Wladimir klitschko is slaughtered for his level of opposition

Hes not hiding Dino. He is right here and it seems you have a bit of a reputation now

 

Once again you are trying to play the person instead of playing the facts. It seems to be your usual tactics if you have no other way to make your point. You have been bringing my statements out of context, making false accusations based on those same words you have been putting out of the context, but you haven't actually tried to argue the actual point.

I pointed that boxers like Pastor and Savold aren't comparable to Vitali Klitschko, Holyfield (even past his best), Tua and McCline. You, on the other hand, didn't even try to argue that. You've only tried to discredit Byrd's wins, stating that the Klitschko win was a gift, that Tua wasn't that special, that Holyfield was old and that McCline burned out quickly. Those points might or might not be true, and I might or might not agree with them, but guess what? It's not important to actual point. What matters is that Byrd still defeated Klitschko, McCline, Tua and past prime Holyfield. And what also matters is that you didn't dispute them being better wins than Pastor and Savold. You haven't even tried to do that. So the point is still on, Conn's victories at HW aren't comparable to Byrd's. It's not even close. And yes, Conn didn't do anything at heavyweight besides losing twice to Louis, especially in comparison to Byrd, who has actually achieved far better victories and even became the champion himself.

I don't think so. That's actually the least I could do. So let's take a look at their records at the time Conn faced them.

Pastor: 40 wins, 5 defeats, 4 draw
Savold: 54 wins, 20 defeats, 1 draw

In a so called "fairly talent-rich era", a guy with 20 defeats was a "prominent" heavyweight? Okay. So regarding my claim that Conn never defeated anybody at heavyweight, the best you could come up with are two guys with the combined amount of 25 losses? Doesn't really match Klitschko, Tua, McCline and Holyfield. It's far from that. Very far.

Well then, seems like you had no choice but to quote yourself and confirm that you didn't have an argument to begin with.

"no argument was being made for Conn's Heavyweight victories being better than Byrd's; just that Conn had beaten other Heavyweights before challenging Louis."

So you admit that Byrd's victories heavyweight are better than Conn's. Then how exactly is Conn more quality win than Byrd? Because he just "beaten other Heavyweights before challenging Louis"? Because his HW victories are not comparable to Byrd's?

Yes, Vitali quit and gave the title to Byrd in a fight Vitali was comfortably winning and basically just needed to finish the fight on his feet in order to win. That's what happened and I agree with you. But what's your purpose of trying to discredit Byrd's win? Do you suggest that Conn would have managed to achieve the same thing? Or maybe even outpoint or knock Vitali out? Unless you are trying to claim something like that, there so use of trying to discredit Byrd's victories.

When you claim something and get called on it, it's you who need to prove it. I have nether disputed nor agreed to that, because either way, it doesn't hold the crucial relevance to the issue, but if you are throwing around accusations like that, step up and prove them.
Don King had Byrd avoiding Lennox Lewis because he knew that the fight would end Byrd's HW title ambitions? Do you know that for a fact? Where does that "fact" come from? Lennox Lewis' biography?

The only thing you have done is admitting that you never tried to make any argument that Conn's HW victories are better than Byrd's. And there is a simple reason for that - because Byrd's HW victories are much better and it's not even close.

You have "rationalised Byrd's victories" like you say. But what do you get from those 'rationalizations'? Pretty much nothing. I've pointed that Byrd's HW victories are better, that Byrd's HW achievements are better and you yourself admitted that you haven't even tried to dispute or argue that. Seems like you don't have the case at all.

 

I told you he'd pull out in Sept and he did.

 

Dino, I have seen the posts between you two and the bet was before the end of 2014, nothing to do with a certain month.
You see, this is why you have this bad reputation

 

I havent read you post, but a certain part caught my eye and I wanted to note that Rocky Balboa had something like 20 defeats before challenging the champ and put up an excellent effort, even winning the return

 

You have better things to be doing today. Or do you:think

 

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=515092&page=2

 

Coming from 'Failey' ? hahaatsch

 

Scram Goose. Your polluting this thread with girly back & fourths.

 

oh dear Dino and you call me failey atsch:yep

 

You're polluting this thread dino. You entered into a bet and seem to be getting silly about it.

 

More Dino Ducking.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?p=16461607#post16461607

Dino actually calling off the bet because I mentioned taking his scalp to someone else! What a *****.

 

We agreed on 2014, no specific month.

I can pull that one up. Caught you in another lie.

Why lie, so much? Are you ashamed? Remember it had nothing to do with banning you, this was a matter of pride, I own your scalp and nothing you can do about it. Been a pleasure watching you make a ***** out of yourself because you can't dare part with this forum.

 

Why would you prefer Louis to have fought?

 

And to this day Duckvelvet STILL cannot produce the name or addresses of the bars in Manchester and Bucharest he claims to have opened, claiming that it's secret information.....Dino is a ***** indeed.