BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I'm not pretending anything, just watching you pretend that you don't have an irrational hate for Wilder. It's amusing to me since you're usually very balanced. You're completely full of poo saying that if Wilder had faced Vitali's versions of Adamek, Arreola or Solis that you'd be off of his ass. If you look at the entire PBC roster and list how many big fights they've had in the last 13 months, you'll have many more cowards for your list.

How can he be a coward without ever turning down an opponent? Sorry, it's quite confusing.

Since we're just talking in circles and I've already explained my hatred for Wilder as clearly as I possibly can. I'll move on.

Since you can't/won't answer the question, that's probably for the best.

Let me flip it on you then. Why is a "Champion" not fighting top ranked contenders fine by you?

Hopefully Wilder-Ortiz happens and it's not yet another mediocre opponent for Deontay.

Remember Gil, since the Povetkin mandatroy fell through, Wilder had to fight Molina, Szpilka, Duhaupas, Washington, and shot Arreola. It's hating and not giving him his just due to suggest otherwise

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Since we're just talking in circles and I've already explained my hatred for Wilder as clearly as I possibly can. I'll move on.

Since you can't/won't answer the question, that's probably for the best.

Let me flip it on you then. Why is a "Champion" not fighting top ranked contenders fine by you?

I've never said it was. I don't particularly care about belts these days, so when guys have shitty fights I don't watch them if they don't interest me.

So now, you're still refusing to tackle the question posed, done with the conversation, and still responding?

crusader wrote:Remember Gil, since the Povetkin mandatroy fell through, Wilder had to fight Molina, Szpilka, Duhaupas, Washington, and shot Arreola. It's hating and not giving him his just due to suggest otherwise

I'm just interested in why he's a coward. His resume is crap, as I've already stated.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Since you can't/won't answer the question, that's probably for the best.

Let me flip it on you then. Why is a "Champion" not fighting top ranked contenders fine by you?

I've never said it was. I don't particularly care about belts these days, so when guys have shitty fights I don't watch them if they don't interest me.

So now, you're still refusing to tackle the question posed, done with the conversation, and still responding?

I was just asking you a follow up question. Your answer was satisfactory to me.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

crusader wrote:Remember Gil, since the Povetkin mandatroy fell through, Wilder had to fight Molina, Szpilka, Duhaupas, Washington, and shot Arreola. It's hating and not giving him his just due to suggest otherwise

I'm just interested in why he's a coward. His resume is crap, as I've already stated.

If he wasn't a coward he'd have fought a Top 10 contender by now during his reign. It's not rocket science.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Let me flip it on you then. Why is a "Champion" not fighting top ranked contenders fine by you?

I've never said it was. I don't particularly care about belts these days, so when guys have shitty fights I don't watch them if they don't interest me.

So now, you're still refusing to tackle the question posed, done with the conversation, and still responding?

I was just asking you a follow up question. Your answer was satisfactory to me.

Much better than your silence.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

crusader wrote:Remember Gil, since the Povetkin mandatroy fell through, Wilder had to fight Molina, Szpilka, Duhaupas, Washington, and shot Arreola. It's hating and not giving him his just due to suggest otherwise

I'm just interested in why he's a coward. His resume is crap, as I've already stated.

If he wasn't a coward he'd have fought a Top 10 contender by now during his reign. It's not rocket science.

Who has he turned down? Wouldn't that have to be part of the cowardly equation? You're right, it's not rocket science. You keep ignoring the question because you know the answer.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I've never said it was. I don't particularly care about belts these days, so when guys have shitty fights I don't watch them if they don't interest me.

So now, you're still refusing to tackle the question posed, done with the conversation, and still responding?

I was just asking you a follow up question. Your answer was satisfactory to me.

Much better than your silence.

I don't mind having a go with you from time to time Saad. I like to be challenged.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I'm just interested in why he's a coward. His resume is crap, as I've already stated.

If he wasn't a coward he'd have fought a Top 10 contender by now during his reign. It's not rocket science.

Who has he turned down? Wouldn't that have to be part of the cowardly equation? You're right, it's not rocket science. You keep ignoring the question because you know the answer.

Why does he have to turn anybody down? Isn't it generally the role of a Champion to take on and beat the best guys out there?

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
If he wasn't a coward he'd have fought a Top 10 contender by now during his reign. It's not rocket science.

Who has he turned down? Wouldn't that have to be part of the cowardly equation? You're right, it's not rocket science. You keep ignoring the question because you know the answer.

Why does he have to turn anybody down? Isn't it generally the role of a Champion to take on and beat the best guys out there?

For me to call a fighter a coward he'd have to continuously avoid fights or fight like one. Too much politics in Boxing for me to call a guy a bitch for the matchups he has if there is no evidence of him turning down fights. He signed to go to Russia, he's fought through severe injuries to win and has gotten off the canvas. Nothing cowardly there.

He was long protected coming up and hasn't done much as a paper champion. You don't need a reason to hate an athlete, you should have one past that for calling one a coward.

Edit: If we have no evidence of him turning down legit offers, how do we know that the top fighters haven't been interested in him for the money offered?

Molina, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Arreola & Washington is so much different than D Williams, Gomez, Arreola, K Johnson & Sosnowski?

Wilder will be hard pressed not to surpass Vitali's resume. Granted, Vitali fought Lewis to begin with but their title defenses are virtually identical. Nobody, not even me, would call Vitali a coward.

Before Vitali was WBC champ he'd already fought multiple opponents better than anyone Wilder has fought. You sure love to bring him in to this topic

And if Wilder does end up facing stronger opposition than Vit, great. But the mere possibility that he'll do it isn't really much of an argument in his favour...

At this point has Wilder fought anyone clearly better than Herbie Hide?

Vitali is exactly who should be brought into the conversation for woeful title defenses. He's the standard bearer, doesn't make him a coward. I've never heard Gil complain about his ridiculous opposition before he got the paper title.

If Wilder had fought AJ and Ortiz prior to his WBC title reign he'd rightfully get knocked much less for facing mediocre opposition.

As for the actual reigns (to me title defense vs non-title defense isn't much of an issue though), I'd favour prime Adamek over anyone Wilder defended against (even the old, seriously faded version was way ahead against Molina), Chisora already walked through Scott and I think he'd have a great chance of beating all Wilder's title opponents, and to me Solis seemed no worse than Molina, Duhaupas, etc. Vitali fought a much fresher version of Arreola too. Admittedly, his defenses were weak, but by the time he'd been a pro for 9 years he'd fought multiple opponents better than anyone Wilder's faced.

crusader wrote:If Wilder had fought AJ and Ortiz prior to his WBC title reign he'd rightfully get knocked much less for facing mediocre opposition.

As for the actual reigns (to me title defense vs non-title defense isn't much of an issue though), I'd favour prime Adamek over anyone Wilder defended against (even the old, seriously faded version was way ahead against Molina), Chisora already walked through Scott, and Solis seemed about Stiverne level to me. Vitali fought a much fresher version of Arreola too. Admittedly, his defenses were weak, but by the time he'd been a pro for 9 years he'd fought multiple opponents better than anyone Wilder's faced.

Again, Gil's issue is with his title defenses, that's why he's a coward. Vitali is obviously the more accomplished, and flat out better, fighter. It certainly would only be fair to compare the amount of defenses Wilder has had with Vitali's at the same stage of their title reigns. Though I may have shorted Vitali the mighty Sanders. Johnson might have been his title win. No need to create arguments I'm not making.

Better version of Arreola is an oxymoron.

I believe Adamek was generally ranked as a top 3-5 contender when Vitali fought him. I'm pretty sure he was #3 with The Ring, for example, and of course Vitali wasn't going to fight Wlad. Adamek is one guy who was closer to the top than anyone Wilder has defended against...

As mentioned though, for me the distinction between title and non-title fights isn't so important.

crusader wrote:I believe Adamek was generally ranked as a top 3-5 contender when Vitali fought him. I'm pretty sure he was #3 with The Ring, for example, and of course Vitali wasn't going to fight Wlad. Adamek is one guy who was closer to the top than anyone Wilder has defended against...

Wilder still has time to match that epic contest.

The distinction between title and nontitle fights is equally unimportant to me.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

crusader wrote:I believe Adamek was generally ranked as a top 3-5 contender when Vitali fought him. I'm pretty sure he was #3 with The Ring, for example, and of course Vitali wasn't going to fight Wlad. Adamek is one guy who was closer to the top than anyone Wilder has defended against...

Wilder still has time to match that epic contest.

True, though his opposition has also been weaker if we look at who they'd fought by the same age or years pro.

An Ortiz fight would be big for Deontay, and if it happens next people can't still say that he's the guy seeking easy fights. I actually think he'd KO the boogeyman , and I have always had an issue with the mediocre opposition in part because I think he's capable of beating better.

crusader wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

crusader wrote:I believe Adamek was generally ranked as a top 3-5 contender when Vitali fought him. I'm pretty sure he was #3 with The Ring, for example, and of course Vitali wasn't going to fight Wlad. Adamek is one guy who was closer to the top than anyone Wilder has defended against...

Wilder still has time to match that epic contest.

True, though his opposition has also been weaker if we look at who they'd fought by the same age or years pro.

An Ortiz fight would be big for Deontay, and if it happens next people can't still say that he's the guy seeking easy challenges.

I would agree that even in the title defenses Vitali has a slight edge in opposition. Certainly not enough to distinguish between a bad ass and a coward. Faced with injury, one fought through it and one packed it in. Not that I fault him for that. Vitali was also a draw where as Wilder is not. Though nobody wants to admit it, Wilder is very beatable and very dangerous. He has the risk/reward thing going against him. Not to mention being a PBC fighter. Maybe he has no interest in facing top guys(to me, in recent eras top 10 means a tad above shit), maybe they don't want him. Having spoken to him multiple times, I don't think courage or confidence has anything to do with it.

Stivern should fight Charles Martin.