Sam Peter: Anybody?

[El Kabong]

i am a 100% hater, i have very good reason , your only argument in all this is that i am a hater tho

let me ask you a couple of questions

was the outcome of the burns / beltram fight acceptable? do you believe that that was a hometown decision?

were the outcomes a lot of the sven ottke fights acceptable? do you believe that there was any corrutpness involved in those decisions?

that burns fight and more recently the froch/groves fights suggest to me that some of the eddie hearn fighters are given some privaledges in fights, why would eddie not do all he can to ensure his cash cows remain champions

wlad generates more money in any one of his fights than ottke did in all of his title fights put together, probably more than the ricky burns fights plus the froch groves fight

why would the people behind his fights not do all they can to keep him as champ?

consider this and look at the fact that he extremely excessively holds in all his fights (more than he punches for the majority of the fight) and is only ever suprficially warned for it

nice cash cow that isnt it, all they have to do is let him hold

to me mate it is absolutely plainly obvious it is happening

never saw Burns-Beltran so I won't comment on it.

Ottke had some very questionable "wins" but those are by decision and judges have been known to make poor decisions. Also there was the Reid fight where Reid was warned for punching Ottke....have you seen that happen in a Klitschko fight? I haven't and I unlike YOU watch those fights.

What's obvious to me is Wlad wins decisively by UD or KO.....what fight should he have lost?

[erics44]

i am a 100% hater, i have very good reason , your only argument in all this is that i am a hater tho

let me ask you a couple of questions

was the outcome of the burns / beltram fight acceptable? do you believe that that was a hometown decision?

were the outcomes a lot of the sven ottke fights acceptable? do you believe that there was any corrutpness involved in those decisions?

that burns fight and more recently the froch/groves fights suggest to me that some of the eddie hearn fighters are given some privaledges in fights, why would eddie not do all he can to ensure his cash cows remain champions

wlad generates more money in any one of his fights than ottke did in all of his title fights put together, probably more than the ricky burns fights plus the froch groves fight

why would the people behind his fights not do all they can to keep him as champ?

consider this and look at the fact that he extremely excessively holds in all his fights (more than he punches for the majority of the fight) and is only ever suprficially warned for it

nice cash cow that isnt it, all they have to do is let him hold

to me mate it is absolutely plainly obvious it is happening

never saw Burns-Beltran so I won't comment on it.

Ottke had some very questionable "wins" but those are by decision and judges have been known to make poor decisions. Also there was the Reid fight where Reid was warned for punching Ottke....have you seen that happen in a Klitschko fight? I haven't and I unlike YOU watch those fights.

What's obvious to me is Wlad wins decisively by UD or KO.....what fight should he have lost?

if you accept excessive holding is within the rules then no this has never happened in a klit fight, its not tho

the judges giving ottke questionable decisions fight after fight is cheating and shows the corrupt nature of his reign

the ref allowing klitchko to excessively foul fight after fight is cheating and shows the corrupt nature of his reign

so although the situations are different, there is very clear similarities

why would you accept otkke fights as corrupt when ottke brings in a million at the most every fight yet klitchkos couldnt be who brings tens of millions in every fight

[El Kabong]

if you accept excessive holding is within the rules then no this has never happened in a klit fight, its not tho

the judges giving ottke questionable decisions fight after fight is cheating and shows the corrupt nature of his reign

the ref allowing klitchko to excessively foul fight after fight is cheating and shows the corrupt nature of his reign

so although the situations are different, there is very clear similarities

why would you accept otkke fights as corrupt when ottke brings in a million at the most every fight yet klitchkos couldnt be who brings tens of millions in every fight

It is up to the referee to call fouls

How fucking dense are you? Get it through your retarded ginger head

[erics44]

if you accept excessive holding is within the rules then no this has never happened in a klit fight, its not tho

the judges giving ottke questionable decisions fight after fight is cheating and shows the corrupt nature of his reign

the ref allowing klitchko to excessively foul fight after fight is cheating and shows the corrupt nature of his reign

so although the situations are different, there is very clear similarities

why would you accept otkke fights as corrupt when ottke brings in a million at the most every fight yet klitchkos couldnt be who brings tens of millions in every fight

It is up to the referee to call fouls

How fucking dense are you? Get it through your retarded ginger head

Like Ive said to you lots of times this is an utterly stoopid argument

Suppose it was up to the judges in the ottke fights? If they said ottke won it must have been legit

[El Kabong]

Like Ive said to you lots of times this is an utterly stoopid argument

Suppose it was up to the judges in the ottke fights? If they said ottke won it must have been legit

The ref let's Wladimir's clinching go, he doesn't punish Wlad, but he doesn't keep Wlad's opponent from holding, he doesn't keep Wlad's opponent from throwing punches, he doesn't keep Wlad's opponent from fighting back, etc. With Sven Ottke the ref punished Robin Reid for PUNCHING Ottke, that's keeping an opponent from fighting back, that's not a fair fight because 1 fighter has an advantage over the other because the rules of the ref are biased in favor of Ottke. The judges as well could be biased in favor of a certain fighter....though in Wladimir's case you'd be very hard pressed to find a fight where Wladimir landed fewer punches than his opponent, got hit more times than his opponent, etc...but I BEG you to find me a fight Wladimir CLEARLY lost just based on boxing, not on fouls you ASSUME were fouls, just 100% boxing. Punches thrown and landed, ring generalship, etc...find me a fight Wlad lost based on that otherwise stop fucking wasting my time you ignorant little bastard

What you're arguing is 100% of boxing is corrupt erics44, every decision is corrupt, every single title holder is corrupt.......but you still watch boxing and post on a boxing site because why? Riddle me that idiot

[erics44]

Like Ive said to you lots of times this is an utterly stoopid argument

Suppose it was up to the judges in the ottke fights? If they said ottke won it must have been legit

The ref let's Wladimir's clinching go, he doesn't punish Wlad, but he doesn't keep Wlad's opponent from holding, he doesn't keep Wlad's opponent from throwing punches, he doesn't keep Wlad's opponent from fighting back, etc. With Sven Ottke the ref punished Robin Reid for PUNCHING Ottke, that's keeping an opponent from fighting back, that's not a fair fight because 1 fighter has an advantage over the other because the rules of the ref are biased in favor of Ottke. The judges as well could be biased in favor of a certain fighter....though in Wladimir's case you'd be very hard pressed to find a fight where Wladimir landed fewer punches than his opponent, got hit more times than his opponent, etc...but I BEG you to find me a fight Wladimir CLEARLY lost just based on boxing, not on fouls you ASSUME were fouls, just 100% boxing. Punches thrown and landed, ring generalship, etc...find me a fight Wlad lost based on that otherwise stop fucking wasting my time you ignorant little bastard

What you're arguing is 100% of boxing is corrupt erics44, every decision is corrupt, every single title holder is corrupt.......but you still watch boxing and post on a boxing site because why? Riddle me that idiot

nope i am arguing wladimir klitchko would not have had and where near as fruitful reign if he would have been made to fight within the rules

i also feel that he is allowed to hold to the extreme amounts that he does because his fights bring in multiples of millions of pounds and make a lot of people very rich

i also gave you similar examples where money has driven the outcome of fights, sven ottke, burns beltram

[Beanflicker]

Clinching is a part of boxing. When was the last time you saw ANYONE get DQed or even have a point taken away for clinching? The only time that happens is when guys refuse to break when the ref asks them to break (something Wlad never does). It's become a legit technique in boxing, something a lot of the greatest of the great fighters (Ali, Bhop, Floyd, ect) have utilized to great success.

You still haven't addressed Ali: do you feel Ali's legacy would not be near what it is if he wasn't allowed to hold? Because he would tie guys up on the inside in much the same way Wlad does. Was he also the benefactor of corrupt officials who let him "cheat"? If you don't think so, that right there shows you are inconsistent with your views and therefore have no credibility in this matter.