Why are you obsessed with Deontay Wilder?

Kliturds there were known as.

 

Well, it was hard to argue with greatness, though sometimes I do wish they'd have toned it down.

 

this site is mostly propaganda threads made multiple times by obsessed haters of a handful of fighters.

 

You would think a handful of these obsessive posters last name was Goebbels.

 

They will argue with me here on this subject because of the nature of this particular subject, but if one was to give me the benefit of doubt and looked at my posting patterns exclusively they'd see what I do has little to do with Wilder and a lot to do with weak research.

No one wants to go to bat against me over the 300 years of lineal history. No one wants none when comes time to explain colored champs. No one has any idea about anything ancient. No one has anything to say about medieval periods. No one has any clue what affect old boxing has on the present. Everyone realizes on some level Rome has an affect on today in every other aspect of western culture, but no one on this forum is prepared to explain Rome's effect on boxing today. Everyone has something to say about fight sales, but no one has anything to challenge when I speak on Mendoza. The closest thing to an academic challenge I've faced is a few eastern euros denying their own rich boxing history until I sourced it. Don't mistake me, I don't mean to brag nor do I mean to say y'all're less worthy posters. I just mean to say Wilder isn't the only subject I post on where research is weak, it's the only subject I post on where those who do weak research want to try to pass themselves off as well informed.

If I started a thread all about the history and science of the frequency KO no one here would go to bat against that history or that science. If I explain, well anything that paints Wilder in a positive light really, then I'll get a whole rabble of those telling me, the guy who does research where research is hard to do because no one else has the goods to do it, that I know nothing about boxing.

So, I post about Wilder for the same reason you'll see me in sanctioning body and club discussions, the physics of size in the ring, any point in history not commonly well known. Because I'm just like anyone else. I have questions about how and why. The only difference is I don't make assumptions. I don't see myself as sharing an opinion of my own, well at least when I'm serious. I see myself as someone who simply lets others know what is, what was, and what looking at historical trends is likely.

I speak on Wilder more than any other subject for only one reason, like you said the forum is covered with threads on him, and most of those are troll threads. Funny thing about troll threads is I kind of like the opportunity to be stupid. In a serious discussion about physics and history there is no place for ribbing your counter-pointer. I came here from a troll forum and like to think I've a special form of trolling all my own. So, I'm pretty much game regardless of what the angle is because from where I'm sitting Deontay Wilder attracts a whole lot of troll counterfeits. It's not my interest to change their minds anymore than my Ancient Champion's threads are meant to change the mind of those who don't see the value in remembering antiquity. So whether I'm trolling or actually being academic at all times I am speaking to my base. Even now, I've always enjoyed a length barrier. Those without the cognitive capacity to read, or are just feeling lazy, will skip this. Which is welcomed, the point even.

 

He puts himself in the media in a negative way then COMPLAINS he's being attacked for no reason is a good starter ?

Wilder.. >>>>>