Luis Ortiz aka the Fake Boogeyman

Well, its title tells me that someone has a particular angle on Luis Ortiz and that they're very keen to push it. It might appeal to those who share that angle and the desire to push it.

I've never touted Ortiz as a boogerman, nor have I noticed him being touted as such to an excessive (Erislandy Lara) degree, so it doesn't appeal to me. There are only so many YouTube videos a man can watch in his life. I feel that I already know enough about Luis Ortiz (of whom I'm not a particular fan).

Being punched in the head by a guy who hits very hard will do something to your legs. If Ortiz threw less in 10 rounds than he usually might've, could that be because he had a puncher in front of him whose power he was aware of? Is it permitted to be thoughtful in preparing our arguments, or is pure rhetoric the order of the day?

When had anyone ever been able to offer Ortiz the resistance Wilder did, by hurting him badly in the middle rounds, by surviving his onslaught and then coming back with a rally of his own? When had Ortiz ever been taken into the 10th round by a guy who was offering such resistance?

The second time, he was looking quite comfortable in the 7th, still pressing carefully forward, still landing sharp counters, still winning the round and blocking/slipping punches right in front of Wilder with impunity, even taunting him a little, until a very well timed and leveraged shot caught him on the button. I'd go as far as to suggest that many were becoming increasingly confident of an upset right up until the very blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment which ended the fight; I'd wager yet that you were among them, though you may not be inclined to admit as much.

As I just observed, your position (i.e. that those two years had taken a particular toll on Luis' performance level) is not supported by his performances in either Wilder bout.

I'm not interested in speculation about ages. I cannot reasonably claim to know for sure whether Ortiz' official age is a deception, or what his 'real age' is. Nor can you, unless you are privvy to information that the vast majority of us cannot access.

Well, he was in typical Tony Thompson shape. I reckon he could have given more of an account of himself against other decent names at heavyweight than he gave against Ortiz. And if he was so incapable, I'm not sure that he'd have hung in as long as he did. That was quite a beating he endured, rising from the canvas on more than one occasion (and still gamely attempting to rise when the bout was waved off).

I hate to have to repeat myself, but I feel compelled to remind you of what I actually said;

Ah, yes. The magical two years that always seems to count most when somebody somewhere has a particular angle to push.

The crushing, career-punctuating nature of Thompson's defeat couldn't possibly have anything to do with the perceptible skill differential between Ortiz and both Pulev and Takam.

I wasn't comparing them directly or specifically. There was no triangle theory per se, merely an observation regarding a man's general capability within the twilight of his career.

Again, I'm not comparing them so much as stating that the ability to go 12 with, and take rounds from, the reigning lineal king is suggestive of a general level of capability.

Thank you for telling me something I'd never heard before. Levels also make fights – style alone isn't going to make you competitive with Wladimir Klitschko if you aren't on a high enough level to impose your style and strategy to some significant degree.

That's the opinion of some, and others would dispute it. It's a whole other argument, however – you have enough on your plate just trying to convince me that Ortiz was too infirm to be taken seriously.

But you just said it was about styles. Better to pick an angle and run with it than just throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks.

Still more for that wall. Everyone's got problems, life's full of them. Maybe Bryant Jennings had problems of his own which weren't widely documented because he's not a celebrity.

These offhand rhetorical denunciations are not doing much to dispel my suspicion that your argument is built largely around some kind of strong predisposition.

And again, I'm not comparing them so much as stating that the ability to go 12 with, and take rounds from, the reigning lineal king is suggestive of a general level of capability. If you didn't repeat yourself, I wouldn't have had to.

This is not a strong argument. A guy doesn't become worthless because he lost one fight to the reigning lineal king, in which he acquitted himself well, surpassed general expectations and won a number of rounds while comfortably lasting the distance. If anything, Jennings' stock (and thus his value to boxers not named Wladimir Klitschko) went up.

And why should this have any inordinate bearing? Is the fact that he has no wins over undefeated fighters tantamount to being incapable of beating undefeated fighters? That would be a dubious contention. If he'd fought Jennings prior to Wlad's decision victory over Jennings, would Jennings' magical undefeatedness have made him Kryptonite for Ortiz?

Not really. I just poked a hole in that argument, but I could enlarge it by adding that, say, Bermane Stiverne's victories over Brad Gregory and Kertson Manswell didn't make his résumé particularly stronger than Ortiz', nor did they make him any more effective against Wilder than Ortiz (considerably less so, in fact, notwithstanding the durability Bermane demonstrated in the first encounter).

Now, that's the one somewhat compelling point I got from your post. Szpilka did not show that he could hurt Wilder, though, and Ortiz did. Ortiz provided the much sterner test overall demonstrated a wider range of ability. If Szpilka and Ortiz had fought, whose class do you suppose would have emphatically told?


If you seek further extensive discourse, you'll need more considered (and less rhetorical) arguments to maintain my interest. Otherwise, you'll likelier share a fate with Ra's Al-Ghul.

 

Have that many been looking to fight him

 

I bought into the hype, and even with the losses, he is still actually a good boxer. Has some skills, southpaw, 6'4, and some good power. I'd like to see him fight other top 10's still like Parker, Ruiz, Whyte etc.

 

And repeating the same rhetorical talking points over and over again isn't going to strengthen yours any.

Guess we're both plum out of luck so far as the other is concerned. Looks like we'll have to deal with a difference of opinion. Think you can manage that?