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

[LetOutTheCage]

Wait until they do the same with Charlo. Fact was Wilder avoided a career high payday at the time to fight Whyte, these people always try to re-write history, no where was Whyte been used to block anything.

Whyte until recently hates Joshua, he would never be used to block anyone, moreover Team Joshua made seprate offers to Wilder, but he would rather video himself crying on social media about how he was being ducked and dodge than accept the biggest offers on the table for him.

Its already started, I saw a thread saying Hearn had low-balled Charlo. I dont even like Hearn but some of the lies on here written about him are incredible.

[GGG Gloveking]

Why are you ignoring what he said just before. That they planned the Joshua-Wilder fight for the summer but "I'd like him to fight Whyte"?

That completely destroys your argument in the same damn interview.

No, sir. Actually, that element is crucial to my argument. The introduction of a fight with AJ is what makes it a conditional, or contingency, offer. The fight with AJ is the reward for the conditional fight with Whyte. Otherwise, it would simply be an offer to fight Whyte.

[GGG Gloveking]

Your lies in this thread. And you still continue to do so. Show us where he tried to use Whyte to block a Joshua/Wilder fight..

Honest question. Are you simply refusing to even acknowledge that Eddie made the statement in question?

"Yeah, Wilder fight Dillian Whyte...and the winner fights Josh"

What does that mean?

You're Brit, you might get this analogy. Germany, Italy, and England are in the World Cup. Germany has already won and is in the final game. England and Italy have yet to play. If England doesn't beat Italy, they're not playing Germany, are they? Therefore, the game between England and Germany is contingent upon England beating Italy.

[Robbie Barrett]

No, sir. Actually, that element is crucial to my argument. The introduction of a fight with AJ is what makes it a conditional, or contingency, offer. The fight with AJ is the reward for the conditional fight with Whyte. Otherwise, it would simply be an offer to fight Whyte.

He actually made an offer months before for Wilder to fight Whyte. "I'd like" is not conditional. If it was conditional he'd say "has to". What you're claiming makes no damn sense. I think you're digging in and making yourself look more ****** so you can claim "i was trolling, look at what i said" but i'm not going to let you get away with that. You were really dumb enough to claim what Hearn said was a demand.

[GGG Gloveking]

He actually made an offer months before for Wilder to fight Whyte. "I'd like" is not conditional. If it was conditional he'd say "has to". What you're claiming makes no damn sense. I think you're digging in and making yourself look more ****** so you can claim "i was trolling, look at what i said" but i'm not going to let you get away with that. You were really dumb enough to claim what Hearn said was a demand.

"I'd like" is not the operative clause here. "The winner (of Wilder/Whyte) fights Josh" is the operative clause. What it does is creates the condition, to wit, victory, to achieve the reward, to wit, a fight with "Josh."

[Ray*]

Honest question. Are you simply refusing to even acknowledge that Eddie made the statement in question?

I refuse to accept your lies and your narratives of Whyte being used to block anything.

[Robbie Barrett]

"I'd like" is not the operative clause here. "The winner (of Wilder/Whyte) fights Josh" is the operative clause. What it does is creates the condition, to wit, victory, to achieve the reward, to wit, a fight with "Josh."

Not falling for it. You might be trolling now but you weren't at first.

[GGG Gloveking]

I refuse to accept your lies and your narratives of Whyte being used to block anything.

Ok, I'm guessing you're trolling me too.

A video of Eddie saying something is me lying and creating a narrative...sure bud.

More like I see a fight being offered as a reward for winning a contingent fight, and call it a conditional offer.

[Ray*]

Ok, I'm guessing you're trolling me too.

.

Again i refuse to believe your lies and narratives, just like many others who refuse to believe your lies and narratives...You are on your own.

Tell us again how it was all a ploy to use Whyte to roadblock a Joshua/Wilder fight...

[GGG Gloveking]

Again i refuse to believe your lies and narratives, just like many others who refuse to believe your lies and narratives...You are on your own.

Tell us again how it was all a ploy to use Whyte to roadblock a Joshua/Wilder fight...

I'm on my own because everyone else with common sense left this thread. They know better than to deal with a bunch of ****** Brit fanboys. Me, I'm a glutton for punishment.

I've told you, and I'll tell you again. Unfortunately, you won't give your interpretation of Mr Hearn's remarks, so we don't really have a starting point for constructive debate. But, in any event, I'll try once more.

Mr. Hearn made the statement, "Wilder fight Dillian Whyte...and the winner fights Josh." My interpretation of that statement is that the Whyte fight is an eliminator for the AJ fight. My interpretation is that this is not a direct offer for Mr. Wilder to fight Mr. Joshua, but rather only for "the winner" to fight "Josh." Therefore, this requirement of fighting and defeating Dillian Whyte is the prerequisite condition, or obstacle, being placed in front of Mr. Wilder by Mr. Hearn.