Who has a better resume? Povetkin or Wilder?

I dont care about spot the difference, you lied by saying charr is as good as the stiverne win.

admit it or die.

 

Aha. So you managed to get to a position that is NOT incompatible with what I said. Well done, have a glass of milk and a cookie. Also, read this post:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ovetkin-or-wilder.595990/page-3#post-18836739

Charr is comparable to Stiverne in quality and arguably better in some ways.

 

so you back with your original lie, that kebab man Charr is comparable with a world titlist.

 

Very much so. Compare their wins and losses and you will see that. Who did Stiverne actually beat? Half dead Arreola? That's his best win and Charr would have beaten him too.

 

Who did charr beat to make you think that he would beat arreola, win a major world title AND make four world title defences?

very much so.

 

If beating half-dead Arreola impresses you, then Charr will blow your mind when I mention that he beat half -dead Michael Grant. Of course, Charr never lost to a 15-20 bum like Stiverne did.

 

it doesnt, so you've just RUINED the impetus of your post by starting with ANOTHER LIE.

You are sinking low when you are needing to sell Charr on his loss record. Try using the win record like everybody else does. Mention one charr win that makes you think he can win a world title and make four defences.

 

If Stiverne beating Arreola doesn't impress you then Stiverne doesn't impress you, period. You've just flushed his best win down the crapper. Well done.

I'm not selling Charr on his losses, I'm pointing out that Stiverne got KTFO by a bum with a losing record. Charr never fell so low.

Michael Grant > Arreola.

 

explain why, if I'm not impressed by a middling win, I would rate it below ZERO wins.

 

What's hilarious is that we're having an argument about whether Charr (Povetkin's 8th or 9th best win) is equivalent to Stiverne, probably Wilder's #1 win. That alone ought to tell one volumes about which resume is better

Couldn't have done it without you, Herol.

 

tihng is, you could have written it anytime you wanted. your post content has NOTHING to do with me or anyone else. YOU wrote the word charr.

without you arguing it, the argument wouldnt exist. ITS YOU, blatantly clearly, who is guilty of raising a sham of an argument, so you appear ot laughing at yourself. keep doing so.


You've been pulled up on it, and have yet to explain why charr is on par with winning a world title and making four defences.

 

You explain. I'm not in your mind.

 

a middling win is better than no win.

u know this. why u suddenly refusing to acknowledge this publically? cat got your tongue?

its time u pulled a huff and walked off to avoid admitting it.

 

So far I have established that Charr is probably better than Stiverne.

In fact, he recently took the heart of the great Albanian hope Sefer Seferi (22-0, 20KO):

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/392701

Stiverne managed to scrape by Derek Rossy after nearly getting KO'd in round 1, ( ) and the only heart he took was with extra gravy at the Vegas buffet.

 

And Grant > Arreola.

Because you're an ignoramus that writes grammatically undecipherable sentences.