Vitali implies that Wladimir was drugged in his first fight with Brewster..

No surprise there. Vitali never could act like a man and take a legit defeat. :hey

Wlad is almost as bad. After the Brewster loss he kept saying...
"I have no excuses...BUT...."
...then listing all of his excuses and even going as far as getting his lawyer to release a BS letter of excuses to the media.

 

Yes, thanks. Fantastic work of fiction by one of boxing's finest liars..oops I mean lawyers.


NOW READ THE TRUTH.........

http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/714/high-blood-sugar-but-klitschko-excuses-just-taste-sour/

 

Thanks Drex, that was a good read, and not surprisingly far more believable than the horse**** Window posted :deal

 

No one is disputing the official result of the first fight. But something was not right with Wlad. Brewster is a man of high ethics. He sent Wlad a post card saying “ You beat me “
Are you aware of this? In other words Brewster knew Wlad was not 100%, but understands the business of boxing and what the win meant for him.

It matters not. Wlad avenged the loss in dominating fashion. He won 10 of 11 rounds, and damaged Brewster far more than Brewster damaged him. If there’s a rubber match, Brewster will sustain a life changing beating.

​

 

That's nonsense. The outcome of the second fight doesn't say anything about the ongoings in the first fight. Purely factually, Vitali's view is not right. And it's not even fair. The headline "Night of truth" should remain a marketing thing.

 

Yes, it says alot. And the whole Brewster behaviour does too. Just see how arrogant he was at the face off in the first fight. When the referee gave them instrutons. Compare with him with his head low and timid in the second fight face off.

 

"outside influence" or no, something was wrong with wlad in the first fight-don't know how that can be disputed whether it was a temporary case of Briggs asthma or what. Wlad was pummelling Brewster in the first fight before it happened and also in the second fight until Brewster quit. Brewster wasn't shot between the two fights - he just never was on Wlad's level (guy's best win was the golota barrage outside of wlad, struggled with meehan, krasniqui, lost to shufford, etc etc).

 

Originally Posted by Ivo
Yes, it says alot. And the whole Brewster behaviour does too. Just see how arrogant he was at the face off in the first fight. When the referee gave them instrutons. Compare with him with his head low and timid in the second fight face off.

It says nothing. Ivo another PHD in Behavioral Science. That remark is similiar of Oscars facial expressions in training for the PBF fight. some were saying "look at Oscars expressions. No way he can lose." and "Ooooh I feel sorry for PBF. Look at that determination on Oscars face".
And now it's "look at the timid look with head down on Brewster" It means absolutely nothing. There's way too much put on staredowns today.

 

No, it does make a difference, if Wlad wasn't drugged in the first fight then maybe Brewster beat him fair and square and they are both at 1 TKO apiece, which often implies that a rematch may be necessary.
Someone should do a poll now that the dust has settled. I don't buy the anxiety or panic attack theories, they just don't add up scientifically. Wlad proved he was drugged in the first fight.:yep

 

Well, hell, let's have a rematch then, because obviously Brew had a strategy that worked--it may work again-- :deal On second thought I like Brewster--he's a warrior --and he and Wlad respect each other- let's leave it.

 

Let's have a rematch-they are both 1 TKO apiece.:deal Is that OK with you?