Joe frazier (rip) would be the smallest opponent wlad....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

Who was the best fighter of lewis era other than lewis?

---

Pele Reid?

---

Uninspired.

Come on fenster u can do better...Run with me! Who was it?

---

I could name numerous top fighters. Just get to your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

Who was the best fighter of lewis era other than lewis?

---

Pele Reid?

---

Uninspired.

Come on fenster u can do better...Run with me! Who was it?

---

I could name numerous top fighters. Just get to your point?

---

Im just curious to know as to who u think was the man lewis beat to cement his legacy as THE man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

1. It's not the same record. Four world titles means four different sets of rankings. Which clearly dilutes the worth of each individual title.

2. Why bring up the strongest rival of Wlad's era? If Vitali wasn't the WBC champion i'm pretty sure Wlad would have won it by now. Which also opens him up to a whole other set of opponents. Vitali has been a HUGE factor in Wlad's legacy.

3. Pac and Floyd BOTH established themselves as THE man in numerous divisions. They're only each others closest rival at this particular point in time. They both had already disposed of lineal champions, their independently recognised no.1 challenger and had great legacies before they become "rivals."

4. I don't deny Wlad is a "great" heavyweight. I don't deny he hasn't amassed a good legacy. I am merely stating the simple fact that - He has NEVER been THE man. And it's Vitali's fault.

You can't be the best if you don't face the best. Simple as that.

---

1. The record is "Consecutive Successful Title Defenses", Wladimir is THE Heavyweight Champion of the world and only the WBC (for now) thinks otherwise.

2. Vitali isn't Wlad's RIVAL because they're never competitng AGAINST each other.

3. So Wlad should move to cruiserweight is what you're saying? I mean maybe it's me but I think Wlad & Vitali have both had their time at the top of the heap and right now WLAD is A#1 Duke of the Heavyweight division.

4. You assume (and wrongly so) that Vitali was "THE MAN" of the division when Wlad rematched Chris Byrd, Mr. Byrd was the longest reigning title holder. When Wlad beat Chagaev he became the first heavyweight since Lennox Lewis to unify titles. Vitali was the man after beating Sanders but he took a hiatus and lost his spot didn't he?

Wlad & Vitali are the best BUT THEY WILL NEVER FIGHT EACH OTHER SO STOP FUCKING ACTING LIKE THEY WILL

Wladimir is the better chess player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

Who was the best fighter of lewis era other than lewis?

---

Pele Reid?

---

Uninspired.

Come on fenster u can do better...Run with me! Who was it?

---

I could name numerous top fighters. Just get to your point?

---

Im just curious to know as to who u think was the man lewis beat to cement his legacy as THE man?

---

The lineal champion Shannon Briggs. Fact.

Quote:

---

The lineal champion Shannon Briggs. Fact.

---

Come on...Don't make me work for it LOL.

U just said it was Pele Reid a minute ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

1. It's not the same record. Four world titles means four different sets of rankings. Which clearly dilutes the worth of each individual title.

2. Why bring up the strongest rival of Wlad's era? If Vitali wasn't the WBC champion i'm pretty sure Wlad would have won it by now. Which also opens him up to a whole other set of opponents. Vitali has been a HUGE factor in Wlad's legacy.

3. Pac and Floyd BOTH established themselves as THE man in numerous divisions. They're only each others closest rival at this particular point in time. They both had already disposed of lineal champions, their independently recognised no.1 challenger and had great legacies before they become "rivals."

4. I don't deny Wlad is a "great" heavyweight. I don't deny he hasn't amassed a good legacy. I am merely stating the simple fact that - He has NEVER been THE man. And it's Vitali's fault.

You can't be the best if you don't face the best. Simple as that.

---

1. The record is "Consecutive Successful Title Defenses", Wladimir is THE Heavyweight Champion of the world and only the WBC (for now) thinks otherwise.

2. Vitali isn't Wlad's RIVAL because they're never competitng AGAINST each other.

3. So Wlad should move to cruiserweight is what you're saying? I mean maybe it's me but I think Wlad & Vitali have both had their time at the top of the heap and right now WLAD is A#1 Duke of the Heavyweight division.

4. You assume (and wrongly so) that Vitali was "THE MAN" of the division when Wlad rematched Chris Byrd, Mr. Byrd was the longest reigning title holder. When Wlad beat Chagaev he became the first heavyweight since Lennox Lewis to unify titles. Vitali was the man after beating Sanders but he took a hiatus and lost his spot didn't he?

Wlad & Vitali are the best BUT THEY WILL NEVER FIGHT EACH OTHER SO STOP FUCKING ACTING LIKE THEY WILL

---

Jesus!!!

It's really not hard to understand.

Since Vitali came back in 2008 he's had ten fights. During this time Wlad's had seven. They have ONE common opponent!!! - Sam Peter (who Wlad had already beat)

The TWO best fighters have SIXTEEN different opponents over the past 4 years. How the hell can you be the best fighter in a division if you don't even know who the best fighters are?

Boxing is not a TAG-TEAM sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

The lineal champion Shannon Briggs. Fact.

---

Come on...Don't make me work for it LOL.

U just said it was Pele Reid a minute ago.

---

Come on man, lets go.

Lewis became THE man after beating Briggs who took the linage from Foreman. This is common knowledge.

There are a lot of unanswered question's in boxing at the minute it doesn't just apply to K2!

I mean who's the best P4P fighter? Manny or mayweather?

Wlad is the better fighter overall. It's undeniable really. I don't think he needs vitali to prove it...

Love to see it though.

Quote:

---

Come on man, lets go.

---

Take me to pleasure town fenster...LOL.

Quote:

---

Lewis became THE man after beating Briggs who took the linage from Foreman. This is common knowledge

---

If ANYONE should have been declared the lineal HW champion it was mediocre featherfisted bum Axl Schulz, who was robbed against Foreman. Foreman refused a rematch, fought Savarese and Grimsley (I forget the order), and evidentially the suits, the powers that be, had enough of Foreman's cherry picking and free agent status, and when Briggs went the distance---they gave it to him---thus eliminating Foreman completely from contention, as he been stripped of his alphabet titles and now his linear claim.

If we consider Schulz lineal HW champion, then basically the title went back to the man Foreman won it from in Michael Moorer; Schulz 'won' the IBF title from Botha after 'winning' the lineal title from Foreman, and then lost via SD to Michael Moorer, who would then lose to Evander Holyfield.

LOL this shit's hilarious we could be here for some time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Jesus!!!

It's really not hard to understand.

Since Vitali came back in 2008 he's had ten fights. During this time Wlad's had seven. They have ONE common opponent!!! - Sam Peter (who Wlad had already beat)

The TWO best fighters have SIXTEEN different opponents over the past 4 years. How the hell can you be the best fighter in a division if you don't even know who the best fighters are?

Boxing is not a TAG-TEAM sport.

---

:rolleyes:

Wlad has had 9 soon to be 10 fights since Vitali's comeback. Between the 2 brothers WLAD has been the one to unify the titles not Vitali. Vitali has an extra fight in there because the Solis "fight" barely started before that fat bastard's knee gave out, but some Klitschko haters still to this day think that Solis was "winning the fight" :vd:

Boxing isn't a tag team sport and the brothers aren't both fighting the same opponent on 1 night. The deal is this after Vitali beat Sanders & Kirk Johnson he was the man of the division....after his little hiatus Wlad took over. Wlad is THE MAN of the division...it's not hard to figure out, it's common fucking knowledge, he's got the most belts, he's been the most impressive, and Vitali has done his work without falling behind too much but it's Wlad's time in the division everyone knows that why you're insisting they fight each other or have one retire or whatever is just idiotic.

And I above all people know who the best fighters in the heavyweight division are because everyone else bitches about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Come on man, lets go.

---

Take me to pleasure town fenster...LOL.

Quote:

---

Lewis became THE man after beating Briggs who took the linage from Foreman. This is common knowledge

---

If ANYONE should have been declared the lineal HW champion it was mediocre featherfisted bum Axl Schulz, who was robbed against Foreman. Foreman refused a rematch, fought Savarese and Grimsley (I forget the order), and evidentially the suits, the powers that be, had enough of Foreman's cherry picking and free agent status, and when Briggs went the distance---they gave it to him---thus eliminating Foreman completely from contention, as he been stripped of his alphabet titles and now his linear claim.

If we consider Schulz lineal HW champion, then basically the title went back to the man Foreman won it from in Michael Moorer; Schulz 'won' the IBF title from Botha after 'winning' the lineal title from Foreman, and then lost via SD to Michael Moorer, who would then lose to Evander Holyfield.

LOL this shit's hilarious we could be here for some time...

---

You're going back into fantasy "what ifs"

I'm purely dealing in fact. "Robberies," bad decisions and terrible match-ups are common place in boxing. However, the "man who beat the man" is the closest you can ever get to having a TRUE champion.

Hold up... even your fantasy linage leads back to Lewis. I've forgot what point you was making? (;D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Jesus!!!

It's really not hard to understand.

Since Vitali came back in 2008 he's had ten fights. During this time Wlad's had seven. They have ONE common opponent!!! - Sam Peter (who Wlad had already beat)

The TWO best fighters have SIXTEEN different opponents over the past 4 years. How the hell can you be the best fighter in a division if you don't even know who the best fighters are?

Boxing is not a TAG-TEAM sport.

---

:rolleyes:

Wlad has had 9 soon to be 10 fights since Vitali's comeback. Between the 2 brothers WLAD has been the one to unify the titles not Vitali. Vitali has an extra fight in there because the Solis "fight" barely started before that fat bastard's knee gave out, but some Klitschko haters still to this day think that Solis was "winning the fight" :vd:

Boxing isn't a tag team sport and the brothers aren't both fighting the same opponent on 1 night. The deal is this after Vitali beat Sanders & Kirk Johnson he was the man of the division....after his little hiatus Wlad took over. Wlad is THE MAN of the division...it's not hard to figure out, it's common fucking knowledge, he's got the most belts, he's been the most impressive, and Vitali has done his work without falling behind too much but it's Wlad's time in the division everyone knows that why you're insisting they fight each other or have one retire or whatever is just idiotic.

And I above all people know who the best fighters in the heavyweight division are because everyone else bitches about it.

---

You need to check your dates. It's 7. Fact.

The Klits ain't fighting the same opposition on any night let alone the same night. That's the problem.

Wlad is recognised as the top heavyweight purely because The Ring magazine declared his fight with Chagaev (no.3) for the title. It's got fuck all to do with him facing tougher opposition than Vitali. Wlad is the champ because we all have to IGNORE his brother, the WBC and their entire rankings.

That's why, to any boxing fan with a half a brain cell, and nerdy enough to even care about this shit, Wlad has NEVER been the genuine champion of the world. It was made impossible by his big bro.

Not ONCE have I said they "should" fight each other. Don't be silly.

Vitali came back in 2008, I guess you didn't want me to count 2 of the 3 fights Wladimir had that year because they happened before October of that year :rolleyes:

OK so Wlad & Vitali hurt each other because they are fighting different opponents? Well you DO realize that the ratings of the different sanctioning bodies are different right? I mean that's NOT lost on you is it? Who has fought better competition recently??? Is it Vitali or Wlad or don't you know? You seem to be easily confused right now.

If you're not suggesting they fight each other what RATIONAL idea to do you have in mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Vitali came back in 2008, I guess you didn't want me to count 2 of the 3 fights Wladimir had that year because they happened before October of that year :rolleyes:

OK so Wlad & Vitali hurt each other because they are fighting different opponents? Well you DO realize that the ratings of the different sanctioning bodies are different right? I mean that's NOT lost on you is it? Who has fought better competition recently??? Is it Vitali or Wlad or don't you know? You seem to be easily confused right now.

If you're not suggesting they fight each other what RATIONAL idea to do you have in mind?

---

1. Pay attention. What came before Vitali's comeback is irrelevant to my point.

2. The ratings from different sanctioning bodies throw up different opponents? That is EXACTLY the point i've been making. If you are limited to a certain amount of opponents per division, how can you ever establish yourself as THE best? You can't. Unless you defeat your independently recognised closest challenger.

3. This is a real simple way to understand this - If Haye beat Wlad he would be THE best heavyweight on the planet, right? Who would Haye have been expected to fight next? Vitali!!! Why? Because Vitali is the next best.

Wlad has a luxury that basically no other fighter in history has. He's a good "champion." But his brother is a major factor in his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Vitali came back in 2008, I guess you didn't want me to count 2 of the 3 fights Wladimir had that year because they happened before October of that year :rolleyes:

OK so Wlad & Vitali hurt each other because they are fighting different opponents? Well you DO realize that the ratings of the different sanctioning bodies are different right? I mean that's NOT lost on you is it? Who has fought better competition recently??? Is it Vitali or Wlad or don't you know? You seem to be easily confused right now.

If you're not suggesting they fight each other what RATIONAL idea to do you have in mind?

---

1. Pay attention. What came before Vitali's comeback is irrelevant to my point.

2. The ratings from different sanctioning bodies throw up different opponents? That is EXACTLY the point i've been making. If you are limited to a certain amount of opponents per division, how can you ever establish yourself as THE best? You can't. Unless you defeat your independently recognised closest challenger.

3. This is a real simple way to understand this - If Haye beat Wlad he would be THE best heavyweight on the planet, right? Who would Haye have been expected to fight next? Vitali!!! Why? Because Vitali is the next best.

Wlad has a luxury that basically no other fighter in history has. He's a good "champion." But his brother is a major factor in his career.

---

Definitely. When the toughest opponent out there is your own brother who you dont have to fight, that is convienient.

Also in my opinion, The Klitschkos have the advantage of dividing up different opponents between the 2 of them.

With most of the opposition I dont think it mattered as much as both were fully capable of beating some opponents. But then there were one or two matched with a Klitschko brother better suited to that particular brother.

For example, i think Vitali took on a few that would have troubled Wladimir and vise vera.

When there is only 1 champ, he has to fight all opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

1. Pay attention. What came before Vitali's comeback is irrelevant to my point.

2. The ratings from different sanctioning bodies throw up different opponents? That is EXACTLY the point i've been making. If you are limited to a certain amount of opponents per division, how can you ever establish yourself as THE best? You can't. Unless you defeat your independently recognised closest challenger.

3. This is a real simple way to understand this - If Haye beat Wlad he would be THE best heavyweight on the planet, right? Who would Haye have been expected to fight next? Vitali!!! Why? Because Vitali is the next best.

Wlad has a luxury that basically no other fighter in history has. He's a good "champion." But his brother is a major factor in his career.

---

1. You posted like Wlad wasn't being an active Champion when he defended his titles 3 times in 2008.

2. Nobody is going to argue against the fact that there are too many sanctioning bodies, too many belts, etc. But the Klitschko's stay active and fight roughly twice a year if not more.

3. You've conceeded your point, you just admitted Wlad is THE BEST HEAVYWEIGHT IN THE DIVISION. Now surely you meant to alledge that "He'll never fight the 2nd best heavyweight in the division" but that's erroneous because the 2nd best heavyweight won't fight the #1 either so they blank each other out and what are we left with? We're left with Wlad as #1, Vitali as #1a and everybody else waaaaaaaaaaay down the line at #2-whatever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

1. Pay attention. What came before Vitali's comeback is irrelevant to my point.

2. The ratings from different sanctioning bodies throw up different opponents? That is EXACTLY the point i've been making. If you are limited to a certain amount of opponents per division, how can you ever establish yourself as THE best? You can't. Unless you defeat your independently recognised closest challenger.

3. This is a real simple way to understand this - If Haye beat Wlad he would be THE best heavyweight on the planet, right? Who would Haye have been expected to fight next? Vitali!!! Why? Because Vitali is the next best.

Wlad has a luxury that basically no other fighter in history has. He's a good "champion." But his brother is a major factor in his career.

---

1. You posted like Wlad wasn't being an active Champion when he defended his titles 3 times in 2008.

2. Nobody is going to argue against the fact that there are too many sanctioning bodies, too many belts, etc. But the Klitschko's stay active and fight roughly twice a year if not more.

3. You've conceeded your point, you just admitted Wlad is THE BEST HEAVYWEIGHT IN THE DIVISION. Now surely you meant to alledge that "He'll never fight the 2nd best heavyweight in the division" but that's erroneous because the 2nd best heavyweight won't fight the #1 either so they blank each other out and what are we left with? We're left with Wlad as #1, Vitali as #1a and everybody else waaaaaaaaaaay down the line at #2-whatever

---

:vd:

We're left without a true definitive champion.

Boxing is not tag team. It is not doubles. You can't claim credit for your partners success. The Klits are individuals. Even you, Wlad's biggest fan, demean his accomplishments by refering to HIM as "the Klitschko's"

Quote:

---

Hold up... even your fantasy linage leads back to Lewis. I've forgot what point you was making?

---

Go on fenster give it to me.....lead me back to lenny!

Schulz to Moorer to Holyfield to Lewis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Schulz to Moorer to Holyfield to Lewis.

---

So which is it again? Holy or Briggs?

P.s I thought bowe beat Holy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Schulz to Moorer to Holyfield to Lewis.

---

So which is it again? Holy or Briggs?

P.s I thought bowe beat Holy?

---

Bowe beat Holyfield for the lineal title in 1992. In 93 Holyfield won it back off him. In 94 Holyfield lost it to Moorer. Then in 94 Moorer lost it to Foreman.

In 95 Bowe beat Holyfield but the linage wasn't involved.

;)

Quote:

---

You're going back into fantasy "what ifs"

I'm purely dealing in fact. "Robberies," bad decisions and terrible match-ups are common place in boxing. However, the "man who beat the man" is the closest you can ever get to having a TRUE champion.

Hold up... even your fantasy linage leads back to Lewis. I've forgot what point you was making? (;D)

---

Factually Sven Otke is undefeated! We all know briggs wasn't THE MAN! Bowe was LL's no.2! Briggs....LOL. Of course the lineage is up for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

You're going back into fantasy "what ifs"

I'm purely dealing in fact. "Robberies," bad decisions and terrible match-ups are common place in boxing. However, the "man who beat the man" is the closest you can ever get to having a TRUE champion.

Hold up... even your fantasy linage leads back to Lewis. I've forgot what point you was making? (;D)

---

Factually Sven Otke is undefeated! We all know briggs wasn't THE MAN! Bowe was LL's no.2! Briggs....LOL. Of course the lineage is up for debate.

---

I don't think you understand what lineage is?

When there was ONE champion you had to beat him to become champion. "The man who beat the man." It's the purest form of establishing a king per division. If the lineage gets broken (a champion retires), it gets restarted when the independently recognised no.1 and 2 meet.

The lineage is not up for debate. What can be up for debate is whether or not the lineal champion is actually the "best" fighter in the division. But that just complicates matters even further.

Bowe was better than Briggs. I agree. However, Briggs was the lineal champion when Lewis beat him. And that win cemented Lewis position in history going back a million years. The heavyweight lineage is very easy to trace.

Sven Ottke was never a lineal champion. Being undefeated is irrelevant. Calzaghe became lineal champion when he defeated Jeff Lacy (they were independently rated 1 and 2). Like Ottke, his "world" title defenses prior to this are basically meaningless.

Quote:

---

"The man who beat the man."

---

Yes but i am arguing that brigg's was not the man! Most ppl think he did not beat big george!

Quote:

---

The lineage is not up for debate.

---

Yes it is.

Quote:

---

Sven Ottke was never a lineal champion.

---

U miss-understand! I am not arguing for bummy otke's lineal claim's. I was highlighting the fact that u said u are dealing in pure fact. Otke is UNDEFEATED if we are to just accept thing's without question! In truth he has many losses. Otke is not undefeated and brigg's did not deserve the lineage.

A lot of ppl think Foreman dominated Briggs. Foreman consistently backed Briggs up, landed harder and more frequent punches, and had Briggs hurt on more than one occasion.

After the fight, Briggs was more surprised than anyone when the verdict was announced in his favor. The decision seemed inexcusable, not just because Briggs received the nod, but because he won by such absurdly lopsided margins on two of the scorecards.

Yes I am dealing in fact because i'm accepting the official verdict (regardless of whether or not I agree with it)

"Deserving" the lineage is utterly irrelevant. You either win or lose. Simple as that. It doesn't matter that "most" people think Briggs lost to Foreman. We'd be here till the dawn of time discussing "robberies" and bad decisions.

Ottke is undefeated. That's a fact. If you think he lost certain fights that's your "opinion." It wont change the record books. Just as history will never change the fact Lennox Lewis took the lineage from Shannon Briggs.

Quote:

---

Yes I am dealing in fact because i'm accepting the official verdict

---

OJ simpson is innocent!

Quote:

---

You either win or lose. Simple as that. It doesn't matter that "most" people think Briggs lost to Foreman. We'd be here till the dawn of time discussing "robberies" and bad decisions.

---

Who won?

Quote:

---

Ottke is undefeated. That's a fact. If you think he lost certain fights that's your "opinion." It wont change the record books. Just as history will never change the fact Lennox Lewis took the lineage from Shannon Briggs.

---

I think his claim is pretty weak.. Foreman hadn't done anything meaningful in years, had long been stripped and the decision was razor thin... Briggs - by virtue of a bogus decision - WAS a lineal champ. The fight wasn't even for a belt either! U accept officialdom if u want though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Yes I am dealing in fact because i'm accepting the official verdict

---

OJ simpson is innocent!

Quote:

---

You either win or lose. Simple as that. It doesn't matter that "most" people think Briggs lost to Foreman. We'd be here till the dawn of time discussing "robberies" and bad decisions.

---

Who won?

Quote:

---

Ottke is undefeated. That's a fact. If you think he lost certain fights that's your "opinion." It wont change the record books. Just as history will never change the fact Lennox Lewis took the lineage from Shannon Briggs.

---

I think his claim is pretty weak.. Foreman hadn't done anything meaningful in years, had long been stripped and the decision was razor thin.. Not sure that I'd personally give that claim to him. Briggs - by virtue of a bogus decision - WAS a lineal champ. U accept officialdom if u want though.

---

Helpful Hint of the Day: If you include the "from" in your quotes, people can see who posted the text you are quoting.
(Note: Especially useful when you're multi-quoting).

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Helpful Hint of the Day: If you include the "from" in your quotes, people can see who posted the text you are quoting.
(Note: Especially useful when you're multi-quoting).

:)

---

It doesn't matter, Shannon Briggs wasn't the lineal champion because "people" "thought" that Foreman won their fight so I'm never wrong.....NEVER WRONG.......NEVER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Helpful Hint of the Day: If you include the "from" in your quotes, people can see who posted the text you are quoting.
(Note: Especially useful when you're multi-quoting).

:)

---

It doesn't matter, Shannon Briggs wasn't the lineal champion because "people" "thought" that Foreman won their fight so I'm never wrong.....NEVER WRONG.......NEVER

---

:baby:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Helpful Hint of the Day: If you include the "from" in your quotes, people can see who posted the text you are quoting.
(Note: Especially useful when you're multi-quoting).

:)

---

It doesn't matter, Shannon Briggs wasn't the lineal champion because "people" "thought" that Foreman won their fight so I'm never wrong.....NEVER WRONG.......NEVER

---

See Philosopher? That's the way it's done. You include the person's name within your quote...... so other people can see who posted the original post, and then proceed to post a reply that has nothing to do with what you just posted.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Yes I am dealing in fact because i'm accepting the official verdict

---

OJ simpson is innocent!

Quote:

---

You either win or lose. Simple as that. It doesn't matter that "most" people think Briggs lost to Foreman. We'd be here till the dawn of time discussing "robberies" and bad decisions.

---

Who won?

Quote:

---

Ottke is undefeated. That's a fact. If you think he lost certain fights that's your "opinion." It wont change the record books. Just as history will never change the fact Lennox Lewis took the lineage from Shannon Briggs.

---

I think his claim is pretty weak.. Foreman hadn't done anything meaningful in years, had long been stripped and the decision was razor thin... Briggs - by virtue of a bogus decision - WAS a lineal champ. The fight wasn't even for a belt either! U accept officialdom if u want though.

---

A jury found OJ Simpson NOT guilty in a criminal court. That's a fact. My personal opinion that he was guilty still doesn't change that fact.

You don't need a belt for lineage. That's the beauty of it. You just need a champion.

Foreman upset Moorer.
Moorer upset Holyfield.
Holyfield upset Bowe.
Douglas upset Tyson.
Spinks upset Holmes.
Etc etc etc

The title passes hands without discrimination. There's no politics. No alphabet nonsense. The fighter purely gets rewarded for beating the champ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Yes I am dealing in fact because i'm accepting the official verdict

---

OJ simpson is innocent!

Quote:

---

You either win or lose. Simple as that. It doesn't matter that "most" people think Briggs lost to Foreman. We'd be here till the dawn of time discussing "robberies" and bad decisions.

---

Who won?

Quote:

---

Ottke is undefeated. That's a fact. If you think he lost certain fights that's your "opinion." It wont change the record books. Just as history will never change the fact Lennox Lewis took the lineage from Shannon Briggs.

---

I think his claim is pretty weak.. Foreman hadn't done anything meaningful in years, had long been stripped and the decision was razor thin... Briggs - by virtue of a bogus decision - WAS a lineal champ. The fight wasn't even for a belt either! U accept officialdom if u want though.

---

A jury found OJ Simpson NOT guilty in a criminal court. That's a fact. My personal opinion that he was guilty still doesn't change that fact.

You don't need a belt for lineage. That's the beauty of it. You just need a champion.

Foreman upset Moorer.
Moorer upset Holyfield.
Holyfield upset Bowe.
Douglas upset Tyson.
Spinks upset Holmes.
Etc etc etc

The title passes hands without discrimination. There's no politics. No alphabet nonsense. The fighter purely gets rewarded for beating the champ.

---

Yes but PROVE Shannon Briggs was the lineal champion that's all I'm asking.



:vd:

Lyle ;D

(you will never see me ban anyone, stop asking, that stuff is for Saddo.. oh and missy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Lyle ;D

(you will never see me ban anyone, stop asking, that stuff is for Saddo.. oh and missy)

---

You weigh the least don't you? That's why you are the worst mod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Lyle ;D

(you will never see me ban anyone, stop asking, that stuff is for Saddo.. oh and missy)

---

You weigh the least don't you? That's why you are the worst mod

---

I would not be so sure alcohol can pile on the pounds and walking to the off licence and bookies is not even necessary any more due to the internet, so thats the daily exercise out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Lyle ;D

(you will never see me ban anyone, stop asking, that stuff is for Saddo.. oh and missy)

---

You weigh the least don't you? That's why you are the worst mod

---

I would not be so sure alcohol can pile on the pounds and walking to the off licence and bookies is not even necessary any more due to the internet, so thats the daily exercise out the window.

---

I get plenty of daily exercise by playing darts whilst watching the racing. Fact.

In fact that whole short period of lineage was pretty tenuos IMO. Briggs probably lot to GF. GF definitely lost to Schultz. And even in the Moorer v Schultz SD a case can be made for a DRAW! But as u say fact is fact and i will concede to that point. However brigg's was garbage and i personally did not consider him 'The Man'.

Do u know what OJ said after the trial was over? Can i have my glove back now please. ;)

P.s El Kabong. It's not my fault u inadvertantly admitted VK is the 2nd hardest puncher of all time on my 'WK's resume' thread. Trolling my post's will not compensate for this. And fenster is not fat. He is big boned. U however just have a big BONER for me. LOL.

Oh YOU didn't consider Briggs "THE MAN"....well by all means let's rewrite history then.


Is George Foreman an All-Time Great power puncher "yes" or "no"? I don't require any explinations or caveats or anything else just a simple "Yes" or a "No".

Quote:

---

Is George Foreman an All-Time Great power puncher "yes" or "no"? I don't require any explinations or caveats or anything else just a simple "Yes" or a "No".

---

Yes.

Quid Pro Quo. Is Vitali Klitschko the 2nd hardest puncher of all time?