Arreola was a fat useless slob when he fought Vitali. He didn't take training seriously until recently . He admitted he trained on taco's for Vitali. His recent weights have been the best of his career. All that don't matter because he just isn't a good boxer and he never has been. Chisora done a whole lot better against Vitali. Wtf does "moving up earning title shots " even mean :nut At least Wilder fought a fit and motivated Arreola. The fact he stopped him two rounds earlier with just one hand makes his win better than Vitalis, or at least equal. Why couldn't Vitali blow out Arreola you stoopid soab?
I never said he was anything special. Its not hard to be better than guys like McCline , Austin , Brock etc. The worst top ranked HW in history fought during that time. There's a reason why Holyfield was able to fight on to 46 years of age , even when his body deteriorated in his late 30's.
atsch JFK, talk about rewriting history. This is pure fantasy. F*ck off you utter clown. Arreola was 27-0 when he fought Vitali, riding a streak of 14 straight KO's if we except the Chazz DQ which he would have won by KO anyway. Arreola was grossly overweight, coming off a NC and a draw with Fred Kassi, whoever he may be, going into the Wilder match. It took Wilder forever to get rid of the blimp version of Arreola. Maybe you should take up writing fantasy novels for a living, you have a great imagination. :thumbsup
You are completely delusional.... Unreal... atsch Arreola was never great sure.... But he wouldn't have struggled with the likes of Kassi, Kauffman, and Harper 7-8 years ago. FFS.
I don't know whether to admire Dino's ability to blatantly trot out porkies with a straight face or whether to despair. :-(
Wrong. Most were skeptical about him having a successful comeback, I made posts well before the Duhaupas fight pointing out how poor he looked and that he was AT BEST a European-fringe world level fighter. I picked him to win a competitive decision over Duhaupas yeah. Hindsight is 20/20. Duhaupas never showed that kind of power against anyone remotely decent. All that fight proved was that he couldn't take a punch anymore either. You calling someone an idiot is rich, and the hypocrisy is still strong I see. You don't apply that criteria to Wlad because you're a biased idiot. You hold ALL of his losses against him. What a moron you are.
Yeah , he would have. Arreola couldn't beat Adamek - a puff'f up LHW . Even with a weight advantage of 33lbs atsch:nut
Yeah. But Adamek is better than Kassi, Harper(a journeyman with a losing record), and Kauffman. You clown. atsch
He weighed over 250 vs Vitali. He was 246 vs Wilder and 239 vs Stiverne. So it took Vitali two rounds longer vs the obvious blimp version. Are you some sort of moron or something?
Yeah. 5-10 lbs means more than years of wear and tear, wars and just aging in general. Delusionalvelvet strikes again.
But according to you " everybody and his mother knew he was shot" So thats the guy who you picked to beat the guy who had just been very competitive with Wilder. The only conclusion to be drawn here is that YDKSAB.
Muscle weighs more than fat, chopster :roll: LOL it's clear Arreola has let himself go. You must be the only person in the world that thinks the Wilder version is better than the Vitali version
You should really cease posting on subjects you know nothing about. If you followed the sport prior to your join date , you'd know Arreola was nothing but fat and bone. Only recently did he incorporate S&C to make the most out of what little remains of his career. You must be the only muppet on the forum who thinks an optimial weight is "letting oneself go" nut:nut
Well you're the one who's universally regarded as an idiot around these parts, not me. The odds were close so it was essentially a pick em fight. Duhaupas had just gone the distance with chinny journeyman Nascimento and couldn't make a dent in Charr or Teper. No one thought he would knock out Helenius. Either guy by a competitive decision was the most likely outcome based on the history of both fighters. But then again you're an idiot who doesn't understand that hindsight is 20/20.