Comments Thread For: Pianeta: I Will Shock The World, Knock Klitschko Out!

[joe strong]

Yeah so? No you are converting a failure into a virtue:
"McCall before facing Lennox had 5 losses on his record including Buster Douglas, Orlin Norris and Tucker. McCall is a good fighter"

WTH? How in the world do the 5 losses give McCall a better record than Pianeta who is undefeated?

It's the same bizarre logic like with Ali fantasizers: Ali LOSES to Norton hence Norton "must be a hell of a fighter" hence avenging the loss to Norton makes Ali an out-of-the-world fighter.

Idiotic. Yet typical.

Had Wlad fought McCall then it would have been a proof of a dire era.
Had Wlad lost to McCall then it would be a proof of Wlad being a bum.
Had Wlad rematched emotionally collapsing McCall then it would be a proof of the worst era of all time.

Lennox fighting a 24-5 opponent is not better than Wlad fighting an unbeaten 28-0 opponent, no matter how much you want to spin it.

Oliver McCall (24-5) got the Lennox fight after beating Dan Murphy (41-12) and Art Card (9-6) and THIS is then called a fantastic era incomparable to Wlad's era.

You seriously need to wake up, haters.



You ****** that statement off your head. I just checked what I call "triads" = how many fighters fought each other e.g. Lennox Lewis vs David Tua vs Hasim Rahman and Wlad (already now!!!) has approximately as many triads (60 all weights, 58 at 200x2) as Lennox' era (68 all weights, 61 at 200x2). Nowadays fighters fight each other more often than in Lennox' era.

You good-old-time-nostalgists live in some weight lala-land, unable to see what is in front of your eyes: This is an excellent HW era and what Wlad is doing is unprecedented in heavyweight history both regarding the choice of opponents (southpaws, undefeated etc) and performance (KO wins etc).

i never said this era sucks i just said noone fights each other anymore. did i not say wlad is a first ballot hall of famer? i think there are some really good HWs but they just don't fight each other enough. helenius, fury, pulev, povetkin, adamek, arreola, etc...there are great fights that can be made but just not enough of them. i miss the 90s when a PPV would have 2 HW title matches & a couple HW fights on the undercard. lots of the issues today is the economy so it's tough to put huge cards together with quality fights from top to bottom. i miss don kings PPVs from back in the 90s. purses were bigger & fighters were compensated much better then they are today. a title shot almost guaranteed you a 7 digit paycheck which isn't the case anymore. look at adamek pulling out of the pulev fight because he claims he won't make money. we all want to see that fight but it's too risky for him since he could probably get a voluntary shot at wlad just because he's a draw in the polish community much like andrew golota was. golota could pack arenas even after meltdowns. when he fought byrd golota got 4 million as the challenger & byrd got 500000 & he was the champ. thats why guys who won titles were lining up to fight golota even if he lost a few key matches. they knew they were going to be fighting for nice purse & had a good chance of winning. golota got 4 title shots & none of them were mandatories. golota generated money with his fan base. pianeta had a draw with sosnowski(who got ko'd by rogan) & beat botha at 44 & mccall at 46 so that makes him a quality opponent because he is 28-0-1? deontay wilder is like 26 or 27-0 does thta make him a good opponent? how about david rodriguez at 35-0 who his best win is over a washed up owen beck? pianeta is a decent fighter but title worthy? i'm not so sure...

[Al Bernstein]

The Klitschkos are such gentlemen and Ambassadors of good will. :*******:

[joe strong]

Yeah so? No you are converting a failure into a virtue:
"McCall before facing Lennox had 5 losses on his record including Buster Douglas, Orlin Norris and Tucker. McCall is a good fighter"

WTH? How in the world do the 5 losses give McCall a better record than Pianeta who is undefeated?

It's the same bizarre logic like with Ali fantasizers: Ali LOSES to Norton hence Norton "must be a hell of a fighter" hence avenging the loss to Norton makes Ali an out-of-the-world fighter.

Idiotic. Yet typical.

Had Wlad fought McCall then it would have been a proof of a dire era.
Had Wlad lost to McCall then it would be a proof of Wlad being a bum.
Had Wlad rematched emotionally collapsing McCall then it would be a proof of the worst era of all time.

Lennox fighting a 24-5 opponent is not better than Wlad fighting an unbeaten 28-0 opponent, no matter how much you want to spin it.

Oliver McCall (24-5) got the Lennox fight after beating Dan Murphy (41-12) and Art Card (9-6) and THIS is then called a fantastic era incomparable to Wlad's era.

You seriously need to wake up, haters.



You ****** that statement off your head. I just checked what I call "triads" = how many fighters fought each other e.g. Lennox Lewis vs David Tua vs Hasim Rahman and Wlad (already now!!!) has approximately as many triads (60 all weights, 58 at 200x2) as Lennox' era (68 all weights, 61 at 200x2). Nowadays fighters fight each other more often than in Lennox' era.You good-old-time-nostalgists live in some weight lala-land, unable to see what is in front of your eyes: This is an excellent HW era and what Wlad is doing is unprecedented in heavyweight history both regarding the choice of opponents (southpaws, undefeated etc) and performance (KO wins etc).

i'm not sure how you can justify this but obviously you have your opinion & i have mine.

[hweightblogger]

deontay wilder is like 26 or 27-0 does thta make him a good opponent? how about david rodriguez at 35-0 who his best win is over a washed up owen beck? pianeta is a decent fighter but title worthy? i'm not so sure...

Deontay Wilder's record is approximately 50-80 times better than Norton's record when Norton faced Ali.

In fact most of Ali's opponents were so bad (Chuvalo, Frazier, Norton, Cleveland Williams etc) they would be the final coffin nail on Wladimir's record in the eyes of modern fans and good-old-time nostalgists would Wladimir fight such opponents nowadays.

[hweightblogger]

i'm not sure how you can justify this but obviously you have your opinion & i have mine.

I already wrote how I justify this and your statement is an OPINION whereas my statement is far from an opinion.

[Jam Jars]

McCall had wins over Damiani and Seldon and a very close fight with Tucker before the first fight. Pianeta's resume is garbage and has beat nobody relevant at the time he beat them.


LOL at all this triad bull****, it's as daft as that crap where you said Wlad beat more world champs than Lewis because because you don't count fighters that won it and lost it the next fight. Your stats and numbers don't mean shit watch with your eye's.


Are you the guy with that ****** website that lists aload of bollocks to somehow prove Wlad is better than Ali? edit: You are LOL

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/

I urge anyone that wants a giggle at how ****** this guy is to visit his site.

[hweightblogger]

LOL at all this triad bull****, it's as daft as that crap where you said Wlad beat more world champs than Lewis because because you don't count fighters that won it and lost it the next fight.

Don't invent things. In Lennox' case I did not count Rahman as a "win against a world champ" because Rahman's only win in a world championship fight was against Lennox, hence crediting Lennox with the rematch win against Rahman would be crediting Lennox with his own failure.

It's completely logical and fair to do so.

By your logic Wlad could lose 10x and then re-win the title by winning the rematch directly afterwards and this would be a greater resume (because, hey, Wlad won 10x against world champs) than by winning the first time around.

Crediting Lennox with the Rahman win as "A win against a world titlist" is ridiculous.

And, yes, Wlad fighting against such opponents like Ali's opponents would indeed be considered a terrible era by today's standards.

[Weltschmerz]

This thread turned out quite amusing.

[Jam Jars]

Don't invent things. In Lennox' case I did not count Rahman as a "win against a world champ" because Rahman's only world championship win was against Lennox, hence crediting Lennox with the rematch win against Rahman would be crediting Lennox with his own failure.

It's completely logical and fair to do so.

By your logic Wlad could lose 10x and then re-win the title by winning the rematch and this would be a greater resume (because, hey, Wlad won 10x against world champs) than by winning the first time around.

Crediting Lennox with the Rahman win as "A win against a world titlist" is ridiculous.

And, yes, Wlad fighting against such opponents like Ali did would indeed be considered a terrible era by today's standards.

You're a joke, anyone that see's your site will say the same thing. The lengths you went to to try and discredit the ATG's on your site is disturbing. You seek out ****** stats and make up ****** rules to try and convince yourself that the Klitschko's are the best. That site is the most extreme case of nut huggery i have ever seen. I honestly believe that you're wired up wrong.

[hweightblogger]

You're a joke, anyone that see's your site will say the same thing. The lengths you went to to try and discredit the ATG's on your site is disturbing. You seek out ****** stats and make up ****** rules to try and convince yourself that the Klitschko's are the best. That site is the most extreme case of nut huggery i have ever seen. I honestly believe that you're wired up wrong.

Unfortunately for you what you call "****** stats" are stubborn facts that won't go away. The only thing you have are legends and fame names ("Teh Fraziaaaaaah").

And my blog is not about the Klitschkos but about the current HW champs which happen to be the Klitschkos. Had I started my blog during the reign of Lennox Lewis then, too, the results would be the same: Lennox' resume > Ali's resume.