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

[N/A]

Whyte turned down multiple final eliminators.

Whyte failed multiple drug tests.

Wilder is facing opponents rated higher than Whyte in boxrec.

To suggest Wilder is ducking is ridiculous. When the fight is due, he'll fight him. He flew overseas to fight Povetkin. He fought Stiverne again. He fought Breazeale. He's never ducked a mandatory. He's never ducked anything. Whyte on the other hand, we know for a fact ducked final eliminators for both the WBC and IBF.

[GGG Gloveking]

Did you just miss the top definition?

1.Assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.

That fits perfectly in the context i used it, who would have thunk?

"If (supposing that) he beats Whyte, then he could fight Joshua."

You just don't stop embarrassing yourself do you?

Cool. Now twist these words up to mean something else...

Then, that winner would move on to fight Joshua

...this should be fun. Note that "that winner" is referring to Wilder-Whyte winner...

[GGG Gloveking]

Or we can use this one

1.1Used to make a suggestion or a hesitant admission.
in imperative ‘suppose we leave this to the police’
‘I'm quite a good actress, I suppose’
More example sentencesSynonyms

or this one if you like?

1.2Used to introduce a hypothesis and trace or ask about what follows from it.
‘suppose he had been murdered—what then?’
More example sentences

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.

[LetOutTheCage]

Is it so hard to understand what I asked? Again you haven't provided the evidence I have asked for

[LetOutTheCage]

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, most likely in Britain.

...you do know how if-then statements work, right?

Lmao u dont seem to grasp basic English and arguing for the sake of arguing. He did not say Wilder has to fight Whyte to get to AJ. In fact he has said the opposite, go and watch some video interviews in which Hearn directly addresses this.

This is getting embarrassing now...

[Michael1437]

The word "Duck" gets thrown around here way too much, who's to say when someone has to fight someone else? There is a lot more that goes into making a fight, the promotional teams and money also plays a factor.

[Ray*]

The timetable of the AJ-Parker fight is absolutely relevant to our discussion. Your contention is that Hearn was offering Wilder to fight the winner of a fight that wasn't agreed upon for another whole month. Besides the fact that Parker was not promoted by Hearn, therefore Hearn had no standing to act as a promotor, or make promises on behalf of, Mr Parker.

Doesn’t matter how many times you try to sugarcoat it.

Fact was Wilder was offered a fight with Whyte in England for a career high payday for the fight to happen after he beats Bermane.

If he wins he fights the Joshua/Parker winner. Parker lost to Joshua and went on to fight whyte as per the option that was given to him.

Wilder turned that down to fight Ortiz for 2.1m around the same time as Joshua/Parker.. thus stopping us from seeing the undisputed fight in 2018....

Those are the facts.

[GGG Gloveking]

Lmao u dont seem to grasp basic English and arguing for the sake of arguing. He did not say Wilder has to fight Whyte to get to AJ. In fact he has said the opposite, go and watch some video interviews in which Hearn directly addresses this.

This is getting embarrassing now...

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.

[BoxingTrav]

*****Looks around it's December 19, not April 1. So this is a serious thread? Lol. Cats are seriously disturbed in here.

[GGG Gloveking]

Fact was Wilder was offered a fight with Whyte in England...If he wins he fights the Joshua/Parker winner...
Those are the facts.

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.