Wlad is not a top 20 HW, he has never beaten anyone of significance

Please answer this question:

The most recent attempts to conclude King Tut's so called "racial identity " by examination of his remains have proven inconclusive with a number of possibilities being suggested. Why are you so sure he's black African when the contemporary experts are puzzled?

 

The ancient egyptians were clearly caucasian.

 

To be a great fighter you have to *beat* a great fighter.

V. Klit LOST to the only great fighter he ever faced.

There are ZERO great fighters on W. Klit's resume.

Do the math...

 

This content is protected

Here is an *authentic* Ancient Egyptian image of Pharaoh Tutankhamun AKA King Tut.

He's certainly looking like your average Nord, isn't he?

Stop smoking crack.

Ancient Egypt = Black Africa

 

Exactly which contemporary "experts" are you talking about?

It's clear as day to those who have a clue that Ancient Egypt = Black Africa.

Must I beat you down with the FACTS again?

 

Those are some good drugs you're smoking!

The question is significant. How do you define significant?

Would you please tell me which great fighter's john l sullivan beat? Because most championship lines originate with him and if he wasn't great then who was?


P.s stop smoking crack, your knowledge of egypt is **** poor. Stick to trolling.

 

You know better?

I'm listening...

 

Significant = great or near great.

W Klit has never fought a significant HW and V Klit has never beat one.

 

Who needs science and forensics? I can see Nay Sayer strutting into the lab, his little cute beret with fro sticking out the sides, screaming at the men in white coats! "LOOK AT THE PICTURE! LOOK AT THE PICTURE!!! DOES THAT LOOK LIKE A NORD TOO YOU!"

 

You mean these facts you can't retort? I'm not arguing Tut is a Nord, White, or Chinese. I'm simply stating that the studies of his race were inconclusive.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

For one this is a thread about wlad, so leave your obsession with vitali for another time.

Well if you define great as someone who beat a great then rahman beat lewis, byrd beat holyfield so they both fit your criteria. If not...

Who was the first great hw in your opinion and who did they beat to justify the tag of greatness?

In a world dominated by the cause and effect theorem I believe that is checkmate.

 

Here is an email from the good doctor on the issue of Tut.

Enjoy

Your expert, when put in the proper context, clearly says that Tut was AFRICAN.

You got any other experts?

 

Than Lennox Lewis can't be an all time great, despite your claim.

What great or near great fighters did he beat?

You don't consider Vitali great. That slow, overweight, doped up version of Mike Tyson certainly was not even near great, neither was that washed out Holyfield.

What great did Lennox beat than?

 

When are you going to LEARN HOW TO READ?

That was NOT my definition of a "great" HW.

Why don't you try hitting the "quote" button instead of putting words in my mouth?