"Despite Peters 3 KDs of Klitschko" WTF?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Banderivets
    'Ah Mr Haye'
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Dec 2004
    • 3659
    • 202
    • 74
    • 17,721

    #1

    "Despite Peters 3 KDs of Klitschko" WTF?

    Ok I dont get it. Why the hell do I read this in every article out there?

    Now every clown and expert on the block tends to agree that Peter rabbit punches his opponents. What triggered that? The Wlad fight. However few acknowledged that during the Wlad Vs Peter bout.

    But now that Toney fought him everyone is all over Peter for rabbit punching.


    So why the hell do all these writers write about Peter's knockdowns of Wlad as legit?

    Why dont they write "despite Peter's 3 illegal knockdowns of Wlad"...why do the continue to make it sound like they were legal?

    When it's Wlad its legal when its Toney its illegal...

    The hate is just ammusing...
  • OctoberRed
    Banned
    Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
    • Aug 2006
    • 14247
    • 797
    • 295
    • 135,200

    #2
    One knockdown was legit and the ref counted them as knockdowns so they are KNOCKDOWNS. If they were ruled slips, than writers would probably say they were slips.

    Comment

    • mikefromstu
      Contender
      Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
      • Jun 2005
      • 350
      • 38
      • 206
      • 6,625

      #3
      Most boxing writers have been talking about this for a while now.

      This is not new, it was not new before Wlad either.

      Comment

      • beez721
        Undisputed Champion
        Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
        • Aug 2005
        • 9637
        • 252
        • 55
        • 16,400

        #4
        Originally posted by sfdmalex
        Ok I dont get it. Why the hell do I read this in every article out there?

        Now every clown and expert on the block tends to agree that Peter rabbit punches his opponents. What triggered that? The Wlad fight. However few acknowledged that during the Wlad Vs Peter bout.

        But now that Toney fought him everyone is all over Peter for rabbit punching.


        So why the hell do all these writers write about Peter's knockdowns of Wlad as legit?

        Why dont they write "despite Peter's 3 illegal knockdowns of Wlad"...why do the continue to make it sound like they were legal?

        When it's Wlad its legal when its Toney its illegal...

        The hate is just ammusing...
        I dont recall him landing much to the back of the head of toney

        Comment

        • Banderivets
          'Ah Mr Haye'
          Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
          • Dec 2004
          • 3659
          • 202
          • 74
          • 17,721

          #5
          Originally posted by OctoberRed
          One knockdown was legit and the ref counted them as knockdowns so they are KNOCKDOWNS. If they were ruled slips, than writers would probably say they were slips.
          Then throw out the opinion of the fans and writers out the window if only what the ref says is the truth

          The fact is we all saw the back of the head knockdowns. And you are right. 2 of them.

          But the writers still write 3 knockdowns as your good ol legit knockdowns. WTF when 2 of them where clearly illegal?

          Comment

          • BrooklynBomber
            Banned
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • Oct 2004
            • 28365
            • 1,563
            • 1,541
            • 44,979

            #6
            The first kd was not even a punch but a push down by Peter, second one was a push down and a rabbit punch on Wlad's way down.
            Btw, most of teh writes there, the socalled experts are hypocrits and paid to say what they say. SO I dont really understand why you listening to them. Most of them dont know what they talking about anyway. Just use your head and your eyes.
            BTW, if Wlad will fight Peter again, he will ko him.

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP