resort to childishness, the fact your knowledge is limited to a few fights held in the UK is nobodies fault but yours, it must be truly shocking that a boxing fan has watched fights held here there and everywhere.

B.A. BARACUS wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:You're now changing the goalposts because your initial point was garbage; American refs may have let fights go on but that was many years ago now and refs all around the world are in general quite trigger happy with stoppages.

Oh many years ago now was it? Well that's quite a broad statement, care to quantify it any further, are we talking 5, 10, 20 years ago or am i being too presumptuous with my timescales.

'Refs around the world are quite trigger happy'

You must be quite the boxing connoisseur if you've seen bouts from all 4 corners of the globe -  i bow down to your worldly wisdom oh great one.

my god it's like talking to a big mac  

"Charles Martin is a complete sack of S**te"
"Why is the media blowing smoke up AJ's Arse"
"AJ wouldn't have made a ripple in the 90s"

Would it be fair to say you aren't AJs greatest fan and there maybe room for more objectivity on this issue B.A ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't know if it was legitimate but as I'm not the jumping to conclusions... I'm not the one lumbered with the burden of proving my case....Which you can't.

I do believe some officials are open to corruption though in most sports and even more are just incompetent....Without evidence you have to go with the latter.

My guess is you don't want a rematch..Which you would had there been a real injustice.

Move on and relax my friend.

Impossible to determine what the reason was for the stoppage so it is what it is.

I don't really have any interest in a rematch, AJ was the superior fighter out of the two and i have no reason to believe that takam would do any better if they fought again.

He had a punchers chance at the time of the stoppage and was coming on strong in the championship rounds, however his chances of victory were slim.

The window of opportunity was ever so slightly ajar for takam, just a pity the ref slammed it shut in his face.

LionsV2 wrote:Not got anything sensible to say now so having to resort to childishness, the fact your knowledge is limited to a few fights held in the UK is nobodies fault but yours, it must be truly shocking that a boxing fan has watched fights held here there and everywhere.

The only thing truly shocking from your responses is your level of stupidity.

I am very comfortable with my level of boxing knowledge thank you.

I've seen my fair share of contests and am always happy to share opinions and debate when time permits.

However i find it mentally taxing to discuss these matters with people who are so obviously relaxed in the cognitive department.

If you consider that childish then fair enough, i call it common sense.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

B.A. BARACUS wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:You're now changing the goalposts because your initial point was garbage; American refs may have let fights go on but that was many years ago now and refs all around the world are in general quite trigger happy with stoppages.

Oh many years ago now was it? Well that's quite a broad statement, care to quantify it any further, are we talking 5, 10, 20 years ago or am i being too presumptuous with my timescales.

'Refs around the world are quite trigger happy'

You must be quite the boxing connoisseur if you've seen bouts from all 4 corners of the globe -  i bow down to your worldly wisdom oh great one.

my god it's like talking to a big mac  

"Charles Martin is a complete sack of S**te"
"Why is the media blowing smoke up AJ's Arse"
"AJ wouldn't have made a ripple in the 90s"

Would it be fair to say you aren't AJs greatest fan and there maybe room for more objectivity on this issue B.A ??

I quite like AJ, he comes across well in interviews and i genuinely believe that what you see it what you get with him.

However i do feel he is over-hyped. He is talented without a doubt and has time on his side with respect to improving BUT he has some very obvious flaws.

Whether any of the current heavyweights are good enough to expose these flaws enough to beat him remains to be seen.

What i find mildly irritating is the way he is already being compared to the greats of the past and the successor to Tyson but then that's the media for you.

Having observed all of Tyson's career in it's entirety, i can confidently say, in my opinion, Tyson would have demolished him within 3 rounds.

i won't bother getting into the whole 80's peak tyson arguement as it's been done to death

Deflecting already I see, the fact you think UK refs are alone in stopping fights early is quite an eye opener.

Looks like there was a 4 hour wait for taxis in Cardiff and all the drivers were charging double the price. Was Joshua's ring walk meant to be silent or is someone down the job centre tomorrow? Either way...hope that is his last fight in Cardiff

It's impossible to rule out a visit to Cardiff and not getting into a fight..

I'd say incompetent more than corrupt BA, alas it's a problem across the globe and not just on the big stage but from the massive fights down to the sports hall shows.

It seems a bigger problem in the UK as we mostly see UK shows (shock horror i know) but it's a boxing problem, not a location problem.

Daniel DuBois is nearly a decade younger than Anthony Joshua,and am hoping he carries on doing well,four kayos from four,and he apparently gave Joshua a bit if an argument when they sparred.

Premature stoppage ref deserves to be demoted to b-level fights

And I object to the spin Eddie Hearn put out after the fight that the fans were disappointed because they like to see someone stretchered out

How about they thought Takam was still in the fight, how about they thought that Takam had ridden the punch and wasn’t badly hurt and didn’t deserve to be stopped after putting in such a good shift?

With Joshua’s chin it’s never over till it’s over and Takam had just as much chance as Joshua of landing the big one at time of stoppage imo

Don’t put spin on things just to cover your dishonesty

Herman Jaeger wrote:

With Joshua’s chin it’s never over till it’s over and Takam had just as much chance as Joshua of landing the big one at time of stoppage imo

That's quite clearly untrue.

Sorry it’s very true, you don’t need a lot of power to knock Joshua just timing and of course accuracy there’s a little spot there

You're basing that on what exactly; him getting up against the big hitting Wladimir Klitschko who timed him perfectly?

At the time of the stoppage there was one man with two cuts above his eyes, was hurt on the back foot and had been done briefly earlier in the fight and the other was dominant and on the front foot. Do explain how there is an equal chance of Takam getting the stoppage.

I don't think there was any Illuminati involvement in this as some have suggested, just a really bad decision for a home fighter.

Joshua was well ahead and I think he would've won the fight but he was also tiring.

Just want to get opinions on this but was this Joshua's worst performance since turning pro? The one that leaves us with more questions than answers?

LionsV2 wrote:You're basing that on what exactly; him getting up against the big hitting Wladimir Klitschko who timed him perfectly?

At the time of the stoppage there was one man with two cuts above his eyes, was hurt on the back foot and had been done briefly earlier in the fight and the other was dominant and on the front foot. Do explain how there is an equal chance of Takam getting the stoppage.

Takam going to have more chance of finding that spot the more tired Joshua became...

Please tell me if you still don’t understand

This is where people see what they want to see, Joshua wasn't blowing too hard and had in fact upped his work rate, doesn't suggest a fighter who is fading down the stretch.

I think Joshua would likely have won it on points but we’ll never know now because of impulsive refereeing. Perhaps he suddenly felt the need to be center of attention?

LionsV2 wrote:This is where people see what they want to see, Joshua wasn't blowing too hard and had in fact upped his work rate, doesn't suggest a fighter who is fading down the stretch.

"This is where people see what they want to see"

What...as opposed to what YOU want them to see.

Another pearl of wisdom from our resident pugilistic sage and part time philosopher. I wouldn’t add another suggestion here as my writing isn’t so weak that I just add and to everything.

Joshua has stamina issues.

He was knackered by the middle rounds of his fight with Klitschko - the only reason he had a second wind was because he, took a 'couple of rounds off' )his words) and Wlad allowed him to do so.

Against takam he was gassing by the end of the fight and was vulnerable to getting caught until the ref decided he's seen enough.

Now think long and hard about what i have wrote and go back and watch the fight again, you'll see it all as clear as day.

He gassed against Wlad no doubt but he wasn't gassing against Takam at all, like I said you're seeing what you want to.

He wasn't close to gassing against Takam and he wasn't as bad against Wlad as has been made out, he went for it in the early rounds so took a couple of rounds easy to not gas by the end (shock horror, first time a boxer's ever done that.)
People really really really want to see Eddie's Cash Cow lose.

I don't think it was Joshua's worst performance as if it wasn't for the early stoppage or the broken nose (caused by what looked like a deliberate headbutt) then this would have been passed off as an easy defence against a tough fighter that wouldn't go down (ala Briggs vs Wlad if memory serves). Takam at no point looked in the fight, and Joshua looked like he was playing the first few rounds.

Alas i can now see us getting the 'rematch' cause everyones talking about it and see the above posters moaning about that as well :-)

Derbymanc wrote:He wasn't close to gassing against Takam and he wasn't as bad against Wlad as has been made out, he went for it in the early rounds so took a couple of rounds easy to not gas by the end (shock horror, first time a boxer's ever done that.)
People really really really want to see Eddie's Cash Cow lose.

I don't think it was Joshua's worst performance as if it wasn't for the early stoppage or the broken nose (caused by what looked like a deliberate headbutt) then this would have been passed off as an easy defence against a tough fighter that wouldn't go down (ala Briggs vs Wlad if memory serves). Takam at no point looked in the fight, and Joshua looked like he was playing the first few rounds.

Alas i can now see us getting the 'rematch' cause everyones talking about it and see the above posters moaning about that as well :-)

"It was a close fight, it should never have been stopped"

"He's fighting him again, what a waste of time"

There will be no in-between and it will be a bitter debate until the end from opposing view points with nobody able to actually win the argument. I can't wait

I'm shivering in anticipation ;-) at least you tried to steer the convo onto deeper waters with a question on Joshua's performance
alas poor Pedro nobody (but me) noticed (gits :-)

How do i post a new topic using a desktop browser?

If Joshua can't land then he can't knock you. If he cant knock you out, then you can outbox him, or at least outwork him. Given Takam is better Whyte I'm confused people are surprised this went late.


On a side note Helenius is crazy talented at times, especially in defense.

andygf wrote:It's impossible to rule out a visit to Cardiff and not getting into a fight..

True. Although I don't recall any trouble at Calzaghe fights. Loads of arrests and scrapping it sounds for this one. Must be the type of clientele Joshua brings. Stick to London in future folks. There's a good boy

A well-learned friend once gave me a good bit of advice: "Always believe in the mistake rather than the conspiracy". I am pretty certain that's what happened here. No payoffs, no free holidays, no new Mercedes waiting in the garage. Either the ref saw something he didn't like (and they are trained to do that) and made a judgement call or he made a mistake.

I'd imagine if we all took up reffing we'd all make errors too. In the heat of the moment with two 18 stone lumps in front of you, with one clearly winning, maybe you'd decide (rightly or wrongly) that the other guy's had enough.

Mr Bounce wrote:A well-learned friend once gave me a good bit of advice: "Always believe in the mistake rather than the conspiracy". I am pretty certain that's what happened here. No payoffs, no free holidays, no new Mercedes waiting in the garage. Either the ref saw something he didn't like (and they are trained to do that) and made a judgement call or he made a mistake.

I'd imagine if we all took up reffing we'd all make errors too. In the heat of the moment with two 18 stone lumps in front of you, with one clearly winning, maybe you'd decide (rightly or wrongly) that the other guy's had enough.

The mistake would never happen in reverse.