In 39 fightd, GGG'S record against current or former world champs is

where is the link to 20 million Not only that but how much would Ward do if kovo pulled out with 3 week notice and he were to fight someone the caliber of of vanes. See that’s what haters like c unt henning don’t include. I still say ggg should have pulled out and fought someone like bjs or charlo in June or July

I feel this thread you posted is nothing but a hit piece on GGG.....the man deserves some respect now...... That’s how Larry operates then he claims he isn’t a hater when it’s clear he is. But we all love the dude so it’s just Larry being Larry

he did 1 million plus cable viewers and made a 1 millon dollar purse...1 million....lol you are the ones that said ward didnt sell anything...yet he made almost 20 mil over the last two years of his career before retirement.....thats pretty well for a guy nobody knows and cant sell huh? Or are you still in denial and going to change the subject where is the link to 20 million

the one who has the title, not the one who gets a title after him. Thats not difficult. So Linares didn't have the title therefore neither does Lomachenko. Sturm didn't have the title until he was elevated for no reason therefore he also was not entitled (forgive pun), Paulie, Broner, Chino? No title. Murat Gassiev - 'unified' champ , apparently - but not 'Super' champion. In fact Gassiev should have the actual original version of the 'super' that you like to talk about - y'know - 'the one that Hopkins won' yet he is not 'Super' champion. Erislandy Lara? - nope - promoted just like GGG, so where does that leave Jarrett Hurd?:thinking: You honestly telling me you think this ish is straightforward? Ah well. Fuck it. You can do it whichever way you please, man.

Yet, you're the one failing to grasp the concept at handI've failed to grasp nothing, Glove.

Mmm. Yes. Crystal clear. Except you still haven't answered any of the questions I've asked about the mess of regular WBA title-holders spread across the divisions over the last 15 odd years. Can you at least suggest a general rule or does your personal history book simply ignore every single WBA titlist who does not have the word 'super' in front of his title? the one who has the title, not the one who gets a title after him. Thats not difficult.

not with your brain you sdhouldnt perhaps that explains your posts BOOMBBOOM Yet, you're the one failing to grasp the concept at hand

the one who originally has the title nothing else. obvious. Mmm. Yes. Crystal clear. Except you still haven't answered any of the questions I've asked about the mess of regular WBA title-holders spread across the divisions over the last 15 odd years. Can you at least suggest a general rule or does your personal history book simply ignore every single WBA titlist who does not have the word 'super' in front of his title?

the one who originally has the title nothing else. obvious. Huh? The fuck does that have to do with the price of bacon? I don't think you're understanding the broader issue. The problem is the WBAs inconsistency. Sometimes the 'World' championship is given to their divisional #1, sometimes it's the Super, and there's no obvious way of telling which it is at any one time since they don't follow one set of consistent rules. Take Linares vs Loma. Linares was World champion yet Loma is Super champion -explain to me why? Tank and Machado. Sturm and Chudinov. If there was an easy way to seperate this sh1t fairly I'd go for it, but there ain't so I'm sticking with the World is premier unles there is currently a 'super' in the same division - and even that ain't satisfactory, but it's the best I can do. Look. It doesn't matter anyway cos the WBA and the record books count both titles, and you're allowed to to it up any which way you like, so all these words are pretty much redundant anyway.

if someone had invented a regular belt at the time, you'd not question that lewis had the actual world title. Huh? The fuck does that have to do with the price of bacon? I don't think you're understanding the broader issue. The problem is the WBAs inconsistency. Sometimes the 'World' championship is given to their divisional #1, sometimes it's the Super, and there's no obvious way of telling which it is at any one time since they don't follow one set of consistent rules. Take Linares vs Loma. Linares was World champion yet Loma is Super champion -explain to me why? Tank and Machado. Sturm and Chudinov. If there was an easy way to seperate this sh1t fairly I'd go for it, but there ain't so I'm sticking with the 'World' being premier unless there is currently a 'super' in the same division - and even that ain't satisfactory, but it's the best I can do. Look. It doesn't matter anyway cos the WBA and the record books count both titles, and you're allowed to to it up any which way you like, so all these words are pretty much redundant anyway.

I'm not following. Lennox was top dog for a while, but not under the WBA while they had the super. Indeed I believe the original idea of the Super title (to reduce the mandatory burden on unified titlists) originated with Lennox - at least according the WBA. Not a terrible idea, actually - until the WBA fucked it up by turning into a separate title rather than just a modification to the World title. if someone had invented a regular belt at the time, you'd not question that lewis had the actual world title.

Sheit... I'll take brains over heart any day not with your brain you sdhouldnt perhaps that explains your posts BOOMBBOOM

better no brain than no heart. Sheit... I'll take brains over heart any day

1. Peter Quillen 2. Caleb Truax 3. Sergio Mora 4. Majiec Sulecki 5. Ishe Smith 6. Luis Arias 7. Jarrod Fletcher. “Triple duck needs to fight Jacobs to be certified doe”

you debate whether lenox lewis has the top of the world title in his living room. i know its there. I'm not following. Lennox was top dog for a while, but not under the WBA while they had the super. Indeed I believe the original idea of the Super title (to reduce the mandatory burden on unified titlists) originated with Lennox - at least according the WBA. Not a terrible idea, actually - until the WBA fucked it up by turning into a separate title rather than just a modification to the World title.

He also refused Kell Brook's request of 157. Instead he drug him up 13lbs. What. A. Hero. You do get that the super title should not be transferable according to the WBAs own rules right - unless it's awarded to a titlist from another division in a unification or won from a unified titlist? It was to be awarded to unified titlists only. In a later and unjustifiable change the WBA decided it could also be awarded to existing regular titlists who had made five or more defenses. In none of their rules was an allowance for anyone being able to 'win' the super title in the ring unless they were fighting a unified titlist, so your argument is spurious. What's even more ridiculous is that they don't appear to have worked this out until Geale actually beat their 'super' champion Sturm, which should have made him regular 'World' Champion (since he was neither unified nor had made 5 defenses) but couldn't because... well... they already had a 'World' champion in GGG. A similar paradox arose in 2016/7 with Fedor Chudinov and Sturm (again). So you talk about winning the super in the ring when actually this should not be possible according to the WBAs own rules? And you say you've researched this ish before? Anyway. What do you reckon to Linares? Legit title? Broner and Chino at WW? Legit? See where I'm going with this...? EDIT: http://www.wbaboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/WBA-Rules-adopted-in-Bulgaria-6-11-15.pdf So really all one has to do to be super these days is defend your regular title 5 times... unless your name is Tank. Or Geale. Or the the WBA just feel like gifting you a 'super' that day. So what exactly is the difference between the World and the super again? This sh1t's stretching my brains capacity to twist itself in knots. EDIT 2: Curiously, under the WBAs own rules Golovkin should have been elevated to 'super' after 5 defenses... ie. after the Proksa fight. By coincidence this is the same time at which Geale beat Sturm and was - very briefly - awarded the super title. If the WBA followed their own rules Geale should have become World champion and Golovkin been made Super... you get what I mean now by 'what's in a name..?' A title is defined by the rules - not the name - and the WBA ain't followed theirs. Not just once, but over and over.. Cheers bro. You just clarified the difference between the world an super belts to me. I didnt know this before.

There's always middle ground and debate, man:D you debate whether lenox lewis has the top of the world title in his living room. i know its there.

And if you had one brain, you'd understand me better no brain than no heart.

and if i had three ears, I'd hear thee. And if you had one brain, you'd understand me

I feel this thread you posted is nothing but a hit piece on GGG.....the man deserves some respect now...... Of course it is, larry is threatened and insecure, he can't stand it when fighters that are not American are in the limelight, he likes to try and cut down tall timber, he's just a troll