Dillian Whyte is the man

Sorry, dont understand a word of that

 

Whyte joined the interview minutes later

And Hearn is a liar. Sure and Whyte isnt?

Bottom line is he was offered Millions and a 50 50 rematch clause

If he wants to be a world champ so much and is confident in beating AJ, he takes it

He didn't and he may be rich but his world title asperations are in peril

 

Again you are arguing partly from Hindsight. And seem to have missed my point on using Hearn as a corroborating source.

I already acknowledged both Whyte and Joshua are likely not telling the whole truth. Hence the truth is likely in the middle. The truth is unlikely to be better than what Joshua claimed...

Also Whyte arrived minutes later? Does that mean he was present when Hearn said it, or arrived after? When did this conversation take place? Before or after the Whyte BBC interviews? (i.e. if Whyte was in agreement, was there time to get Whyte on side on the Heavens narrative?)
Note I already agreed Whyte change his tune and likely got on board with the narrative down the line. He does understand Hearn gets him paid, after all. I've noted that since my very first post on page 1.

Now if you can show me some kind of evidence of this, I am willing to concede on the point of the split being better than I thought.

But at the moment, you like what Hearn is saying. Okay, I like what Miller is saying in newspaper interviews:

Joshua was screwing Whyte on the back end, and Miller got a better deal than Whyte.


Anyway, this still leaves the problem of you expecting Whyte to gamble everything he was working toward with the WBC on the chance of beating Joshua in a fight for what is a deal worse/same as what Joshua was willing to offer guys with nowhere near not only the drawing power of Whyte, but also they had no other foreseeable routes to a title shot without Joshua's grace.


Your argument currently boils down to:

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

But the bird in the hand is filthy looking and unpleasant to hold. The bush admittedly is full of thorns, but those two birds sure look appealing...

 

Your overcomplicating things

Whyte was offered millions and a shot at 3 HW World titles

He said no

Not much more to it really

 

Life is complicated.

That would be like me saying. Wilder was offered $3m to fight Whyte. A very good pay day at the time. He turned it down. Therefore Wilder ducked Whyte.

Sounds a bit simplistic, really.

 

Or even better, using your boiled down reasoning:

Joshua offered Whyte an unreasonably low offer in what would be a record breaking British heavyweight world title fight.

Joshua ducked Whyte.

Not much more to it really.

 

Stop feeding that troll.

 

Im quite happy to debate but dont use a pat on the head smiley towards me

Its a bit patronising

Anyway im sticking to my belief as you are yours

 

But all above is true

Except he was offered 7 mill not 3

 

Well, actually, Hearn said he offered $3m in 2017. With potential to go to $4m by giving Deontay a share of the TV revenue.

I suspect Hearn has less incentive to lie here, but still I think we are starting to establish Hearn is not the most trust-worthy source on these matters. He is in essence the boy who cried wolf.

In fact, that is undoubtedly why Hearn was so ecstatic when Deontay recently tweeted that he had been receiving big money offers from Joshua, but chose instead to fight Fury. Hearn himself knows he is economical with the truth - you know it, and I know it.

Anyway, this isn’t about how much Wilder was offered by Whyte. If you want to say it was $7m, sure it doesn’t really matter at this point in the discussion. But......if you want to take Hearn's word for it: $3m-$4m, is it still a duck? j/k

Anyway, I merely raised it to make a point.

 

Patronizing? I apologise if I misread the fun energy you were bringing to the discussion:

BTW you are certainly welcome to stick to your guns. But from my perspective you’re actually just “arguing the toss.”

I don't mean to be a twat, but debating would be to engage with my main arguments - I was actually trying to show you respect as a reader by not copy-pasting everything; alternatively I guess you could jump in to pull-me up on a tongue-in-cheek post – something I had literally addressed at the top of the page you decided to join on. Like I can understand it can be a hassle to read through a 10+ page thread, but we were only on page 3...


Tell you what, let's both agree to wind our necks in a bit.

Again, you are welcome to "stick to your guns." Call it an essential difference of opinion.

But isn’t that the whole point… if the whole disagreement comes down to personal preference, is it really a note-worthy inclusion as a reflection of either Whyte’s or Joshua’s career choices and character?

i.e. Why would anyone bring it up in the first place, accept to hate on Whyte?


Which leads us all the way back to the original post I argued against on page 1; which I pointed out was spinning an anti-Whyte narrative based on half -truths (i.e. it was nowhere near as clear cut as the original poster was trying to make out). And as it stands, I’m still waiting for someone to make an argument that disproves that essential point.


Anyway, it’s late here. I look forward to reading your reply tomorrow.


Cheers

 

Yeah...Sorry, for high-jacking the thread with our argument.
It was a funny OP, but it was throwing red meat into a pit of hungry lions.

 

Na your ok lol

If i reply, it will be an argument as you are quite sarky

Enjoy the rest of the thread