Wladimir Klitschkos Legacy

It's already became repetitive. I can answer everything with stuff I already said now.

 

Me: The balloon is red.

Andrew: You said the balloon is blue, mother ****er piece of **** hypocrite!

 

Answers above.

 

Cobra: Balloon is red, and Rd is my favorite color, so boxers with red trunks are the best.
Me: Balloon is red, but it is irrational to say boxers with red trunks are the best.
Cobra: Oh, you poor little fool. Don't you know, the balloon is blue, so my favorite boxer is the best
Me: Shut up you ****ing hypocritical moron.

 

Let him join in. Whatever he has to say, he can't do any worse than you

 

You mean the one that proved you own imbecility?

 

I can't see post numbers on my feed, but assuming he is guiding people correctly, I do encourage them to look at what he posted. It supports my position

 

Why do I keep sticking to what is being actually discussed? I can say with certainty that I believe putting words into other people's mouth and arguing with myself is a waste of time.

I disagree, I've tried very hard to keep the focus on things I actually said.

Okay. As long you understand what I actually said and not referring to things I didn't say again.

That's like the apple calling the orange a dyslexic.

 

Keep trying. One day you'll get better. Answers above.

 

Examples of me addressing arguments of your own invention with my actual quotes:

post #211
post #215
post #203

I've done all I could. If you don't want to address my actual quotes that's up to you.

I don't care if you have a problem with the statement.

Maybe you just see what you want to see. Given your tendency to mutilate my quotes and argue with your own Frankenstein monster, that would explain alot.

 

Answers above.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you believe smaller atgs from 40 years ago etc would beat modern era atg SHWs?

 

Actual quotes:

Cobra: I don't see an argument for Sanders and Peter being decisively better than Chambers or Chageav. For starters, Chambers beat Peter just a few months after Vitali and arguably bested Adamek in a close fight while injured. Chambers also took apart Calvin Brock, Guin, and Dimitrenko. Chageav beat Valuev, Ruiz, and than rated Vrychys. Sanders is a tricky one to consider. He beat Wlad and had great ability but he also was erratic

Andrew: For Sanders, he beat or nearly beat the two dominant fighters of his era. That alone puts him above anyone Byrd or Povetkin beat, and arguably above them as well.

Cobra: Are you saying Sanders nearly beat Vitali? I can't see any argument for that. He nearly beat Rahman. Meanwhile, Byrd actually beat Vitail.

Andrew: Sanders rocked Vit badly in the first round and had a thrilling fight against him. "Almost beat" may be an overstatement, but he did better than virtually anyone else.

Cobra: Ugh. So by "almost beat" you mean he ALMOST did better than anyone else. That's quite an abuse of words to end in an ambiguity.

(I swear nothing is missing here, this is the response)

Andrew: You really just aren't very good at this. No, in fight performance is it's own metric, a very real one. You claim it's a credit to Chambers that he "nearly" beat Adamek(note: I never said this). And yet you can't recognize Sanders deserves credit for his losing performance? You bring up selection bias, and then use it on a regular basis. This is an ongoing hypocrisy with you."

Cobra: I'm getting rather bored with this. What exactly is so hard about addressing the things I actually said? Why make up your own arguments and expect me to counter them? Here is what I said.

"Are you saying Sanders nearly beat Vitali? I can't see any argument for that. He nearly beat Rahman. Meanwhile, Byrd actually beat Vitail."

You agreed it was wrong to say Sanders nearly beat Vitali. So what's the problem?

Andrew: I'm getting tired of constantly addressing your misrepresentations, as well as your condescension. This is called a "red herring" argument. You are citing a non issue that was addressed several points ago, which is a non issue to the central points. I'm not going to repeat myself on non issues, refer to earlier posts for that. The central issue is that you try to maintain that in fight performance shouldn't count, at least for losing performances but presumably for any performance, but then use in fight quality of losing performances to support your resume argument. Its hypocritical and yet another example of bias selection that you love to accuse others but is so often yourself"

LOL WTF Dude, I don't know who's crazier. You for this bat**** insanity or me for sticking around this long and trying to make sense of it.

 

Thanks for posting it. I guess you are just too stupid to understand that this is evidence that you were inconsistent and irrational.

 

If you feel you are living on Mars in the year 1952 AD, I can't convince you otherwise.

My irrational agenda? You mean my opinion that Byrd and Povetkin are on the level or better than Vitali. I really wish that remained the focus. And no, you have not addressed my quotes. You've addressed your own quotes dressed up as mine.

No, I really don't care if you have a problem with this statement:

"Okay. As long you understand what I actually said and not referring to things I didn't say again. "

If you feel you are living on Mars in the year 1952 AD, I can't convince you otherwise.