Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
I may add a qualifier to that remark saying that "Wlad got hit behind the head" but it doesn't make the 3 knockdowns go away...Wlad got knocked down 3 times, I am able to admit that because #1 It actually happened #2 Wlad's skill is such that he made those knockdowns not count for much and so I am comfortable in the knowledge that if in future bouts Wladimir is knocked down (even multiple times) he can still win a fight.
Lyle, I am not denying that it should have been ruled as a knock down... I must have said that 3 times now. it could have been ruled as anything... I am disputing what it means... not what the technicality of what to call it.

What I am pointing out is that you have one rule for Wlad and another for Haye:

Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
I may add a qualifier to that remark saying that "Haye got hit whilst off balance" but it doesn't make the knockdown go away (what the ref ruled it as is irrelevant)...Haye got knocked down, I am able to admit that because #1 It actually happened #2 Haye's skill is such that he made those knockdowns not count for much and so I am comfortable in the knowledge that if in future bouts Haye is knocked down (even multiple times) he can still win a fight.
Wlad getting clubbed down 3 times by a fighter with the class of Sam Peter because he let him get too close means exactly as much as David Haye essentially slipping off balance because he stood to side on against a fighter like Monte Barrett.

ie: Not much. You know this but decide to make it irrelevant for only one fighter, why?

I don't take issue with the fact that you think Wlad will win - that is a very likely outcome... what I do take issue with is the massive bias that you have, rather than give a balanced opinion based purely on boxing knowledge you instead apply a completely different rule to two similar situations just because they suit your agenda.

You're usually a good poster Lyle, stop being such a fanboy.