Is Wladimir Klitschko a favorite over prime George Foreman and Sonny Liston H2H

That's the entire point of a clinch you nimwit

 

McGrain is warning bans might want to be careful.

 

Maybe do the same to the fighters you like instead of only doing it to Wlad

 

Indeed. By the #3 in the world. He then won 30+ fights in a row, including a revenge demolition.. Wlad was KO'd by a journeyman. 17 fights later he was axed again by an unranked guy. 3 fights later he's axed again! Unranked again!!!!! That's 3 unranked guys stopping him.

Spot the difference?

If you want to compare Walcott with Wlad, be my guest.

Absolutely. In his 72nd fight. Wlad had been KO'd 4 times prior to that point, and Moore went on to compile one of the greatest resumes in history.

Spot the difference?

Yeah imagine losing to RJJ 9 years before you peaked. Wasn't beaten for another 12 years. He got dropped?? Did he have the fortitude not to get sparked? Yup. Did he get stopped before wining the title? Nup!

Spot the difference?

Benny turned pro at 15. What was Wlad doing at that age? Have a look at their overall resumes vs Wlad. Check out how often they fought etc etc.

RUOK? You always toss on about everyone else's feelings yet here you are sooking. Did i say Wladdy should be defined by two losses and his single revenge be forgotten? To be fair he avenged against a guy that wasn't even ranked when he first faced him. Where was Schmeling ranked again?

You strawman that Wlad is being defined by losses yet days ago you were basically claiming they didn't count and were akin to Holmes loss to Nick Wells as a skinny amateur. Enough of the projection bud.

Have some pride and care in what you post. Context is everything.

 

Am i wrong though? This guy doesn't even know what a clinch is for. Magically when Ali or anyone else clinches its tactical and smart. When Wlad does it its excessive and should be punished. Like where is the consistency here? As long as a fighter i like does it its okay.

 

Maybe accept the fact that he put you on ignore again.

 

It went a bit into the deep end so this will be my last post on this matter.

Perhaps I wasn't clear that my point wasn't you couldn't criticise (or even call Wlad a cheat or dirty fighter) for holding it was only that other fighters in history who achieved a lot did stuff to get a advantage and it sometimes passes (sure some of it from some fighters got punished as well as you say).

I have also said before I think the Povetkin fight shouldn't have looked like that and it was a ugly fight. Perhaps I was being dismissive but that wasn't my intention to imply Wlad was a clean fighter just sometimes there is a double standard.

 

The difference I'm spotting is your spinelessness in manufacturing passes for fighters you like and avoiding it for those you dislike.

 

I pick both Foreman and Liston to win by KO.

 

At the end of the day, the "should've been DQ'd" arguments don't hold any weight because it's up to the refs to referee and fighters will do what they get away with. No Wlad fight is close to the point where it would've made any difference if he lost a point for holding.

 

Maybe do the same

 

Well you'd hardly recognize context and reason, it's a chip you simply don't possess.

 

Well thankfully it wasn't me he put on ignore

This content is protected

 

I did spot two grammatical mistakes in the post I'm responding to.

The context is that Wlad had the second longest heavyweight title reign in history after his losses and change in trainer. The losses did not split his reign into multiple pieces.

 

I'd be clutching at anything i could if i was you too. Actually i wouldn't, I'd accept I'd been schooled and move on. But I'm not a troll.

I'm seeing a glaring grammatical error. But i don't care about them, i care about the substance of a post. I'm not spotting any of that.