Youtube comments of iorekby (@iorekby).

  1. 1900
  2. 1200
  3. 825
  4. 529
  5. 377
  6. 202
  7. 153
  8. 151
  9. 147
  10. 109
  11. 87
  12. 80
  13. 67
  14. 65
  15. 65
  16. 65
  17. 62
  18. 62
  19. 61
  20. 61
  21. 60
  22. 58
  23. 58
  24. 54
  25. 51
  26. 50
  27. 49
  28. 46
  29. 43
  30. 40
  31. 38
  32. 37
  33. 37
  34. 37
  35. 36
  36. 36
  37. 35
  38. 34
  39. 33
  40. 33
  41. 31
  42. 30
  43. 30
  44. 30
  45. 29
  46. 29
  47. 29
  48. 28
  49. 27
  50. 27
  51. 27
  52. 27
  53. 26
  54. 25
  55. 24
  56. 23
  57. 23
  58. 23
  59. 22
  60. 22
  61. 22
  62. 22
  63. 21
  64. 21
  65. 21
  66. 21
  67. 20
  68. 20
  69. 20
  70. 20
  71. 20
  72. 20
  73. 19
  74. 19
  75. 19
  76. 18
  77. 18
  78. 17
  79. 17
  80. 17
  81. 17
  82. 17
  83. 16
  84. 16
  85. 16
  86. 15
  87. 15
  88. 15
  89. 15
  90. 14
  91.  @stevenkettering6493  Thats Gracie propaganda though. That's not based on any accurate information. It's a myth repeated ad nauseam by the BJJ community. I used to be part of that community so I'll break it down for you: Rorion Gracie is a very smart man. He has a law degree. When he came over to the US, he needed to market his families system. One way he did this was to jump on some research done by Law Enforcement Officers that suggested a lot of arrest situations (or fights as Rorion conveniently called them) ended up on the ground. Back in the 80's and early 90's, the only people recording actual altercations where Law Enforcement. This was not civilians fighting for their lives as that footage was incredibly rare at this time. Now, lets think about this for a second....What do LEO's have to do in an arrest situation? They have to ground a resisting suspect so they cannot flee. There's a world of difference between an LEO in an arrest situation and a civilian who does not have to apprehend a subject So, Rorion spins this like it's some hard fact, that all fights will end up on the ground because guess what, that's what his family mainly teaches you. The BJJ community buy this line, even though Rorion has completely misrepresented the data for marketing purposes. Always be wary of the data someone is providing you when they are trying to sell you something. I like BJJ, I did it for many years. But the whole 90% thing is a misrepresentation, and of course it will seem true to BJJ practitioners when all they do is... take fights to the ground.
    14
  92. 14
  93. 14
  94. 14
  95. 14
  96. 13
  97. 13
  98. 13
  99. 13
  100. 13
  101. 13
  102. 13
  103. 13
  104. 13
  105. 12
  106. 12
  107. 12
  108. 12
  109. 12
  110. 12
  111. 12
  112. 12
  113. 12
  114. 12
  115. 11
  116. 11
  117. 11
  118. 11
  119. 11
  120. 11
  121. 11
  122. 11
  123. 11
  124. 11
  125. 11
  126. 11
  127. 11
  128. 11
  129. 10
  130. 10
  131. 10
  132. 10
  133. 10
  134. 10
  135. 10
  136. 10
  137. 10
  138. 10
  139. 10
  140. 10
  141. 10
  142. 10
  143. 10
  144. 10
  145. 9
  146. 9
  147. 9
  148. 9
  149. 9
  150. 9
  151. 9
  152. 9
  153. 9
  154. 9
  155. 9
  156. 9
  157. 9
  158. 8
  159. 8
  160. 8
  161. 8
  162. 8
  163. 8
  164. 8
  165. 8
  166. 8
  167. 8
  168. 8
  169. 8
  170. 8
  171. 8
  172. 7
  173. 7
  174. 7
  175. 7
  176. 7
  177. 7
  178. 7
  179. 7
  180. 7
  181. A lot of people miss a point Aaron glosses over here: Back in the day, you had to be really fucking smart to be a computer or software engineer. It was really hard and forget about getting a job without a) being a bonfide computer genius and /or b) having a top notch CS degree. Programmers back in the 80s and 90s used to be like medical doctors: very smart, highly educated and only a small number of people were actually able to do it. Post C, and with so many front end jobs, the entry level did indeed become lower to become a developer. It was a race to the bottom. Consequently, we now have a huge amount of people working professionally as "software developers" who are quite frankly appalling at coding. Just look at GitHub sometime, see how many projects actually have meaningful numbers of forks. It's not a lot. It's less than 10% of all the projects on there. That can mean many things, but one thing it might likely mean is that 90% of code on GitHub isn't particularly good or useful. There's a lot of dogsh!t code and dogsh!t coders out there today. It creates a vicious cycle: companies need to hire more developers because so many of their developers are subpar, meaning they need more people at keyboards hacking out bad code to make something work. The tech industry also condones bad code. The well worn mantra still holds true: Badly written software that is delivered on time is better than good software that is late. In other words, tech companies are often ambivalent about bad coding. Tl;DR Most code and coders are dogsh!t today as entry barriers in to tech are so low, and because tech companies don't care about selling badly coded software as they can and do make money doing this. While for now it's good because it means any Joe 6-pack can become a developer, we're eventually going to go back to the days when computer/software engineers were fairly elite. Many of the Joe 6 pack coders will be put out of a job, and only the people maintaining things like 5th gen languages, Deep Learning systems or NoCode solutions will have jobs.
    7
  182. 7
  183. 7
  184. 7
  185. 7
  186. 7
  187. 7
  188. 7
  189. 7
  190. 7
  191. 7
  192. 7
  193. 7
  194. 7
  195. 7
  196. 6
  197. 6
  198. 6
  199. 6
  200. 6
  201. 6
  202. 6
  203. 6
  204. 6
  205. 6
  206. 6
  207. 6
  208. 6
  209. 6
  210. 6
  211. 6
  212. 6
  213. 6
  214. 6
  215. 6
  216. 6
  217. 6
  218. 6
  219. 6
  220. 6
  221. 6
  222. 6
  223. 6
  224. 6
  225. 6
  226. 6
  227. 6
  228. 6
  229. 6
  230. 6
  231. 6
  232. 5
  233. 5
  234. 5
  235. 5
  236. 5
  237. 5
  238. 5
  239. 5
  240. 5
  241. 5
  242. 5
  243. 5
  244. 5
  245. 5
  246. 5
  247. 5
  248. 5
  249. 5
  250. 5
  251. 5
  252. 5
  253. 5
  254. 5
  255. 5
  256. 5
  257. 5
  258. 5
  259. 5
  260. 5
  261. 5
  262. 5
  263. 5
  264. 5
  265. 5
  266. 5
  267. 5
  268. 5
  269. 5
  270. 5
  271. 5
  272. 5
  273. 4
  274. 4
  275. 4
  276. 4
  277. 4
  278. 4
  279. 4
  280. 4
  281. 4
  282. 4
  283. 4
  284. 4
  285. 4
  286. 4
  287. 4
  288. 4
  289. 4
  290. 4
  291. 4
  292. 4
  293. 4
  294. 4
  295. 4
  296. 4
  297. 4
  298. 4
  299. 4
  300. 4
  301. 4
  302. 4
  303. 4
  304. 4
  305. 4
  306. 4
  307. 4
  308. 4
  309. 4
  310. 4
  311. 4
  312. 4
  313. 4
  314. 4
  315. 4
  316. 4
  317. 4
  318. 4
  319. 4
  320. 4
  321. 4
  322. 4
  323. 4
  324. 4
  325. 4
  326. 4
  327. 4
  328. 4
  329. 4
  330. 4
  331. 4
  332. 4
  333. 4
  334. 4
  335. 4
  336. 4
  337. 4
  338. 4
  339. 4
  340. 4
  341. 4
  342. 4
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. Except that this guys assessment of Brexit is completely ridiculous. First the media was split; some were pro remain and some pro leave. Secondly, there was a hold host of complex reasons voted remain or leave. For example, I''m from Northern Ireland. Many people here were worried about the Irish border situation and security issues around paramilitaries. That's why most of us voted remain. Nothing to do with being "woke". Many people in Northern Ireland also work in the Irish Republic, and anything that would potentially make their lives more difficult in terms of getting back/forth to work (which no one was able to state at the time of the referendum) was also a big reason people in NI voted remain. Other people I know in GB who voted remain would often say the same thing: We don't know what exactly we're going to get if we leave the EU. Basically, better the devil you know... stability was more important than sovereignty. Again, sweet FA to do with anything about race. Same way as on the leave side there were a lot of different reasons people who voted to leave did so. Very few people I know who voted Leave had explicitly racist motives. The point is this glib overview, presented here, is a reductionist perspective on what was a complex issue. You just can't summarise it as "virtue signallers vs anti-establishment patriots" simply because it makes one group sound better. It was far more complex than that, and people had a lot of reasons for voting the way they did that had nothing to do with the media telling them they were/were not racist.
    3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 3
  373. 3
  374. 3
  375. 3
  376. 3
  377. 3
  378. 3
  379. 3
  380. 3
  381. 3
  382. 3
  383. 3
  384. 3
  385. 3
  386. 3
  387. 3
  388. 3
  389. 3
  390. 3
  391. 3
  392. 3
  393. 3
  394. 3
  395. 3
  396. 3
  397. 3
  398. 3
  399. 3
  400. 3
  401. 3
  402. 3
  403. 3
  404. 3
  405. 3
  406. 3
  407. 3
  408. 3
  409. 3
  410. 3
  411. 3
  412. 3
  413. 3
  414. 3
  415. 3
  416. 3
  417. 3
  418. 3
  419. 3
  420. 3
  421. 3
  422. 3
  423. 3
  424. 3
  425. 3
  426. 3
  427. 3
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508.  @reasonerenlightened2456  You have simply given a very high level overview of this paradigm of yours but haven't given any minutiae on the detail. You mention LISP previously. When McCarthy created LISP he didn't just say "Here's a notation system for computers" He broke down the theory and steps of what he'd worked on and produced papers explaining his work: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.pdf Compare that brief paper to what you've provided. You've basically said "Get AIs to observe and replicate programmers". That's nothing really. It's not even a something that could be considered a model. It's just a very reductive analysis on what you perceive the problem to be, and you your paradigm to provide a solution is incredibly simplistic and bereft of any scientific or engineering detail. When asked for detail, you've resorted to childish name calling and questioning the intelligence of anyone who is skeptical of your overly simplistic interpretation of the problem and the supposed paradigm to offer a solution to the problem. The fact that you have responded with personal barbs rather than functional detail is not a good look. McCarthy didn't start calling people names because they asked for a white paper on LISP. If you want to aspire to be on the level of McCarthy, do the work McCarthy did. Write a white paper for peer review to show in detail the proposed paradigm. Stop hiding behind cheap debate tricks a high school student would be embarrassed to use and show you understand the problem and the domain space. You really haven't done that yet.
    2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564.  @HomoErectus311  HAHAHAHAAHA!!!!! World class today means nothing as the standard in the HW division today is absymal. Lets look at the legion of "legends" Wilder defended against and actually look at all the statistics, not the ones you choose to ignore: Molina: A guy who has been knocked out 8 times Arreola: Had only won 2 of his past 6 fights when he fought Wilder Washington: Only took up boxing aged 24! Breazeale: Only took up boxing at aged 23! Stiverne: One of the weakest HW belt holders in history. Was also TKO'd by a novice in having his 8th pro fight Spizka: Was knocked out in 2 rounds by Derek Chisora!!! Ortiz: Was Ancient when he fought Wilder and frankly has never done anything of note as an amateur (dude never even qualified for the Olympics) or professional. Also Wilder should've only had 7 defenses, he lost the 1st Fury fight in most peoples opinions. He only had 10 because of corruption in boxing and being protected. His own manager in 2015 said Wilder was not ready to face Wlad and would not be fighting him. This was after Wilder beat the bum Stiverene for the title. Not ready...after 31 pro fights and in his 7th year as a pro. Even Wilder's own manager didn't think he could beat anyone good who was in shape. Wilder's record is a joke, and it's a joke too about most combat sports athletes having 5 losses. That's just not true in boxing as everyone is scared of losing so all the top ranked guys avoid tough fights most of the time. Wilder has a joke of a record, was protected AF and anyone claiming he fought good fighters is either a casual or trolling. He fought terrible fighters in an mediocre era of boxing and avoided the best of his era until Fury destroyed him. He was a protected paper champion and boxing history will never judge him kindly.
    2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. 2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. Props to Wilder but let's fact check a few things here: 1) Wilder had been boxing 3 years when he went to the Olympics, not 1.5 years. You can see on multiple sources Wilder started boxing shortly after turning 20, which was in 2005. He fought in the Beijing Games in 2008. 2) He barely qualified for the Olympics. First, he was in the Pan Am qualifiers. At that time, the best 91kg fighters were European, none were in the Pan Ams. The Cubans didn't' have anyone decent in that division since Solis defected in 2006. Secondly, he only beat his Ecuadorian opponent on a *double count-back*. Under the old amateur system, that meant the bout was technically a draw, they had to count individual punches. They were still equal. It was basically a ref's decision at that time, which was little more than a coin flip. 3) He had an INSANELY kind draw in the Olympics. He beat just 2 boxers to win a bronze medal. The guys he was up against were not rated in the top 15 by the AIBA at the time. He fought a guy from Tunisia and a guy from Morocco, who once again, he drew with and it had to go to countback. 4) Russo was probably the only genuine world class amateur Wilder fought in his brief amateur career, and despite Russo only being 5'11.5 inches, he schooled Wilder. Wilder deserves huge respect for his accomplishments in such a short time as an amateur, but Joe is over-egging the pudding by claiming he beat this amazing amateurs in 1.5 years. That's not correct. It was 3 years, and by and large Wilder fought some experienced but very ordinary fighters to win his bronze medal. He also struggled to beat 2 of the opponents on the path to that medal, and if the coin flipped the other way he could've easily have not gotten a medal.
    1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. ​ @David-_-_-  I understand what shoot boxing is (I disagree with your definition slightly but anyways), but where I am disagreeing with you is that this style of shoot boxing would be sufficient against anyone beyond, respectfully, journeyman MMA fighters. Even if Tonon "builds on his striking" this is unlikely to bode well when he steps up. He's operating at a pretty low level in MMA at the moment, and in somewhere like ONE you can get away with that and even win a title. Look at Roger Gracie, he tried the exact same approach and trained with Renzo and Rillion for a time and those guys were all about "shoot boxing". It still didn't help Roger. When he stepped up against someone who was at a certain level of strikung his lack of striking skills were badly exposed. Shootboxing, even with Danaher, isn't going to get an elite BJJ fighter too far beyond low-level MMA. Top-level MMA guys today are good across the board. Being simply great at one thing and mediocre at everything else is not a recipe for top drawer MMA success. Like I said earlier if the plan is to keep the likes of Tonon and Ryan at low-level MMA, sure, they can get away with it. I do understand what you are saying, I am simply disagreeing with your faith that Shootboxing in 2021 is going to get those guys far. I'm not even talking about them developing elite striking skills either. I'm simply talking about a minimum viable amount of striking skills to fend off top drawer MMA fighters. I appreciate you disagree though, but if Tonon ever steps up to the likes of UFC then he'll be found out. This is exactly why he's fighting halfway around the world in ONE.
    1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760.  @troymcclure681  Yeah there was no money in fighting in the 70s. Oh wait thats right boxers literally earned millions for fights, even back then e.g. Ali and Frazier both got 2.5 million (adjusted for inflation) for their first fight. So, that's absolute nonsense for a start. And even at that, surely a "pure warrior" like Bruce Lee wouldn't do it just for money, right? You're not getting that's all just anecdotal evidence by either an unreliable narrator (e.g. Chuck and Gene built their careers in movies mainly due to association with Bruce) or simply stuff there exists zero proof of. Gene LeBell had an MMA fight in 1968, why didn't Bruce do the same? The bottom line here is you are believing highly biased testimony from sources with vested interests of things that have zero proof and are anecdotal. If you want to believe in fairy tales, go ahead, it's your life. But that is akin to the way a fundamentalist Christian believes the earth is 6000 years old of a fundamentalist Muslim believes that a flying horse took someone up to heaven or a Scientologist believes all that alien nonsense. That's the company you're in here. It's just your church is the church of Bruce Lee. He's your god and you worship him devoutly, and anyone who doesn't adhere to the fundamentalist doctrine you believe in (with no evidence) is committing a blasphemy. I'll say it again, the other guy isn't wrong about people like you and the more you say this stuff the more it simply shows exactly the kind of people they're talking about.
    1
  761.  @troymcclure681  Fact 1: Nonsense, as has been clearly shown: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Joe_Frazier_(3rd_meeting) You see boxer's getting paid purses of $4million+ and $2million+ for fights. The entire budget, which included Lee's salary for Way of the Dragon was only $130k. So, that's not a "fact" from you, it's delusional nonsense. Fact 2: One more time, unreliable narrator. LeBell only rose to prominence after working with Lee. And even at that, this is the same LeBell who claimed he easily put Lee in a Fireman's carry Lee was unable to escape from. So, what is it: We accept LeBell is an unreliable narrator OR we accept contradictory evidence from him i.e. "Bruce Lee was a martial arts fighter" but also "I beat him easily with a rudimentary wrestling hold". He cannot be both a good fighter and easily beaten. Fact 3: Again, unreliable narrator. Chuck Norris only had a movie career thanks to Lee. And at that, Chuck competed in semi-contact fights, not full contact fights. The final 2 paragraphs are laughable. They didn't have cameras... on a movie set 🙄 Do you have any idea how utterly moronic that sounds? And they didn\t have cameras to record fights back then?? And yet Gene LeBell, in 1968, had an MMA no holds barred match and they were able to record that (to say nothing of hundreds of martial arts fights and combat sports matches that were recorded in this era) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mER2BmNRA And I don't hate Bruce Lee, I really like his movies. He was a smart guy, and did a lot of Asian culture and cinema. He's a genuine movie icon. There's just no real proof he was a fighter. All that nonsense you've tried to present as "fact" is at best unreliable and highly contestable, and at worst just inane fan fiction. You can believe it if you want to, but once more: It simply shows the irrational, cultish church-like devotion to a god-like figure. I don't dislike Bruce Lee. I do, however, dislike delusional Bruce Lee fans who make the man out to be more than he was.
    1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. ​ @HomoErectus311  Nonsense. Not a single Top 10 HW right now has anything like 5 losses or close to it. Stop conflating all combat sports to make your spurious argument. This isn't MMA. Pro boxing has a very different culture. Go to the Ring or Boxrec rankings and find me a single Top 10 HW with 5 losses. If Wilder is such a supreme athlete how come he can only manage a 350lb bench press (modest for a guy his size) and routinely gasses in title fights? He gassed twice vs Fury and twice vs Ortiz and gassed against Molina too. Stop romanticizing the guy and talk facts. He fought a bunch of guys with terrible credentials. Fact. He avoided the Klitschkos and Haye. Fact. He was given a hard time by a fighter who has been KO'd 8 times as a pro. Fact. He defended his belt against a guy who only won 2 of his last 6 fights. Fact. He fought terrible fighters to go to the Olympics and still had to get 2 count-back decisions to win 2 crucial fights. Fact. He beat a terrible fighter to win the bronze medal with a 39-34 amateur record. Fact. He was dropped by a guy with a 22% KO rate and 17 losses on his record as a pro. Fact. He defended against Arreola when he was ranked the 43rd best HW in the world at the time . Fact. He defended against Duphanas when he was ranked 34th best HW in the world at the time . Fact. He fought Washington when he was ranked the 41st best HW in the world at the time . Fact His fight just before facing Stiverne for the WBC belt, he faced a guy who was ranked 194th in the world at the time . Fact. Don't talk to me about knowing boxing when you don't seem to have any sort of clue about Wilder's actual record quality. If you want to continue to talk address the facts, not your own romantic bias of some guy you are beatifying.
    1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1