Just asking: how can Wilder fans who degrade Fury's win over Klitschko claim Ortiz as a big victory?

Klitschko was 39 years old when Fury beat him, and a reigning unified champ and lock for ATG as a two-time titlist with a combined 23 defenses. Yet Wilder fans like to degrade the victory and claim that he was "shot," or some such other nonsense. He had clearly lost a step, but he walked into the ring in Germany the best heavy in the world, and walked out the second best. A year and a half later he almost beat Joshua.

Enter Ortiz, who Wilder fans hold up as some sort of big victory. He was 38 years old officially, but some believe much older. He had a PEDS bust, a thin resume of post-40 Tony Thompson, and now-forgotten Bryant Jennings. Worst of all, he has a terrible blood pressure problem, and was only, barely, cleared the day before the fight. That is right! For those who don't remember, he almost couldn't even fight.

So isn't there a bit of hypocrisy in touting a sick, unaccomplished 38 year old and degrading an ATG 39 year old at the end of his legendary reign? I say there is no argument to be made. None.

Let's just have a vote on this and make this an official reference. For the sake of argument, no fence-sitting. Pick a win.

 

Facts

 

Thanks. Don't forget to vote.

 

Not only did Wlad almost beat Joshua, he lost largely because of bad corner advice after badly hurting AJ. They should have obviously told him to go for the finish because he was 40 and had already been put down and AJ was roided out of his mind and would possibly recover.
On top of that it was on a Matchroom show in London which means AJ was getting any close decision. The Klitschko corner was utterly moronic.

All things considered, Wlad would likely have KO'd Joshua in Germany if AJ had been in Tyson's place.

 

man aj fights nothing like fury. Aj nearly got beat as wlad could set up his 1-2 money punch.

Aj was square on, heavily muscled and gassing. He doesn’t have the tank or the speed of fury

2 years younger, in Germany, undefeated for years, an opponent there to be hit. Apples and oranges

 

Wlad was a bit over the hill and missing Steward's influence, but never let them go or put enough pressure on till it was too late. When you add in Fury was a big underdog and Wlad the dominant 10 year champion it doesn't really compare to Wilder's wins on Ortiz. Wilder looked poor in both those fights but that doesn't earn him any extra kudos for getting out of jail. The writing was on the wall in those fights, a wall Fury knocked over.

 

It's actually worse than that. Ortiz was only cleared literally moments before the fight, I distinctly remember the ring walks being delayed due to last minute checkups.

That said, I don't actually recall any Wilder fans saying it was a better win than Fury over Wlad. You gotta remember that this was early 2018, and Fury wouldn't make his comeback against Seferi for another 3 months. He wasn't really talked as much about back then, and all the discussions and arguments were around who out of Joshua and Wilder was #1. Instead Wilder fans would argue Ortiz was better, or as good a win as Joshua's over Wlad. For my money that has a little more merit due to Wlad's inactivity but was still wrong.

Luis Ortiz is a mid forties never has been with an image and reputation that's largely been manufactured by PBC and fans, rather than garnered in the ring. He has one decent win that has depreciated terribly thanks to Joyce and Rivas and he didn't in the slightest deserve the Wilder rematch. I'd like to see him beat an actual prime contender before he's considered one himself and I think Parker, Ruiz and Whyte all relegate the guy to gatekeeper status.

Like you said, absolutely no comparing him to an ATG.

 

It would be dumb to say the Ortiz win was anywhere near as good a win as the Wlad win. It would be beyond sack suckery to say it was a better win. That being said, the Wlad win wasn't some great win either. I'll just leave it at that. You and I already had this discussion.

 

Fury's win over Wlad is better, but neither are historic.

 

Never heard anyone do this. Furys win over wlad was very good not great. Wilders 2 wins over Ortiz are solid nothing more nothing less

 

People seem to think contextualizing either fight is "degrading" them.

Fury fought a Wlad who had just looked very mortal versus Bryant Jennings. It was one of the worst fights I've ever seen. They each landed like 100 punches. It was mostly a staring contest interrupted by jabs. Just awful.

Ortiz won almost every round in which he didn't taste the canvas versus Wilder. That's in both fights. It's the only time we've seen him tested at that level. He was old.

But also,

Wlad was the heavyweight torch bearer who Fury dethroned. It wasn't super competitive.

Ortiz had B level wins people just ignore, and we all should agree he looks like a good fighter. Wilder also fought him twice which was risky.

 

Allright. So we have established that the Wlad win "wasn't that good," but "it would be dumb to say that the Ortiz win was better."

So if the Ortiz win wasn't as good as a win that wasn't that good, then it was a poor win then?

Question 2: If Ortiz was a poor win, then what exactly is Wilder's win that ever made him a credible fighter?

 

Wilder's fans are the most biased in recent boxing memory, that's how.

 

It should be the other way around. I don't see people praise Wilder's win over Ortiz yet denigrate the Wlad win at all. Most people disparage Ortiz but praise the Wlad win. Which is fair, it is a better win, but I don't get the point of this thread I literally never see anyone say the Ortiz win is better.

 

You have only 26 posts, so unless you are an alias, what are you even talking about?

Ortiz is the win that Wilder fans try to point to as legitimizing and prestigious. If you have been around in another incarnation, you should know that.