who has stiverne actually beat?

[N/A]

Yes he was - With ring and everyone else. Trbr removes a fighter after a year of inactivity

All credible rankings would remove a fighter who hasn't fought in a year and a half.

Ring magazine is owned by HBO's lead promoter and makes up the rules as they go along to benefit HBO (which is why Fury is still magazine champion).

When you point to HBO magazine's rankings, you reveal a few things about yourself. #1 - That you've been too naive to notice all of the ridiculous changes that have been made to their rules. #2 - That you've been living under a rock and hadn't heard about all of the real journalists quitting in protest. #3 - That you think it's appropriate to point to "independent" rankings that aren't actually independent, when it suits your position. Very disingenuous.

[LacedUp]

All credible rankings would remove a fighter who hasn't fought in a year and a half.

Ring magazine is owned by HBO's lead promoter and makes up the rules as they go along to benefit HBO (which is why Fury is still magazine champion).

When you point to HBO magazine's rankings, you reveal a few things about yourself. #1 - That you've been too naive to notice all of the ridiculous changes that have been made to their rules. #2 - That you've been living under a rock and hadn't heard about all of the real journalists quitting in protest. #3 - That you think it's appropriate to point to "independent" rankings that aren't actually independent, when it suits your position. Very disingenuous.

Whatever you say newbie.

[KillaCamNZ]

Chris Arreola.

Yeah.

[N/A]

Whatever you say newbie.

If your position is that you have more experience than we do, then you should be able to use that experience to counter our argument.

However, there is no real counter to our argument since our facts are rock solid, so you're forced to resort to a dismissive non-reply that doesn't actually address a single thing we've said.

So why not just be a man and admit that you didn't realize Ring magazine had been corrupted by a promoter buying it and agree to not point to it anymore as a credible source?

[LacedUp]

If your position is that you have more experience than we do, then you should be able to use that experience to counter our argument.

However, there is no real counter to our argument since our facts are rock solid, so you're forced to resort to a dismissive non-reply that doesn't actually address a single thing we've said.

So why not just be a man and admit that you didn't realize Ring magazine had been corrupted by a promoter buying it and agree to not point to it anymore as a credible source?

I did. You literally said Wlad was removed from the rankings because he lost to Fury in embarrassing fashion.

There's no debating such idiotic statements. It's a lost cause.

[N/A]

I did. You literally said Wlad was removed from the rankings because he lost to Fury in embarrassing fashion.

Hmmm, why don't we look at what I actually said so we can see if you're lying or not:

When you lose in embarrassing fashion and then don't fight for a year and a half, you're no longer ranked.


So I said if you lose and then don't fight for a year and a half, you're no longer ranked.

Yet you lied to the community and claimed I "literally said Wlad was removed from the rankings because he lost to Fury."

Why did you choose to lie? What I wrote is easily verifiable. I didn't say he was removed for losing, I said he was removed because after he lost he didn't fight for a year and a half.

Is your life that pathetic that you have to lie about what another man said to try to "win" an argument? What is wrong with you?

[Mr Objecitivity]

I hear people saying oh yeah stiverne was a legit win, yeah wilders fought bums but he proved himself against stiverne. what actually elevates him above any of the other bums on wilders CV? He was highly ranked, so what? Cause governing body rankings are so reliable lol. From what i see, all hes beaten is chris arreola, wow, is that the acid test at heavyweight or something, beating arreola? I never thought much of him beating stiverne a few years back, yet alone bombing him out now when hes a big fat sloppy 39 year old coming in on short notice. I guess that proves wilders the best heavyweight around though!!! No chance joshua could have done that to such quality opposition.

Bermane Stiverne won his title from Chris Arreola, who won it from Seth Mitchell, who won it from Jonathan Banks, who won it from Seth Mitchell in the first bout as a vacant belt. This is hilarious and totally laughable!

Looking at their records, how in the world do the likes of Chris Arreola, Seth Mitchell or Jonathan Banks have a better heavyweight record than the likes of Dereck Chisora and Robert Helenius?

Take into consideration, Dillian Whyte defeated Dereck Chisora and Robert Helenius in just around 20 bouts. Which are better wins against better quality opposition than anybody Deontay Wilder had beaten when he had similar number of bouts.

A champion (especially paper champions) aren't automatically better than non-champions. We have to analyze quality of opposition too. Quality of opposition is a better criteria to determine how good a boxer is, compared to using whether an opponent is a champion as a criteria. Otherwise, John Ruiz is a better boxer than David Tua, because he was a champion whilst David Tua was never a world champion, even though Tua destroyed John Ruiz in just 30 seconds in their only bout.

So this should hopefully answer your question!

[LacedUp]

Hmmm, why don't we look at what I actually said so we can see if you're lying or not:

When you lose in embarrassing fashion and then don't fight for a year and a half, you're no longer ranked.


So I said if you lose and then don't fight for a year and a half, you're no longer ranked.

Yet you lied to the community and claimed I "literally said Wlad was removed from the rankings because he lost to Fury."

Why did you choose to lie? What I wrote is easily verifiable. I didn't say he was removed for losing, I said he was removed because after he lost he didn't fight for a year and a half.

Is your life that pathetic that you have to lie about what another man said to try to "win" an argument? What is wrong with you?

You were talking complete rubbish and it showed. And it shows now.

Why would I waste my time speaking with such an idiot?

[Madison Boxing]

Bermane Stiverne won his title from Chris Arreola, who won it from Seth Mitchell, who won it from Jonathan Banks, who won it from Seth Mitchell in the first bout as a vacant belt. This is hilarious and totally laughable!

Looking at their records, how in the world do the likes of Chris Arreola, Seth Mitchell or Jonathan Banks have a better heavyweight record than the likes of Dereck Chisora and Robert Helenius?

Take into consideration, Dillian Whyte defeated Dereck Chisora and Robert Helenius in just around 20 bouts. Which are better wins against better quality opposition than anybody Deontay Wilder had beaten when he had similar number of bouts.

A champion (especially paper champions) aren't automatically better than non-champions. We have to analyze quality of opposition too. Quality of opposition is a better criteria to determine how good a boxer is, compared to using whether an opponent is a champion as a criteria. Otherwise, John Ruiz is a better boxer than David Tua, because he was a champion whilst David Tua was never a world champion, even though Tua destroyed John Ruiz in just 30 seconds in their only bout.

So this should hopefully answer your question!

yeah agreed, great post.

[W1LL]

In the first fight Bermane Stiverne was a top-ten Heavyweight and I give Deontay Wilder credit for the win. I've never personally rated Stiverne but the ranking was there. He's always been out of shape and sloppy with no boxing skills. The version Wilder knocked out the other night was an old, even fatter man. I'd be more impressed with a win over current version of Vitali Klitschko.