What I said: " I saw Eddie Chambers use creative switch hitting to outbox Adamek with one hand and get denied a victory by hometown judging so by my criteria, Chambers is a better fighter." What you said I said: " You claim it's a credit to Chambers that he "nearly" beat Adamek." What you claim to be hypocritical: You deliberately misquoted me to link what I said about Chambers/Adamek to your Sanders "nearly beat" Klitschko screw up. The two aren't the same, and no bending and twisting of my words into your paraphrased summary is going to change that.
Keep trying, it's fun to expose you as an irrational hypocrite. Answers above. How about next we post a thread with a poll asking who has the best legacy of the three fighter s?
Once more...I will not quote this again. "You agreed it was wrong to say Sanders nearly beat Vitali. So what's the problem?"
I assumed you were going to post something misleading, to make it look like you weren't being hypocritical. But no, you actually posted full evidence of your own hypocrisy. Actually, maybe it's less hypocrisy than stupidity. You really don't understand that they are parallels do you? You claim as a credit that Chambers deserved a win over Adamek(he didn't, by the way), and then try to deny Sanders great performance in a losing bout against Vitali should be a credit to him. You just aren't very good at this
Everything I've stated in this thread on that god damn fight. You won't find anything addressing who would likely win a rematch. Because a theoretical match up isn't what is being discussed. So what goal posts were shifted? "No, Vitali got beat up heavily by the mainstream. I remember that well. Byrd's reputation would rise, especially after the Tua and Holyfield fights, while Vitali was still trying to rebuild in what I recall to be mostly un-televised fights. We weren't streaming fights, I recall still using dial up. Vitali got exiled from RING ratings for about 3 years and was off the radar" "You have repeated the motif that Vitali was perceived to be the superior fighter after the fight. I dispute this, stating his reputation was destroyed and have provided evidence regarding his exile from television and ratings. You actually agree that his image was damaged..... BUT you want to still claim he was perceived as the superior fighter. Not true, and I would present three years of RING ratings to show that. His lack of heart after that fight was considered to be such a hindrance that whatever fighting ability(you say skills but truth was he was thought to be a big strong guy with little skills than, that was wrong) he might had, he wasn't perceived to be a genuine top 10 guy." "One fighter was declared the victor. One fighter's stock went up, the other fighter's career got temporarily derailed. That's the factual aspects of what occurred, so yes, no controversy. It's not like Vitali/Lewis where his stock went up in defeat, far from it. I disagree with your conclusion that the contest makes it clear who the better fighter was. Byrd was a very frustrating opponent for Vitali, he was missing in bunches. Vitali was winning rounds via his work rate and the fact Byrd was firing very little back. The shoulder injury occurred during the fight, likely caused by Vitali loading up and missing so much. By the end, Byrd was clowning him and backing him up. It's a fair win."
Try to follow along this time. The point is not whether Vitali was nearly beaten by Sanders. The point is Sanders had a great, if losing, performance against him, arguably the best anyone fought Vit in a losing performance. That's a huge credit to him. Your hypocrisy on this point, your attempts to obfuscate, and your simple intellectual inability to perceive this link, do not detract from that core point.
Glad to see your becoming a little less condescending and a little more honest in your posts, keep working on it, we'll make you a better poster yet! Answers above
That's just your assumption. Some could be, some might not be. Hence the lists. I proved exactly what I said. Why? I would be interested in seeing the results but it isn't likely to shift my opinion since I already accepted my opinion likely would not be held by the majority here.
For starters I think you are overrating this "great" Sanders performance you are hyping up. But that's beside the point. The point is... nowhere in this thread up until that little sentence here in this post, will you find me commenting on Sanders' performance against Vitali. Let alone denying any sort of credit. All I said was that personally I rated Byrd higher for actually beating Vitali. Again, no hypocrisy on my part. You might want to put that horse out of it's misery.
Nowhere did I claim Byrd's win was being denied. Honestly, what is so hard about sticking to what is actually being discussed? And I've stated that I disagree and explained why more than enough. I can only shake my head at this.