Can someone explain to me why wilder is allowed to get away with ducking whyte?

[LetOutTheCage]

It really is getting embarrassing. Please tell me how...

Assuming Wilder gets by Stiverne, Hearn wants him in against Whyte

he wants Wilder, who holds one of the heavyweight belts, to fight Dillian Whyte

Then, that winner would move on to fight Joshua

Then, if Wilder (38-0, 37 KOs) were to beat Whyte (21-1, 16 KOs), who was knocked out by Joshua in December 2015, he could face Joshua

...is supposed to mean anything other than Hearn wants Wilder to fight Whyte, and the winner gets AJ.

I've given dictionary definitions, cited articles and a collegiate writing site, all in an attempt to define a two letter word for you guys.

Sorry, maybe England speaks English differently than US, but on this side of the pond, "If A, then B" means that A is a prerequisite of B.

Where did he say Wilder has to fight Whyte first? All you have done so far is give me quotes from Wilder and comments from an author stipulating as to what Hearn has said. You have yet to give me a direct quote from Hearn saying Wilder has to fight Whyte first. The fact that you can seem to grasp that it's not a quote from Hearn at all is worrying

[GGG Gloveking]

Where did he say Wilder has to fight Whyte first? All you have done so far is give me quotes from Wilder and comments from an author stipulating as to what Hearn has said. You have yet to give me a direct quote from Hearn saying Wilder has to fight Whyte first. The fact that you can seem to grasp that it's not a quote from Hearn at all is worrying

LMAO! Now, Josh Katzowitz, writer for Forbes, is misrepresenting what Hearn said. There is a video referenced in the article. If you would like to watch it and correct Mr Katzowitz, feel free to. Otherwise, I've submitted my evidence and the burden is upon you to refute it.

Good luck...

Ok...so at roughly the 30 second mark of the video, Hearn says "Wilder fights Dillian Whyte, and the winner fights Josh"

[Ray*]

Yep. Pretty much sums it up. We just have to keep in mind that Hearn wasn't Parker's promotor and accordingly had no standing to make deals relative to Parker.
So, it should read...

Fact was Wilder was offered a fight with Whyte in England...If he wins he fights Joshua.

Those are the facts.

Am glad we acknowledged Wilder was offered a Whyte fight. Win and you fight the Joshua/Parker winner.

[GGG Gloveking]

Those are the facts expect he ain’t fighting Joshua if Joshua loses. He would end up fighting Parker for the undisputed.

Ok, except as I previously noted, the Parker fight had not been agreed to. Have you watched the video associated with the Forbes article I cited? At around the :30 second mark, Hearn says Wilder fights Whyte, and the winner fight Josh. Those are his words, almost verbatim.

So, why are you trying to act like Hearn said something he didn't? Wilder fights Whyte and the winner gets Josh. It's not that hard.

[Ray*]

Ok, except as I previously noted, the Parker fight had not been agreed to. Have you watched the video associated with the Forbes article I cited? At around the :30 second mark, Hearn says Wilder fights Whyte, and the winner fight Josh. Those are his words, almost verbatim.

So, why are you trying to act like Hearn said something he didn't? Wilder fights Whyte and the winner gets Josh. It's not that hard.

Because Joshua is his fighter. He knows he would beat Parker, or he would that’s what any promoter would say.

He also said Whyte beats Wilder and instead of Wilder/Joshua we would end up seeing Joshua/Whyte 2.

Well... facts were Wilder ducked those offers for a career high payday.

I don’t usually use that term ducked loosely. But when someone gets offered a career payday, and they take another fight for less then for me that’s a duck.

If Wilder didn’t get any offer from Team Whyte then I would never have accuse him of ducking.

It’s like the people that trying to comeback with the “Whyte ducked Ortiz” really? What offers were on the table for Whyte from Team Ortiz?.... Crickets.

[Robbie Barrett]

Well, the first definition is for an imperative, so that wouldn't apply. The second one, especially the bolded, is of interest since it implies a conclusion, ie, an AJ fight, if the hypothesis, ie, Wilder beats Whyte is satisfied.

That makes sense to me...

Let's look at the example provided. "Suppose he had been murdered, what then?" In the example, the conclusion (the "what then") isn't known. In our instant case, the conclusion is known. The supposition is Wilder beating Whyte, while the conclusion is an AJ fight.

Why are you still arguing? I've proven it can mean something else. So your conclusions that Hearn meant what you want it to mean is completely untrue.

As someone else said. Hearn actually clarified it not long after that Wilder did not have to fight Whyte to get Joshua.

You haven't a leg to stand.

[GGG Gloveking]

Why are you still arguing? I've proven it can mean something else. So your conclusions that Hearn meant what you want it to mean is completely untrue.

As someone else said. Hearn actually clarified it not long after that Wilder did not have to fight Whyte to get Joshua.

You haven't a leg to stand.

So, what you're saying is that when Hearn said, "Wilder fights Dillian Whyte, then Josh" he actually meant something besides if Wilder beats Whyte, then he gets AJ...

Watch the video. It's right there at the :30 second mark.

[Robbie Barrett]

So, what you're saying is that when Hearn said, "Wilder fights Dillian Whyte, then Josh" he actually meant something besides if Wilder beats Whyte, then he gets AJ...

Watch the video. It's right there at the :30 second mark.

He never says, he has to fight Whyte to get Joshua. I'm sick of this **** now. You're trolling or a complete ****ing idiot.

[GGG Gloveking]

Because Joshua is his fighter. He knows he would beat Parker, or he would that’s what any promoter would say.

He also said Whyte beats Wilder and instead of Wilder/Joshua we would end up seeing Joshua/Whyte 2.

Well... facts were Wilder ducked those offers for a career high payday.

I don’t usually use that term ducked loosely. But when someone gets offered a career payday, and they take another fight for less then for me that’s a duck.

If Wilder didn’t get any offer from Team Whyte then I would never have accuse him of ducking.

It’s like the people that trying to comeback with the “Whyte ducked Ortiz” really? What offers were on the table for Whyte from Team Ortiz?.... Crickets.

Dude, I'm tired of your lies. Hearn said this in October, and the damn Parker fights wasn't signed for another whole month. In fact, you can hear Eddie talking sheit about Parker, and how Parker thinks he's entitled to a 50% split. So please, quit acting like when Hearn says "Wilder fights Dillian Whyte, then Josh," that he means anything other than the obvious, and that Hearn can see the future and know the Parker fight would be signed.

This is ludacris

[GGG Gloveking]

He never says, he has to fight Whyte to get Joshua. I'm sick of this **** now. You're trolling or a complete ****ing idiot.

What does he say then, *******? Tell me, b itch, what fuçking words come out of Eddie's mouth? Eddie ****ing verbatim says "Wilder fights Dillian Whyte then Josh," and your ****** ass thinks it means something else.

You're an absolute idiot and locking yourself up for ****** poster of the year...