Comments Thread For: Whyte Doubts Wilder Will Fight Again: He's a Coward and a Disgrace!
Collapse
-
-
Self destruction. It is painful to watch. But it is good theater.
Wilder will fight. Middle of next year. It will be a return to greatness in his mind and in the words of the yes men and women in his life who will enable him and live off his success. He will flatten some limited fighter and will look off balance and ugly. After that who knows? We all know someone who deflects, accuses, lives in a world that is isolated and will reacts emotionally to every setback and problem. Wilder is that guy. It is sad. A little honest self evaluation, and brining in some real trainers would make a HUGE difference in the back half of his career. Maybe it is too late to change him, but just the basics would improve him to a great degree. He has magical power. He is athletic. He does have tools. But he is self absorbed, immature, and lives in a world where everyone agrees with him or he cuts them out. Since he has money, he can.
Self destruction. It is an ugly thing.Comment
-
Comment
-
Wilder was actually chasing may weather's record and fury derailed it. Its not easy to swallow for a 5 yo champ but he should man up and move on.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Wilder may have his problems but Whyte should be the last person to comment on it. Why does Whyte still have a Wilder obsession? He got ignored by Fury as well, was too scared to fight Joshua again, and got knocked out badly by Povetkin.Comment
-
No, Jerry Falwell made a living as a television pastor and such a claim if believed could have had substantial ramifications for him. Much larger than Breland. We are talking millions not hundred of thousands. Trust me this would go nowhere at all. Breland is a public figure.
Unless you think Wilder's claim is an actual joke, as in not meant or likely to be interpreted as factual by a reasonable person (this is the precedent) Hustler vs Falwell is completely irrelevant.
Obviously Wilder's claims weren't satire or parody and very likely libellous.
If you don't know case law don't cite it and pretend you do, or at least look it up before you do, it would have taken 2 minutes to see you were completely wrong.Comment
-
Jesus, if you are going to start citing cases of precedent, at least have a basic understanding of what precedent was involved. Hustler vs Falwell is used as precedent of satire and parody being protected speech, the only relevance of being a public figure is to support the parody, i.e. it is pretty hard to parody an unknown person.
Unless you think Wilder's claim is an actual joke, as in not meant or likely to be interpreted as factual by a reasonable person (this is the precedent) Hustler vs Falwell is completely irrelevant.
Obviously Wilder's claims weren't satire or parody and very likely libellous.
If you don't know case law don't cite it and pretend you do, or at least look it up before you do, it would have taken 2 minutes to see you were completely wrong.Comment
Comment