How Long Does Wilder Last, As An 80 's Belt Holder?

That’s a happier ending than Dokes, Tate, Page and co ever saw..

 

About as long as it takes to tie his boot laces.

 

Holmes-Witherspoon, Holmes-Cooney, Weaver-Coetzee.

 

The 80s were such that you couldn't go more than 2 fights (as champion) without a "stern" challenge. The moment you became champion your schedule and opponents became much "harder".

On any given night Wilder's next opponent could be any one from Cooney, Page, Tate, Coetzee, Weaver, Witherspoon, Thomas, Dokes, Smith, Bruno, Tubbs, Berbick, Tucker, Williams, Holmes or Tyson depending what part of the decade he was active.

The best fighter Wilder has beaten to date is Luis Ortiz who I believe would have been a middle of the pack 80s fighter; ahead of guys like David Bey, Snipes, John Tate but behind guys like Tim Witherspoon and Pinklon Thomas. And well behind Holmes and Tyson.

I rooted for Wilder in the Beijing Olympics. Was hoping he'd accomplish Gold but was happy to see him get a medal. He turned pro in November 2008 and to my disappointment his handlers waited until January 2015 for him to challenge for his first title. The timing was conveniently after Vitaly Klitschko retired, probably just a coincidence but either way it was clear that he needed a longer time than most Heavyweight champions in the past needed to develop.

The larger point is that had he become a champion in the 80s he wouldn't have been given such a light schedule (like the one he had) especially with the boxing politics of the day.

Don King (love him or hate him) controlled HW boxing during the 80s, his tactic of getting options on fighters meant that he was free to make difficult fights for his fighters because the outcome wouldn't affect his business.

So while Wilder on an individual basis may have what it takes to be favored over a Smith, Weaver or Bruno. Fighting them consecutively is a different story. For that reason, I honestly can't see Wilder holding on to that belt for longer the 2-3 fights at most because he wouldn't be able to cherry pick over-matched opponents in succession. His right hand may end things at any time, but I don't think he can handle the schedule. Any one of those guys on a good night beats him.

 

So Holmes was floored by Snipes who hit harder than Fury. Wilder suffered two ko losses and could not fight. In the vast majority of matches he waited for the other to be old when he was in his prime and that guy was never good to begin with. Arreola even at this best ( which he was not for Wilder was unranked at the time . Please Stop comparing the guys Holmes fought to the guys Wilder fought. Even the tier two guys aside from Fury are better and Fury beat a 39 year old man and who else besides Wilder?

 

He'd fare well, but I don't see him competing with Holmes or Tyson later.

 

Wilder would have to prove he could live with Coetzee, Weaver, Dokes, Page, Smith and Witherspoon. I think wilder takes Tubbs but the rest of those guys are all better than the men Wilder knocked out. So he would have to prove it.

 

Yes and I don't think he'd run through them all. That said, he could hold one belt for some time like he did in reality, just not for this long. Wilder faced probably the weakest competition ever among long reign belt champions, but he's good enough to beat some of these 1980s guys. I'd certainly bet on him over Smith for example.

 

It’s a good run without a title involved. And of course there never should have been a title involved. The fact that it was a recognised “title run” actually cheapens those wins. Because it was not worthy.

Like you say, Wilder is good enough in theory to beat some of the 80s guys. But it is somewhat a leap of faith to say that. since this run of his was not as near to the elite of the division as the 1980s guys were with their own mumbo jumbo belts.

 

It's a waste of time because you are using it as a guise for Wilder's credibility. I care about actual contenders, not the politically motivated ones these organizations assign. The WBC has repeatedly gotten it wrong at heavyweight since Vitali vacated by not allowing Wladimir to fight for it; by letting Stiverne's association with Don King dictate his ascent up the ladder; by continuing their persistent Mexican bias via giving Arreola a career of shots he never earned; by allowing Wilder six "progress" defenses before taking on a legitimate contender; and by promoting Andy Ruiz to the #2 spot in their rankings, despite him never competing for a WBC belt and looking crappy in his last two fights. It's no secret, in my mind, that Ruiz's rating is due to his association with Alvarez, who Sulaiman is more than eager to please.

When you strip away the veil of alphabetism, Wilder's resume is essentially that of a good contender in a terrible era. He probably ends up as a top-5 guy of the immediate post-Klitschko era, and that's credible stuff given his limited skill set, but his persistent struggles with far lesser men show that he wouldn't last as long in the 80s.

 

He won 2 matches on of them was extremely close. 2-1 overall and boxing gives out two bronze medals.I agree Ortiz was 40 ( cubans say older ) and he hurt Wilder in the fight so he did not beat Oritz anywhere near his best. His handlers steered him away form competition until the Fury fight allowing for the hype of an American heavyweight beating old / non ring magazine ranked to fool some fans. I have never seen a more cherry picked record that got him to where he was.

 

With the skill level he's displayed? See Jeff Sims. He'd be relatively unknown.

 

Happy birthday Wilder!

 

Witherspoon, Thomas, Page, certainly Holmes all enbalm that clown. He can't fight a lick.