POLL: Wladimir Klitschko's resume....

More spin...everyone hear can read, and they know what thread this came from.

You are the hater...you hate truth. You couldn't beat me in a debate with 3 of your KLIT-ite cohorts, let alone best me and someone else. Get over yourself.

 

Your claim of victory in the midst of defeat is simillar...to VITALI acting as though he were still in it, when his eye was hanging halfway down his face.

 

Vladimir has beaten the best available fighters of his generation, old and young. He has ducked nobody. It's a shame he has to share his title with anybody.

 

HW is really at its lowest nowadays, so it is difficult to built a great resume there anyway, and it is not Wlad's fault.

Well, it is partly his fault after all, because he was quite reluctant to improve his level of opposition and fought mostly nobodies during his first 30+ fights, when there were still some live opponents there.

So I can understand those saying good part of his resume is built on fighters that are shot or past prime. Fights with Mercer, Botha, Byrd II, Brewster II, Sanders or Schultz come to mind.

 

For the record, I wasn't using random names. I specifically picked out his last 15 opponents over the past 6 years, because those were his most recent fights, and its only been until recently, that he has gained recognition by some people on this forum as a great fighter. 6 years is a rather long time to go back, and 15 fights is a fair number. I also left out no names within that time frame, and the fighters who were listed, were likely his best opponents. How is this random?

Widow, on the otherhand, proceded to bounce all around the guy's whole career and selectively picked out fighters that HE FELT had credentials to his liking, and what's more, only emphasized their inflated credentials, without even looking at their shortcummings.

If anyone here is guilty of selective bias, or random choosing, its Widow.

Also, I would like to ad, that our debate was not only based on my comment about Wlad fighting " shells of fighters ". It was about Wlad fighting a rather mediocre array of opponents. He then took adavantage of wording to create a poster board poll thread with heated wording to gain the support of other authors without objectively listing the points or reasons as to why I rated them the way that I did. Probably the reason for the outcome on the poll, and another example of selective bias and propaganda on his part.

If he truly wanted to be fair, he could have wrote a paragraph listing my objections and why he felt they were incorrect, THEN created a poll with options like: how do you rate Wlad's opponents

A. Were most of them past their prime?

B. Were some of them Meciocre?

C. Were they decent?

D. Were they elite.

No, he decided to flat out use the title " were they shells of fighters ", and gave no insite to the debate that we previously had, leaving people with a blind view.

I stand by what I said, and I hope that some will see the reasons why.

 

magoo, you added the age of the fighters now, instead of when Wlad fought them..

 

I believe your incorrect sir. Go to the thread entitled " what are Vitali Klitschko's most impressive boxing statistics ".


The fighters that I listed and the ages at which they fought Klitschko, are clearly written in black and white, and they aren't incorrect.

Please do your research before making accusations.

 

I already did that earlier today, and you were proved wrong. Creating a poll through the use of onesided propaganda means nothing at the end of the day.

You call that a spanking? I felt compelled to reply, because you were to0 dense, to accept the truth, therefore I wasted an afternoon tearing apart the crap that you wrote. "Paea Wolfgram was considered a threat", when he had just lost recently to Marion Wilson.

You seem to think that it is. If it weren't, then why would you have gone to great depths to list their credentials, while carefully avoiding thier downfalls? Sounds like an aweful lot of trouble for someone who thinks that this isn't about one's perseption of quality.

You're the one who is challenged. You repeatedly claim that this debate ( if thats what it really is ), is about my comment regarding Wlad building his legacy on washed up has beens, which he most certainly did. Yet, on the otherhand, you replied to my analysis by giving them glowing credentials, implying their qualities as fighters, and how you value them. You accuse me of an agenda that you set out on yourself.. You also called me in your title, a resident hater, which I never claimed that I was, only to ad substance and emotion to your poll..

You're a dishonest and incompetent ignoramous, who knew he was beaten long ago, and had to resort to a campaign of biased and one sided propaganda to gain support in a debate that you could not handle yourself.

This, in and of itself, spells out defeat.

YOU LOSE...

 

You're too dumb to beat me in a debate, end of. I've hardly taken part in this one because it's too amusing to watch Magoo repeatedly kick you in the nuts, he's not the first to do it and he certainly won't be the last

I love the way that poll results mean so much when the huggers all agree with you too. I'll remember that next time you spout your **** in the next Lewis V VITLAY or Lewis V WALD poll and try to claim victory :good

 

Sums his MO up perfectly.

Of course, we've been pounded and spanked, because he says so :nut