Loki wrote:Troll and Idiot. I will comment on one thing, if you think most elite fighters are PED free, I'm posting on step below a naive fool. BTW, if you wish to sully the great language of English, at least post something in accordance with your idiom. Namely, factuous dullard, with a dormant organ under his dunces hat...
To be honest, you can’t seriously believe that aggressively criticising someone else’s opinion multiple times, whilst being completely unable to provide any factual-based explanations for your disparaging comments, wouldn’t warrant some sort of retaliation?
You shouldn’t criticise other people if you can’t cope with return fire!
And what the fornicate has this sentence got to do with anything that we’ve been discussing?
• “if you think most elite fighters are PED free…”
Loki wrote:Troll and Idiot. I will comment on one thing, if you think most elite fighters are PED free, I'm posting on step below a naive fool. BTW, if you wish to sully the great language of English, at least post something in accordance with your idiom. Namely, factuous dullard, with a dormant organ under his dunces hat...
To be honest, you can’t seriously believe that aggressively criticising someone else’s opinion multiple times, whilst being completely unable to provide any factual-based explanations for your disparaging comments, wouldn’t warrant some sort of retaliation?
You shouldn’t criticise other people if you can’t cope with return fire!
And what the eff has this sentence got to do with anything that we’ve been discussing?
• “if you think most elite fighters are PED free…”
FFS! You’re an embarrassment to this forum!
You're in the minority of one. Seriously, tell your Mum, who probably live with, you'll have rice pudding for tea.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Just put that clown on ignore. If you argue with it, it just gets aroused.
Saad, I hope was directed at Verprick. I don't mind most posters, but he's special.
Lol, yes, the advice was for you.
I remember Charlie Z posting on here; one word - bell-end. He kind of reminds me of him, just a little more articulate. I'm sure John Shep would be so proud!
Last edited by Loki on 11 May 2017, 12:31, edited 1 time in total.
Billy Joe easily the most pathetic....beaten absolutely nobody. Took the belt from another very average fighter, Lee. A belt that Lee won because it was vacant.
walshb wrote:Billy Joe easily the most pathetic....beaten absolutely nobody. Took the belt from another very average fighter, Lee. A belt that Lee won because it was vacant.
I voted Wilder, as he probably had the opportunity to unify, the money was there. Equally, I wouldn't argue BJS or Stevenson either though.
walshb wrote:Billy Joe easily the most pathetic....beaten absolutely nobody. Took the belt from another very average fighter, Lee. A belt that Lee won because it was vacant.
I voted Wilder, as he probably had the opportunity to unify, the money was there. Equally, I wouldn't argue BJS or Stevenson either though.
I don't recall wilder having that opportunity, though he obviously could be facing better fighters. He tried once, I expect him to again.
ElJefe wrote:Went for Stevenson on the basis that he's held his belt the longest without challenging himself. Even if you give him a pass on Kovalev, I can't get my head around the Pascal fight not getting made. Aren't they both Haitian Canadians? At least there would have been some interest in that fight a couple of years back. Instead he fought guys like Bika, Karpency and Sukhotskiy.
Stevenson has fought Bellew and Fonfara though at least. Top 10 guys. Wilder has fought ZERO Top 10 guys since winning the title.
In fact Wilder is currently in talks to fight Bellew...who is one of the best title defenses from a current Light Heavyweight Champion...we've seen situations in the past where a successful Light Heavyweight Champion moved up to fight for a Heavyweight title, but only in today's age with cowards like Wilder holding belts do we see the guy who lost the title fight 2 weight classes below move up and get a shot.
While Stevenson's resume dwarfs wilders you're talking about one of the few legit lineal titles. He took that belt from a guy, Dawson, who absolutely took on all comes. After the kovalev duck he's proceeded to use al to avoid all dangerous pbc fighters and a shared promoter to avoid Alvarez. Beyond pathetic.
Stevenson is definitely a pathetic Champion and hasn't had anywhere near as respectable a reign as Chad Dawson
walshb wrote:Billy Joe easily the most pathetic....beaten absolutely nobody. Took the belt from another very average fighter, Lee. A belt that Lee won because it was vacant.
I personally had Lee winning by a point or two as well as I recall.
Chad's seeking of all the top opponents is right there with froch for the top of the sport in recent times. He was trying to get 20/80 to fight calzaghe in Wales when Joe retired.
Lackeos wrote:Wilder is 4 years older and turned pro 5 years sooner. And including the win over Klitschko, which there's no reason to exclude, Joshua and his resume are radically superior to Wilder in many ways. Like seriously, Wilder has managed to achieve 1 win over Bermane Stiverne in 8.5 years. Joshua has beaten Klitschko and Whyte in 3.5 years.
walshb wrote:Billy Joe easily the most pathetic....beaten absolutely nobody. Took the belt from another very average fighter, Lee. A belt that Lee won because it was vacant.
I voted Wilder, as he probably had the opportunity to unify, the money was there. Equally, I wouldn't argue BJS or Stevenson either though.
I don't recall wilder having that opportunity, though he obviously could be facing better fighters. He tried once, I expect him to again.
As I understand it, the money was there for him to face AJ after the Povetkin fight fell through.
I was at the AJ - Klitschko fight, managed to speak to him a bit. I'm not saying I'm a mind reader, but his body language said he didn't want anything to do with a spectacle like that. Fair enough, but if he's happy to fight in Alabama against nobodies, it's a wasted career as he has anpunchers chance against anyone.
Loki wrote:
I voted Wilder, as he probably had the opportunity to unify, the money was there. Equally, I wouldn't argue BJS or Stevenson either though.
I don't recall wilder having that opportunity, though he obviously could be facing better fighters. He tried once, I expect him to again.
As I understand it, the money was there for him to face AJ after the Povetkin fight fell through.
I was at the AJ - Klitschko fight, managed to speak to him a bit. I'm not saying I'm a mind reader, but his body language said he didn't want anything to do with a spectacle like that. Fair enough, but if he's happy to fight in Alabama against nobodies, it's a wasted career as he has anpunchers chance against anyone.
I'm not sure where you thought the opportunity to fight Joshua was. He won the the IBF belt from Martin in April, and almost immediately announced the fight against Breazeale, for June. The Wilder-Povetkin fight was cancelled in May.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I don't recall wilder having that opportunity, though he obviously could be facing better fighters. He tried once, I expect him to again.
As I understand it, the money was there for him to face AJ after the Povetkin fight fell through.
I was at the AJ - Klitschko fight, managed to speak to him a bit. I'm not saying I'm a mind reader, but his body language said he didn't want anything to do with a spectacle like that. Fair enough, but if he's happy to fight in Alabama against nobodies, it's a wasted career as he has anpunchers chance against anyone.
I'm not sure where you thought the opportunity to fight Joshua was. He won the the IBF belt from Martin in April, and almost immediately announced the fight against Breazeale, for June. The Wilder-Povetkin fight was cancelled in May.
We are talking April 16 until March 17; cmon, that's a year. HMG policies and full scale wars have been started and concluded in the same time period.
Rob3_142 wrote:
You can't say it's a 'pretty awful post' and then agree with what he's saying. It makes you look very silly.
Apart from the Rigo comment, I don't agree with any of them.
Stevenson has only beaten Bellew, hardly fought out of Canada and did duck Kovalev. Hes 39 and his resume is pretty shite.
I agree with Rigo, he's ducked and IMO not a pathetic champion.
BJS. Completely inactive and I dont buy GGG ducking him. That's just horseshit. 2nd pathetic champion IMO. I half expect him to lose to that Georgian dwarf, as he looked carbage in his last fight and from what I've seen, him and Fury are just pissing around in Marbella.
Wilder - gets the nod. I wouldn't be surprised if he had some influence in the VADA test concerning Povetkin. He was hestitant to face him; I don't condone PEDS but Povetkin positive tests were marginal. The Reptile stepped up to fight and if Wilder really thought he was the best in the division, he should have faced him. That aside, Stiverne is his only good win. He's had almost 40 fights. AJ resume after the Klitschko win is now levels above and credit to both of them for making a HW fight meaningful.
Plenty more to say about the others but I have to work.
I think perhaps you want to say instead that 'I don't agree with the majority of this post' rather than 'this post is terrible, but I agree with some points', if you get what I mean.
Lol, why do you even care?
I think perhaps you should realize that when someone's post includes several arguments, agreeing with just one of them doesn't conflict with finding the post to be awful in general.
Loki wrote:
Saad, I hope was directed at Verprick. I don't mind most posters, but he's special.
Lol, yes, the advice was for you.
You’re a sad bunch of bástárds you lot are!
You both get your ásses handed to you by losing a debate to someone who follows the sport more closely than you guys do, so you become hideously offended and start accusing me of being a troll… yet you’re nearly always powerless to undermine any of the facts that I supply.
If you’d make an effort to follow the sport as enthusiastically as I do, you’d both probably start agreeing with the majority of the things I say, because you'd know for certain that I've done my research, as you would have read or seen the very same things elsewhere.
It's pathetic the way he brags and goes into his victory dance after beating some journeyman.
It's pathetic the way he looks for excuses to avoid Povetkin, Ortiz, Joshua and anyone else with a pulse.
He doesn't need an excuse to avoid Povetkin. Povetkin is a drug cheat, and has ruined any chance of fighting any significant opponent for the rest of his career, that's not Wilder's fault.
But Wilder is still avoiding anybody with a pulse in the division I agree on that, and I do believe he was probably pretty happy to hear about it when Povetkin tested positive because that was one more hard night he was then able to avoid, but still...make no mistake the cancellation of Wilder vs Povetkin is all on Povetkin.
Pathetic? Since becoming champ? Wilder or BJS. These two are also real candidates for worst belt holder too. At least Wilder carries power so adds a bit of excitement.
Loki wrote:
Apart from the Rigo comment, I don't agree with any of them.
Stevenson has only beaten Bellew, hardly fought out of Canada and did duck Kovalev. Hes 39 and his resume is pretty shite.
I agree with Rigo, he's ducked and IMO not a pathetic champion.
BJS. Completely inactive and I dont buy GGG ducking him. That's just horseshit. 2nd pathetic champion IMO. I half expect him to lose to that Georgian dwarf, as he looked carbage in his last fight and from what I've seen, him and Fury are just pissing around in Marbella.
Wilder - gets the nod. I wouldn't be surprised if he had some influence in the VADA test concerning Povetkin. He was hestitant to face him; I don't condone PEDS but Povetkin positive tests were marginal. The Reptile stepped up to fight and if Wilder really thought he was the best in the division, he should have faced him. That aside, Stiverne is his only good win. He's had almost 40 fights. AJ resume after the Klitschko win is now levels above and credit to both of them for making a HW fight meaningful.
Plenty more to say about the others but I have to work.
I think perhaps you want to say instead that 'I don't agree with the majority of this post' rather than 'this post is terrible, but I agree with some points', if you get what I mean.
Lol, why do you even care?
I think perhaps you should realize that when someone's post includes several arguments, agreeing with just one of them doesn't conflict with finding the post to be awful in general.
I feel that calling a post 'awful' is a pretty extreme position. To then turn around and agree with some points of the awful post, perhaps means it is not so awful, and that they used the term 'awful post', just to be offensive.
verlichte wrote:
• Deontay Wilder had agreed to face his mandatory challenger, but Alexander Povetkin failed a drug test. Tyson Fury and Wladimir Klitschko were inactive for 18 months and Eddie Hearn has never attempted to make a fight between 'The Bronze Bomber' and Anthony Joshua. Apart from the Klitschko victory, AJ's resume is similar in calibre to Wilder's.
If you do your research, every single sentence that I’ve written is factually correct. Therefore, where's the "none of them" option?
You state Wilder's resume is similar in calibre to AJ apart from Klitschko. If you believe this is true, then you must believe Wilder is among the most "pathetic" champions considering AJ has 50% of the fights Wilder has had.
You shouldn’t assume a damn thing, since Joshua’ career has been progressed at a much faster rate than the vast majority of heavyweights on the entire planet! It’s utterly moronic to suggest otherwise!
Look, I get your point… I not only acknowledge your “excuse” for Joshua having faced a similar calibre of opposition to Wilder (prior to the Klitschko fight), but I also wholeheartedly agree with it. AJ almost certainly deserves to receive less criticism than Deontay, considering that he’s competed in far fewer bouts.
That being said, “excuses” and “reasons” only serve to justify the existence of “facts”, they don’t fulfil any other purpose.
Simply put: what I claimed previously about Deontay Wilder was technically accurate, regardless of any excuses, reasons or sarcastic remarks that other people may passionately cite.
Whole lotta nuthin' in that post.
The "technically accurate" statement that Wilder (38 fights) and Joshua (18 fights since Klitschko is not included) have similar resumes is clearly a critique of Wilders resume even though you don't possess the faculties to understand your own reasoning.
I will comment on one thing, if you think most elite fighters are PED free, I'm posting on step below a naive fool. BTW, if you wish to sully the great language of English, at least post something in accordance with your idiom. Namely, factuous dullard, with a dormant organ under his dunces hat...
Seriously, tell your Mum, who probably live with, you'll have rice pudding for tea.
