Your Hottest Takes:

Fury also didn't test positive for the championship fight and turned out he beat his case eventually. The Ring back then didn't have strict policy on retirements back then. They kinda followed the original Nat Fleischer's lineal type of recognition which is fair enough. They did strip Fury after he said he is retired in August 2022 tho. They knew his BS by that point.

 

He was offered final eliminators and did not take them. Other fighters who balked at final eliminators have been treated the same, no?

And if he beats Pulev to get a mandatory shot at AJ, then he can force purse bids and get his fair share rather than have to take whatever is on offer.

 

I think if the crash never happens to mark it as some kind of before/after line, we look at Pep no differently in 1948 than we would have in 1946. Again, I have never seen one article between the plane crash and the first bell in Saddler I that even hints at any decline. The same sports writers who covered him pre-crash were covering him when Sandy did his thing.

In fact, I don’t recall even stumbling across stories from the time on Pep’s “miracle recovery” from said crash. Maybe they exist and I haven’t seen them, or maybe I read them and just forgot or maybe … it just wasn’t a thing until people tried to rewrite history when he got manhandled by a less popular guy who roughed him up and ragdolled Willie.

I can’t see Ezzard’s wins over Archie Moore exceeding Sandy’s over Pep. 1) Willie was champion in two of Saddler’s wins over him and No. 1 contender in the others. That’s how they were seen at the time. 2) They were all title fights, scheduled for 15. These meetings had the higher stakes as compared to Ezz-Archie. 3) Willie is regarded as THE No. 1 featherweight of all time by most (yourself included, I think) … Archie is not. So Ezzard was beating a top-5 guy by most modern reckoning, while Sandy was beating a guy considered the best. 4) Sandy’s three wins over Pep were all inside the distance. One of Ezzard’s over Moore was, and one was close enough that it was a majority decision. Sandy knocked Pep out clean once and made him quit twice.

From 1942-1953, Pep was either champ or rated No. 1 by The Ring in all but one year (which he was third, I think 1952). There is no similar stretch during the time Ezzard fought Moore where he was champ or No. 1.

I outlined how Willie’s losses to Saddler were his only defeats in a remarkable stretch of years. Conversely, Archie lost three fights to people not named Ezzard Charles in 1948 (the year of their third and final meeting) and had two draws in 1946, the year of their first meeting … and lost a couple of fights the year before that. So I can’t abide the argument that Moore is at his peak or prime during his fights with Charles as compared to Pep, who was literally losing to no one else and as dominant by result as ever during his stretch where he fought Sandy — during that time, there was literally only ONE featherweight who could beat him, whereas we see there are others who could beat Moore.

The results simply do not support the conclusion that Moore was peak/prime and Willie was past it. I have no idea what you base that on, unless it’s ’well Willie couldn’t have still been prime or he wouldn’t have lost to Sandy.’ If Sandy never was born, it’s reasonable to say Willie stays undefeated through that stretch.

 

But I've already explained to you Fury and Breazeale passed on him, not the other way around. He was also #1 contender, fighting higher rated men than those two were. If he wants to make himself available for what is conceivably, to his mind, an easier title grab in Wilder, that's his prerogative.

Furthermore, Whyte got further along with the Joshua rematch than he ever did with Pulev. Pulev had a positional advantage in that he was rated IBF #1 or #2 at the time, which meant he was entitled to a much larger piece of the pie should it go to a bid (and it did, if I'm not mistaken). Why in the world would he go in for the same percentage he would have received for AJ against Kubrat Pulev (a non-draw)? Fact of the matter is, Fury, AJ, and Wilder were all within striking distance for Whyte at one time. And he had earned at least a shot at the green belt but was repeatedly sidestepped.

 

Here you go:

https://www.fightful.com/mma/wbc-pr...-rejected-title-eliminator-against-tyson-fury

https://www.badlefthook.com/2018/4/24/17277520/wbc-orders-luis-ortiz-dillian-whyte-eliminator

Whyte did not fight the Ortiz eliminator. He kept his ranking but got bypassed.

Go look through all the history and it seems whenever he’s on the verge of something, Whyte doesn’t go through with it — he either sues or appeals. He should just have fought. Or not, which was his choice. But you can’t keep turning down eliminator and then ask why you’re not getting title shots.

Didn’t he outright turn down a voluntary challenge of AJ?

Didn’t he refuse to take the purse bid for an eliminator vs. Pulev (which was almost twice what his own promoter bid)?

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...thony-joshua-deontay-wilder-ibf-a8286011.html

Truth is, Eddie Hearn for a very long time used Dillian as a human shield for AJ — if you want to fight AJ you have to beat Whyte first. And Whyte accepted that role.

 

This doesn't really address any of the points I made in my last post. I question whether you actually read what you quoted because it seems to me like you just jumped at the chance to word vomit your frustrations regarding Whyte.

There is a reason Whyte passed on Pulev, and I didn't even mention Ortiz.

https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_...ns-purse-bid-kubrat-pulev-dillian-whyte-fight

"Pulev is entitled to 75 percent of the winning bid ($1,125,083.25), and Whyte will receive the remaining 25 percent ($375,027.75)."

In other words, he's being offered Brian Minto money to take on the once-conquered, IBF #1 contender, when he's decidedly the A-side of that equation. It goes without saying, a potential loss to Pulev would jeopardize many millions of dollars against the likes of AJ, Wilder, and Fury. You're setting a standard for Whyte that no living, thinking boxer would or could abide by.


When it comes to Fury timeline matters (he's bipolar). Whyte agreed to fight Fury. It was Fury who initially, to use your word, "balked" at the prospect of facing Whyte. He said it was a pointless fight and that he wouldn't do it unless the diamond belt was on the line. This was at the time this match was being discussed as an eliminator. When that hurdle had been cleared, he reneged. It was only when Dillian had Rivas lined up that Fury said he had changed his mind.
https://www.badlefthook.com/2019/5/...yte-pissed-over-tyson-fury-turning-down-fight

 

OK, spell it out to me in plain English exactly what your point is about Dillian Whyte?

I take it as you saying he deserved title shots he did not get.

I’m pointing out a pattern across his entire career where sanctioning bodies say ‘If you want the title shot, DO THIS, EXACTLY THIS’ and instead he whined about not being able to get a shot rather than doing those things.

I posted a link to where Whyte informed the WBC he would not fight an eliminator against Fury and you come back and say ‘well in a different timeline blah blah blah.’ I’m talking about him being told he can have a title shot if he beats Fury and he said no thanks. There’s absolutely no dispute about that.

As far as Pulev, Whyte can say he’s the A-side but per the rules he was not. It was a purse bid. Whyte’s OWN PROMOTER offered just over half what the winning bid was, so if he had won it then Dillian would have been fighting the exact same fight for half Minto money, as you want to put it.

You say: “He had a reason for turning down Pulev.” I say: “And there’s also a reason he kept not getting title shots he believed he deserved — because he kept turning down eliminators.” Two things can be true. But if he wants a title shot and they say ‘beat this guy,’ the answer can’t be ‘only if I get paid what I think I’m worth’ if the purse bid split isn’t structured that way. His promoter could have offered Pulev a greater sum than the purse bid and given Dillian more money too, but he didn’t. So blame his own promoter for letting it go to purse bids, and for only bidding a little more than half of what the winning bid ended up being.

If Whyte wanted the title shot, he could have taken the (oh poor, poor Whyte) $300K+, beaten Pulev and made a lot more in a title shot next time.

So, again, stated simply in one paragraph, what is the point you’re trying to make here?

Here is my point: Dillian has cried about not getting title shots much of his career. At the same time, he’s been offered a title shot he declined and numerous final eliminators which, had he won them, would have gotten that title shot. So as far as I’m concerned, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on because his whole thing is ‘I’m entitled, I shouldn’t have to ____.’ Well, if you don’t have to do it, then don’t do it … but don’t cry at the unfairness of it all if you won’t do the simple steps that are lined out with the opportunity to get what you say you want.

 

Not a different timeline at all, what? It was literally months in the past. Whyte accepted the WBC's proposal, per the link. Tyson said he didn't want the fight and got the Wilder rematch anyway. Whyte had a scheduled fight (that would have made him mandatory) but would afterwards be caught for using PEDs, effectively taking him out of the picture.

A purse bid means it defaults to that split and those rules. Whyte's promoter wouldn't have negotiated a 75-25 split in favor of the other guy, are you ok? To be honest, even if the Whyte party had won, I doubt he would have taken it, as the potential earnings would have been a fraction of the kind of money Whyte was used to, fighting similar talents in Parker and Chisora.

My point is only incidentally linked with Whyte; I'm using him for illustration. I wouldn't have even mentioned him had I known people had such charged emotions about the guy.

 

I want to hone in on this specifically. This is out-of-touch, fanciful thinking. Whyte made MILLIONS fighting Rivas, fulfilling the same scenario you just described. He would have finally had his shot if only he wasn't a drug cheat.

Post-scandal he again made MILLIONS fighting Povetkin x2 during the height of COVID. He got his payday against Fury for the title shortly after.

Welterweight contenders would be insulted by that type of money.

 

Max Baer took a dive against Braddock and the media turned a blind eye to it. Watch that fight clearly looks fixed. More so than Sharkey vs Primo which the media howled about for decades.

 

Once again I ask: What is your point?

As for your interpretation of what’s in the link you posted (on Whyte-Fury eliminator) and the one I posted, the one I posted has the head of the WBC saying Whyte turned it down. The one you posted is a few weeks AFTER the head of the WBC saying he ordered the mandatory and Whyte turned it down — it has promoter Eddie Hearn doing what Eddie does, talking. It does not say Whyte reversed his position and notified the WBC and that he now wants it.

Eddie says ‘we saw a video and the WBC saw the video, let’s make a fight,’ then ‘we saw another video and Tyson says he’s not interested.’ It DOES NOT say ‘Whyte has formally rescinded his previous position that he doesn’t want the eliminator and has informed the WBC of such, we have made an offer to Fury and are prepared to go to purse bids to make this happen.’ It’s just ‘we saw one video, then we saw another.’ That’s not how business is conducted, even in the Instagram/TikTok world.

I’m begging you, man — tell me what your point is.

If you point is Whyte turned down eliminators but made good money without them, OK, I’m not sure what that means or why it matters, but I don’t think there’s anything to debate there. But your point seemed earlier to have been that Whyte somehow got screwed by the system, and my point is he didn’t participate in the system (by fighting the eliminators) so he didn’t get screwed.

As far as what welterweights would be insulted by, at least three promotional outfits (Hearn, Pulev’s promoter and the one that won the bid, which promotes neither Whyte nor Pulev) made bids and the winning bid was almost twice the second-best, which was Whyte’s promoter. So if he thinks that fight is worth so much, why didn’t any promoter in the world bid what he thinks it was worth so he could be paid accordingly? The bids were fair and people were shocked that the Entertainment & Sports outfit’s winning bid was so high.

But regardless of what kind of money Whyte made by taking another fight instead of that one, the fact is he did not take the eliminator and has no gripe that he did not get the rewards that come from winning an eliminator. So I have no idea, once again, what point you’re trying to make here.

 

I believe Max broke 1 or both of his hands in that fight.

 

Muhammad Ali should have continued his career after his excellent showing against Berbick, perhaps all the way to the rise of Lennox Lewis. Perhaps beyond that.

 

I’m skeptical of that, Baer also had the same excuse for fight with Joe Louis. Funny how Primo clearly hurt his ankle against Baer in their fight and you rarely heard about it as the reason for his poor performance against Max. The media really controlled the narrative of the fight game. Watch Baer Braddock it’s farcical. Something is fishy.

 

According to this article announcing his return to the ring vs. Victor Flores, he "suffered a fractured leg and several chipped vertebrae."