What do you guys think of this guy?

Thomas Stalker's his name. He'll be competing at the 2012 Olympics in London, for Great Britain.

It's a shame he hasn't turned pro. I'm not so sure he will now, as he is around 27 years of age. I like his style alot.

Here's some footage of him.

He's up against Australia's, Luke Jackson.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z6gt36QdWgo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

:blackcloud:

 

He seem to throw hard punches, but doesn't turn his gloves, he lands with the palm of the gloves when he throws hooks and body shots.

 

The only thing that's ever been good about amateur boxing is the lack of clinching.

 

Low hands, punches wide, however I think he has a good sense of distance. Doesn't turn them over, bit slappy, other than that, he look goods.

 

Bad defense, bad foot movement, bad sense of distance, chin looks like it's crap, slow punches, no jab, no variety in attack, no body work, average power, weak ring generalship, poor stamina and all that's without even playing the clip. the guy clearly sucks.

 

...But Other than That, he's Pretty Good...


REED:cheer:

 

according to cdogg there is no amateur boxing discussion here.

 

You party pooper you ::

 

:laughing:

 

He makes for a good story, and I wouldn't be too concerned about his age playing a factor in whether or not he turns pro. He got a late start, and I'm sure the '12 Games will spell the end of his amateur career, whether or not he medals.

My concern is whether or not he actually improves given his age. I don't see him going very far in the pros. He's more entertaining than your average amateur, but boasts no counterpunching instincts whatsoever. The Ukrainian fighter who beat him in the World Ammy Championships (forget his name) exploited that, and quite frankly I see Stalker being eaten alive as a pro.

Maybe Robert McCracken brings more out of him, assuming he stays with him after the Olympics. I just don't see a career built for success, at least not beyond the domestic level

 

Yep, he has all the qualities to become Floyd's next manadory

 

God I hate amateur boxing. They don't score bodyshots, it's too preposterous for words.

 

He doesn't seem like he packs too much meat into his shots, though. He has pretty quick hands, uses the ring well enough and picks his shots nicely, but he doesn't counter punch - which Jake has stated.

 

That's definitely a frustrating factor in the amateur game - not counting body shots.

I was looking at a good few of Anthony Joshua's fights and I like what I see. He's got the character to go with the talent. I'm looking forward to seeing him at the games, next year.

 

Anthony Joshua, dass they one, dass they one!!

 

A 27 year old who hasn't turned pro can tuck into my smegma.

 

honestly, I think he looked pretty bad. don't think he'll be much as a pro, if he decide to turn pro

 

Amateur boxing is for teenagers & hippies

 

:l1:

It aint all that bad, brother. I've seen some good scraps over the years.

 

Much slappy leap befuddlement

 

Who does this remind you of? :Ramonza:

 

Marlon > Tarver, all day and every day

 

read my response earlier in this topic?

 

Hippies?? ::

 

yes, it was the same old-same old... built entirely on you completely overrating Harding (who was an ordinary guy) and Tarver's other opposition in a largely shit era and giving him way more credit than he deserves for knocking out a vulnerable, ready to be KOd by everyone in the top ten version of Roy Jones... I'll take the guy who was not only clearly the superior boxer (I haven't seen you once deny that Starling was far more skillful than Tarver) but who fought the best in a very good era... and again, fuck the ams, it has nothing to do with the discussion... nobody ranks fighters all time and then says "well, I'm going to put Joe Frazier over Joe Louis because he won the gold medal" ... if you want to get into that nonsense, you'd have an almost impossible case trying to continue emphatically stating "Johnson>Hoya", but you bring it up as a matter of convenience... Tarver punched a little bit harder than Marlon Starling, other than that Starling has the advantage in spades in every conceivable category including quality of opposition and performances against that opposition, both in victory and defeat

 

:atu:

well if thats what you think then no wonder you claim starling has the better victories.

harding was ordinary, jones was ready to be KOd by at least 10 light heavyweights. reggie johnson, glen johnson, griffin all these guys were just components of shit.

perhaps if starling had won the rematch with curry he'd have a victory ALMOST as impressive as tarvers knock out over jones jr.

how many guys did starling beat better than eric harding?

 

Simon Brown, Lloyd Honeyghan, Breland were all vastly superior to Eric Harding... are you mental?

How many times was Starling beaten in the manner that Harding was beaten by Harding and Hopkins? Never, he was too good, he had too many skills to lose that way

Jones was absolutely wasted coming back down from heavyweight, it was painfully obvious the first fight (which Tarver failed to win, by the way) and Jones looked no different the second time around, he looked no different a little while later when Glen Johnson pancaked him... It's as good a win as Paul Pender W15 Sugar Ray Robinson... Jones was done

 

here you go shitting on the jones jr win yet criticizing tarver for his loss to hopkins under similar circumstances.

:doh:

 

similar circumstances?? nonsense

Bottom line is this: the Roy Jones who fought at 175 pre-Ruiz would fucking embarrass Tarver

Tarver's whole career is a win over a guy with a huge name who had nothing left