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

[GGG Gloveking]

So you are wrong then, the link that you provide was when Joshua/Parker was locked in for March 2018.

Wilder was fighting Bermane in Nov 2017, the article was from october 2017.

So fight Whyte the number 1 guy from your organisation in March 2018 (He rather went on to fight Ortiz for 2.1m when he was offered more for the Whyte fight).

And if he beats Whyte he can face off against the Joshua/Parker winner.

So NO the condition aren't the way you tried to twist it.

The condition wasn't fight Whyte and get Joshua, the undisputed fight was laid up for us the fans perfectly.

Joshua/Parker was already made for March 2018, it was fight your number 1 guy at HW Whyte (wbc) and the winner of both fight can fight for the undisputed....Again Wow that any boxing fans would twist that to fit their own narratives.

Wilder fought Ortiz (In march 2018) instead for less pay than what he would have made fighting the number 1 guy at HW (Whyte).

Oh, ok. I think I see the angle you're trying to take. It's not actually...

Hearn told Fight Hub in a video posted on Tuesday that 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

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

...it's not that, it's Wilder-Whyte winner would face the winner of AJ-Parker...

There's only one problem I have with that angle. Back in October 2017, Parker had not signed with Matchroom. Therefore, Mr Hearn was in no position to make any guarantee or offer as it related to Mr Parker.

[Robbie Barrett]

WBC made Whyte pop dirty for anabolic steroids right??

I don't understand your ****** question tbh.

The WBC made Fury mandatory to prevent Whyte getting his shot this year.

[Phenom]

Its not semantics your literally getting quotes from Wilder who says that Hearn said those things, stop spreading misinformation

[GGG Gloveking]

I did, he doesnt say Wilder has to fight Whyte to get to AJ

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?

[Robbie Barrett]

Again. He doesn't say Wilder has to fight Whyte to get a Joshua fight. Is there something wrong with your understanding of the English language?

[Robbie Barrett]

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?

He's giving a scenario of what could happen. Not demanding it happens.

[Phenom]

I don't understand your ****** question tbh.

The WBC made Fury mandatory to prevent Whyte getting his shot this year.

WBC made fury mando because Whyte was being investigated for testing positive for anabolic steroids his interim title status was suspended pending the investigation

You're being ****** and I mean really really ****** if you think Whyte is being avoided so wilder can fight Fury in February same Whyte that got dropped by Rivas and went live and death in Saudi Arabia with the bun he fought

again that really ****** if that's the conclusion you came up with no disrespect

[Robbie Barrett]

WBC made fury mando because Whyte was being investigated for testing positive for anabolic steroids his interim title status was suspended pending the investigation

You're being ****** and I mean really really ****** if you think Whyte is being avoided so wilder can fight Fury in February same Whyte that got dropped by Rivas and went live and death in Saudi Arabia with the bun he fought

again that really ****** if that's the conclusion you came up with no disrespect

Why though? There was no need to make Fury mandatory. It was to prevent a mandatory being called this year.

[Ray*]

Oh, ok. I think I see the angle you're trying to take. It's not actually...


...it's not that, it's Wilder-Whyte winner would face the winner of AJ-Parker...

There's only one problem I have with that angle. Back in October 2017, Parker had not signed with Matchroom. Therefore, Mr Hearn was in no position to make any guarantee or offer as it related to Mr Parker.

That is the exact angle that Hearn spoke about, everyone and their mother knew Wilder would beat Bermane.

The offer was fight your number 1 guy at HW (WBC's ranked Whyte in the UK - If i remember correctly).

Joshua/Parker was already locked in for March 2018.

The winner then face off (Obviously if Wilder and Joshua wins), Parker win or lose has a one fight compensation from Matchroom (Which he used against Whyte).

So nothing wrong with Hearn creating the pathway for us fans to witness the Undisputed HW championship for the end of 2018.

No where did he try to use Whyte (Who was his own man) and ranked number 1 by the WBC as a roadblock for the undisputed.

He offered Wilder TWO highest payday, Wilder ducked both and went on to fight Ortiz for 2.1M....Those are the facts NOT twisted logic that you tried to make out...

[GGG Gloveking]

Again no demand that he had to fight Whyte first. Just making stuff up. Hearn is Whyte's promoter too, he was trying to get Whyte a fight. Completely seperate to Joshua negotiations. It's pathetic how ****** some of you are.

There's no need to be disrespectful. I haven't insulted you, so please treat me with the same dignity and respect.

Hearn told Fight Hub in a video posted on Tuesday that 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

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

...maybe your interpretation is different, but when I read those, I read conditional statements. I'm old, and I haven't done any computer programming in decades, but when I did, we used if-then statements. If the "if" was never satisfied, then the "then" would never occur. My reading is that the first "if" for Wilder is beating Stiverne, with the "then" being a Whyte fight. Subsequently beating Whyte is then the "if", which needs to be satisfied before the "then", being a fight with AJ, can occur.

If Wilder>Stiverne, then Wilder+Whyte.

If Wilder>Whyte, then Wilder+AJ.

That's how I read this.