At the time I was already calling Stiverne a fraud, and had been consistent on that front ever since he was outboxed for nine rounds by old ass Ray Austin before lucking out and catching the geezer as he got tired. I also never rated Arreola, not one jot, so when Stiverne beat him twice and everyone got their knickers in a twist over it, like "ooh, maybe Stiverne really is good!" I was like...nope.
Haha, that's fair enough. My point was, I can't criticize Wilder for fight 1, Stiverne was the belt holder and his rating was reflective of the time period
That's a fair point. Judging Wilder in hindsight I don't know if he would have ever beaten someone like Tony Thompson. Very unlikely I imagine.
Most heavyweight contenders have **** resumes but it doesn't mean they're all ****. Ortiz is still one of the most technically sound heavyweights we've seen in recent years and he's a damn good counter-puncher for a geriatric. Lets not pretend he was a bum just because his resume isn't filled with names we recognize. That's not how boxing works.
He was okay. No more technically sound than most Cubans with a lot of international amateur experience (which is a dime a dozen boast among Cubans). He was a poor man's Odlanier Solis.
top of that his last fight the opponent took a blatant dive, How many more of those were on his record coming up?
Isn't Ortiz's win over Jennings better than anything Solis did in his entire professional career? You must be talking about amateur boxing, because in the professional ranks Solis is remembered as a fatass who couldn't even beat an old Tony Thompson. What makes Ortiz a poor man's Solis?
Weren't you the one just talking about how you can't judge someone's form just from their accomplishments on paper? Solis was a better amateur boxer and his form at his best was better than King Kong's even though he also didn't achieve diddly squat.
Problem is, the quality of opposition really does matter. This isn't darts or golf where you play your own game and your opponent is either better or they're not... That's not how boxing works - the better your opponent is, the harder it is to produce your best, the harder it is to keep technique tidy, the harder it is to look impressive. Ortiz having a resume full of bums actually does make it hard to rate him - plenty of fighters can look well composed and look like excellent counter punchers against highly predictable plodders... You can't rate a guy on that basis, that's not how boxing works. Most heavyweight contenders have resumes with multiple gatekeepers and even another contender or two... Ortiz has basically only Jennings at gatekeeper level and Jennings performance was shocking in that fight. Ortiz isn't a contender - he never was and never will be. Attempting to paint him as a true contender is something only a Wilder fanboi would do to boost Deontay's resume - that ain't how boxing works, you don't get to call a guy a contender just because it's convenient, they have to prove it.
Wilder is an ATG Any man that has managed a W against the irresistible force that is A force Audley Harrison is worthy of high praise.
Stevern was not top 5. His only achievement was knocking out Arreola. At the time Chris really deteorated and had close fights with club fighter like Kassi or Kauffman.
To be fair, I said borderline top 5. But to be more exact: PBO rating was #6 Ring rating was #3 TBRB rating was #4 Now I realise many of us have our own personal rankings, but that's why I said borderline top 5.
