The Myths of Heavyweight boxing

to paraphrase myself -"37 year old retiree neveracheiver in his worst possible form destroyed wlad in minutes".

NOW lets dissect what I wrote -

1. "37 year old....." - corrie was undoubtably 37 years old UNDISPUTED FACT

2. "...retiree..." - corrie was retiring UNDISPUTED FACT

3. "...neveracheiver...." - corrie never won a title till Wlad got obliterated UNDISPUTED FACT

4. "....in his worst possible form...." - 37 year old corrie was at the end of his career at his most physically degenerated age so far - UNDISPUTED FACT

5. "....destroyed wlad in minutes..." - wlad was destroyed in round 2, so it is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that her was destroyed by this corrie in minutes.


6. "Wlad has better longevity, clean cut image and professionalism" - not a fact as such BUT pretty close to true at the very least and the one thing I wrote that SUPPORTS YOU.

Which of these INDISPUTABLE FACTS do you have an issue with?
And why?

Yeah but weird that you don't have an issue with my supportive opinion of wlad having superior longevity etc......which is the ONLY thing that's ISNT A FACT.


what a MASSIVE hypocrite you are.

 

now that we've established the massive hypocrisy in that statement, I'd like to ask you WHYtyou are so supportive of Corrie Sanders, who never won anything till Wlad got destroyed by his worst incarnation....

.... BUT why do you have no such support for the black guys who destroyed Wlad, despite them achieving more than Corrie Sanders. You try your level best instead to make it appear that it wasn't them who beat Wlad but some other factor.


YOU need to take a long hard look at the way you think about people of different skin colour.

 

for GODS SAKE MAN you are using a video evidence of Corrie getting destroyed as evidence of how Corrie was so great!

you don't know what a FACT is or how to use it even if you found one to support you.

 

Reading your posts is like having a verbal lobotomy.

I'm surprised someone like Mike White, all 6'10", 280 lbs of him didn't dominate heavyweight boxing because he was so TALL.

 

if that is true(size rules)see:Ruslan Chagaev (5'11"-222lb)(wins in 12) certainly not with speed or skill! vs Nikolai Valuev (7'-320lb) see:
Tye Fields (256lb-6'8") vs mike perez (6'0") wins 42 seconds 1st round!

 

Rahman benefitted from a lucky punch. do not talk abot rahman lewis as if rahman destroyed him like wlad was ripped apart in minutes by shot2**** corrie.

rahman was prime, best shape ever, AND got lucky, as dictated by him being wiped out in the return.


That Rahman tore up prime Sanders, not 37 year old shot2**** Sanders that obliterated Wlad before people had sat down in their seats.

 

3rd time you've ducked out under the pretence that I'm a troll.


making it a habit.... but you always come back when you realise you been exposed.

 

its true, wlad ran in fear.


what rematch with corrie occurred to make you claim different?

 

There is a myth going around this board that the current era of heavyweights is actually good or possibly the best era ever :nut

 

With utter embarrassments like Tyson Fury being touted as genuine contenders how can anyone disagree? :-(

 

Bang on.