Who Punched Harder: Deontay Wilder or Rocky Marciano?

Fair enough. Seems to me whoever taught your friend his technique (YOU) clearly did a **** job at it.

The first thing I misread and you have a melt down Given that you are the one that continually skims over content, ignores it or gets it wrong, I'd say that you have a fairly large gall to throw your toys out over this

Guess his glass ornaments just dropped off the shelf after getting whooped by a 14 year old.

 

I gave him a 10 minute crash course and I was 17 years old. Sue me. At least my friend had the testicles to go for it.

You are talking about yourself.

Anyone who kept up with this thread saw how many times you misread my posts or put words in my mouth.

Like claiming I said the Areola wilder beat and the one Vitali beat were exactly the same. Or claiming I was arguing pianeta and sefari were great opponents.

No one is having a "melt down". I just realized there is no point in arguing with a dishonest person who can barely read and intentionally moves the goal posts or creates made up arguments to defeat instead of addressing what was said. I am literally on vacation and can't be bothered anymore.

The fact they you honestly believe you owned me somehow after having about 1/10th of the usual forum members laugh at you and having your arguments picked apart like a stack of legos in a day care is hilarious.

You are delusional.

 

Please stay away from teaching people to operate heavy machinery.

Nah.

If the versions of Arreola that they respectively beat were not equivalent then it makes a straightforward comparison as you did inaccurate. If Pianeta and Seferi were poor opponents then it makes measuring Fury by them an inaccurate exercise, doesn't it? Yet you persist it doing it

You are. You sucked your frilly panties up your crack and freaked out with self righteous indignation. Relax. Breathe. You're gonna be alright

Nope. When you put up a decent argument for Arreola not being shot to bits I accepted it. You're the one that ignores actual arguments and sidetracks in a bid to avoid looking stupid. Protip: you still look stupid.

Who's Areola? Who's Sefari?

You're the guy that went from claiming that fighting with broken hands was an amazing event to demanding proof of fighters winning by KO with a broken hand vs a large durable opponent And then ignoring the examples that you didn't like Your goalposts are somewhere near the arctic circle now.

Major spankage, which led to you having a major meltdown.

Au contraire, you have your two sidekicks liking your posts and that's it. Other forum members actually pointed out that you're being less than straight. I already said that I can double your number of likes without too much hassle, and then you backtracked and decided that they were not that important after all. So which is it? Do Likes determine the winner of an argument? If so, tell me and we can end this. Or if they don't, then stop referring to them.

That's your opinion. And not a very good one.

You're the guy on his back kicking and screaming for mummy

 

This is the last thing I will address.

I asked you to provide examples of a boxer knocking out a durable opponent with a broken hand. My criteria was very simple.

David Haye did NOT knock out Valuev. So the fact that you provided that as an example is all the proof the forum needs that you can't read to save your life. There was no "goal post shifting" at all. I made an incredibly simple request and you provided an example that did not fit, end of discussion. You're a moron.

 

You've been promising that for a while now and yet here you are still following me like a lost puppy

Actually you said a large and durable opponent. Do I get to froth at the mouth and wail for mummy and scream that you're a dishonest poster? As you did? Or do I just roll my eyes at your short term memory loss and keep on rolling?

1) Your criteria don't constitute a definitive conclusion on the argument.
2) Your criteria were met regardless.
3) You lack the grace to admit it and insist on squirming at the end of my hook like a very sad and squishy looking worm.

Actually it's an example that I think shows that your criteria are garbage and that a fighter with a broken hand can go the distance with an enormous opponent - that Wilder would dump in his pants at the thought of fighting. Not only go the distance but win a decision.

Oh those goals were shifted alright. We went from this "Wilder stopped a common opponent faster with a broken hand. That is an incredibly impressive display of power and toughness on Wilder's part." ... to demanding examples of 'large' and 'durable' fighters being stopped with broken hands, and with you squealing every step of the way about what large and durable actually are. It turns out that fighting on with broken hands is not THAT uncommon or incredible.

And you're a childish simpleton with the emotional stability of a thirsty three year old

 

This makes no sense.

You literally have it the wrong way around.

If Wilder's weight is comparable to X, Y or Z former heavyweight, then one could actually argue that X, Y or Z former heavyweight had no excuse for punching comparatively lightly when compared with modern heavyweights - considering that Wilder is hardly well schooled and is arguably more or less a natural born puncher. Wilder's straight right hand has hardly been developed in a sport and exercise science lab.

 

Wilder... not even an argument

 

If we deduce the criteria to a short right hand to the body, then Marciano might punch harder. You can only conclude Marciano by being deductive.

If we are to look at it holistically in common sense terms, who has the potential to get X or Y knocked out quicker then it's obviously Wilder.

I'm struggling to follow the other exchange. Is it regarding Vitali Klitschko and Wilder, who punches harder?

 

No, I said show me a fight where someone knocked out a large durable opponent.

The criteria was not met. Haye did not knock out Valuev.

You must have the worst eyes on the planet:

I didn't change my argument or criteria. You're just a ****ing idiot who can't read and can't admit they made a mistake even after it's pointed out in plain English.. You skim through things and then make half assed replies that had nothing to do with the discussions.

 

And I showed you three

Maybe you missed the part where you don't get to dictate terms to me. Ya want me to cut and paste that bit again? I can do it again. I've got a whole bag of cut n paste here with your name on it. Easy peasy.

The example of Haye beating Valuev with a broken hand is relevant because Valuev is next-level durable and as close to un-knockoutable as a boxer can get. He's literally a giant amongst men. Haye didn't have the luxury of trying to batter down an old and delapidated opponent (although Valuev was likewise well over the hill) he had to go the distance with his broken hand and he was forced to engage for the win.

Your opinion as to the matter being irrelevant is, to me, irrelevant.

I heard that blind folks have started a collection for a seeing eye dog for you. You must be thrilled, eh?

Yes you did.

I notice that you've stopped trying to spell the names of boxers. Probably a good idea, given that you were so useless at it. It's OK, I admit that you made a mistake. I would have left it, but you seem fixated on the idea of how bright you are It's OK kid, you're special too

 

It's about this simpleton who can't stand "losing" imaginary points on the internet and how his ego drives him on

Pretty sure Wilder hits harder with his best punch than Vitali, even though Arreola, who's been hit by both reckons Vitali is the heavier hitter.

 

If it brings you guys any solace, I don’t think anyone is following this argument.

 

Yes but I take pleasure in it anyway

 

If Wilder at 214lbs, was hitting harder than any of the 240lb behemoths, then it would follow that other 214lb fighters from other eras might have hit harder than they did.

This would at a stroke eliminate a significant part of the argument for bigger heavyweights.