No, it doesn't. It means you've proven more. Just because someone is unproven doesn't mean they wouldn't beat you.
You must have no life though because you keep trying to start arguments nobody is interested in. My position is that Wilder couldn't be #2 if he'd only fought bums. You refuse to discuss that, because you know I'm right, so you keep changing to subject to random topics.
That's a lie. Klitschko was more deserving of a higher rating. Doesn't mean he was better. If higher rating always equaled better, there'd be no reason for anybody to fight each other.
Boxrec is great proof of whether you've only fought bums or not. The claim that Wilder has only fought bums is clearly a lie because he wouldn't be #2 otherwise.
Wilder is #2. Whyte is #5. Wilder has twice as many points as Whyte. If Wilder has only fought bums, what does that say about Whyte?
Doesn't mean Wilder would definitely win if they fought. Just means Wilder has accomplished more and deserves the higher rating.
You must have no life though because you keep trying to start arguments nobody is interested in. My position is that Wilder couldn't be #2 if he'd only fought bums. You refuse to discuss that, because you know I'm right, so you keep changing to subject to random topics.
Klitschko was better than Wilder according to boxrec.
You don't agree. So is boxrec only evidence/proof when you agree?
According to boxrec Whyte has beaten more current top 20 HW's than Wilder, so how is he by far ahead?
Doesn't mean Wilder would definitely win if they fought. Just means Wilder has accomplished more and deserves the higher rating.
Comment