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

[GGG Gloveking]

A computer program has nothing to do with the English language. Wilder can't press Ctrl-alt-delete and make Whyte go away.

So, what you're saying is that if I tell my son, "if you eat all your food then you can have dessert," I'm not putting a condition of compliance upon him?

[Phenom]

Whyte was/is ranked higher than Fury in the WBC rankings imbecile. The Wilder/Fury fight was already going ahead. There was no reason to make Fury mandatory.

There was no reason other than the reason of Whyte testing positive for anabolic steroids my god you're dunce


Whyte wasn't ranked higher than Fury because Whyte was removed from the rankings for testing positive for anabolic steroids do you understand that? Are you really ****** enough to think Whyte is being avoided so wilder can fight Fury?

[Robbie Barrett]

So, what you're saying is that if I tell my son, "if you eat all your food then you can have dessert," I'm not putting a condition of compliance upon him?

No. If you said "eat all your food or you won't get dessert" then it would be.

[Robbie Barrett]

There was no reason other than the reason of Whyte testing positive for anabolic steroids my god you're dunce


Whyte wasn't ranked higher than Fury because Whyte was removed from the rankings for testing positive for anabolic steroids do you understand that? Are you really ****** enough to think Whyte is being avoided so wilder can fight Fury?

If there was no investigation WBC would not have called a mandatory when they did. They were already allowing the Fury fight. The only reason to make Fury mandatory is to prevent a mandatory against somebody else this year. That somebody else being Whyte. So obvious you tard.

[Ray*]

I feel like you're lying to me on two things. Firstly, I found an article from November 2017, which has the WBC rankings. Stiverne was 1, Ortiz was 2, Pulev was 3, and Whyte was 4.



Secondly, you say that the Parker fight was already signed when the article I provided (October 2017) was published. I found this on Wiki. (I know, you're going to try to discredit the source without actually refuting it)

According to a Tweet from Parker on 15 November 2017, he was offered less than half of what was paid to Charles Martin when he defended his IBF title against Joshua.[5] The next day, Higgins told Fairfax Media that he and Hearn were still negotiating a deal that would benefit all parties.[6] Parker stated he was willing to drop to 35% of the net profit. Higgins made a final offer to Hearn on 22 November 2017. He told Sky Sports, "It's our final bottom line decision. We feel anything less is disrespectful or a disgrace."[7] On 29 November 2017, Hearn stated the fight could be confirmed within two weeks



So, at this point, your story sounds like, "Eddie wanted a tournament (even though one of the fights had not been signed) involving #1 (actually #4) ranked Dillian Whyte. And Eddie was making promises concerning a fighter who was not signed to him at the time."

Lie to you about ranking - So i got the info ranking wrong at the point of print, What does that have to do with Wilder fighting Whyte even as a number 4 ranked HW going by your article?

You claimed Hearn was using Whyte as a roadblock to a Joshua fight. We have provide you with quotes that proved otherwise, that Hearn was more into getting Whyte his shot/chance and matching up the winner v Joshua/Parker winner.

Fact is Joshua/Parker was made, it is irrevant how long that fight took to get made, the idea was Joshua/Parker in early 2018, Wilder/Whyte in early 2018 with the winner of both fight facing off at the end of 2018 in an undisputed fight.

By your logic Hearn never wanted Wilder to fight Joshua, wrong...He wanted the Whyte/Wilder winner to face off the Joshua/Parker winner.

[GGG Gloveking]

No. If you said "eat all your food or you won't get dessert" then it would be.

You're simply restating the conditional in the negative rather than the affirmative. There's no substantive change. You've added a negative connotation and made the statement an imperative rather than declarative.

If my son eats all his dinner, should he expect dessert?

If my son does not eat all his dinner, should he expect dessert?

[Robbie Barrett]

You're simply restating the conditional in the negative rather than the affirmative. There's no substantive change. You've added a negative connotation and made the statement an imperative rather than declarative.

If my son eats all his dinner, should he expect dessert?

If my son does not eat all his dinner, should he expect dessert?

What? You saying "eat all your food and you can have dessert" DOES NOT rule out that he can have dessert if he doesn't eat all his food. Damn you Americans can't understand English.

[GGG Gloveking]

What? You saying "eat all your food and you can have dessert" DOES NOT rule out that he can have dessert if he doesn't eat all his food. Damn you Americans can't understand English.

I notice you conveniently left out the word "if" when quoting my statement.

Please tell me you don't need me to define the word "if" for you...

[Robbie Barrett]

I notice you conveniently left out the word "if" when quoting my statement.

Please tell me you don't need me to define the word "if" for you...

"if you drive this route you can get to the store" does that mean you won't get to the store any other route?

I can't believe you're struggling with this.

[GGG Gloveking]

Lie to you about ranking - So i got the info ranking wrong at the point of print, What does that have to do with Wilder fighting Whyte even as a number 4 ranked HW going by your article?

You claimed Hearn was using Whyte as a roadblock to a Joshua fight. We have provide you with quotes that proved otherwise, that Hearn was more into getting Whyte his shot/chance and matching up the winner v Joshua/Parker winner.

Fact is Joshua/Parker was made, it is irrevant how long that fight took to get made, the idea was Joshua/Parker in early 2018, Wilder/Whyte in early 2018 with the winner of both fight facing off at the end of 2018 in an undisputed fight.

By your logic Hearn never wanted Wilder to fight Joshua, wrong...He wanted the Whyte/Wilder winner to face off the Joshua/Parker winner.

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.

You can either try to do verbal gymnastics, like your colleagues attempting to redefine the word "if", you can claim that Hearn is a clarvoyant and could see the future, or you can read these simple words and take them at face value...

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, who holds two of the division’s titles (Joseph Parker holds the fourth belt).

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