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

And Ortiz II.

 

So when did Wilder face someone like these alphabet champs? Wilder looked great against horrible competition, then he looked not so great against better, but still weak competition. The pinnacle of Wilder's career is beating old Ortiz who was nothing special and you're arguing that Wilder might be too much for Tyson.

Seriously, I've never seen such a fanboy on this board anf there are plenty of them here.

 

Good catch. Accidentally wrote Stiverne II.

 

No offense. But are you guys this dim?

They were alphabet champs because they all kept losing to each other.

Wilder would've fought to a number of alphabet champs if he'd lost his title to Duhaupas, Arreola, Ortiz like those guys back then did.

Mike Weaver was supposed to be an easy defense for Tate. He was a tuneup before Tate-Ali. Arum and Tate saw Weaver as an easy defense, and he was, until he scored a last round KO. Weaver had lost to EVERYONE.

Smith was a late sub for Tubbs when Spoon lost (or took a dive).

Tubbs was supposed to be an easy win for Page. Page beat Tubbs like five of the six times they fought as amateurs. Tubbs had impressed no one to that point. Then he huffed and puffed his way to a decision over an unmotivated Page. And then huffed and puffed his way to loss in his first defense.

Just like Andy Ruiz would've been a third-round late sub KO Win for Joshua if Joshua put him down for good.

Holmes fought Weaver. Holmes fought Spoon. Holmes fought Smith.

None of them were champs when he fought them. None of them won the title against him. None of them would've been champs, if anyone on the WBA side could MAKE A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE.

I Wilder lost like the 80s alphabet champs did, I'm sure he'd have a half-dozen champs on his resume. But Wilder KNOCKED THEM OUT instead of passing his belt around.

Is any of this sinking in? Succesfully defending your title IS A GOOD THING. It's not supposed to change hands every time a title fight is signed.

 

Er, I don't know whether the "you guys" was directed at me, but I'm not on some mission to protect the honor of the 80s alphabet champs of all people. My own view is that Wilder probably was as good or better than the alphabet champs, in part because he fights in an era where everyone has easy access to PEDs (but also because he's good.)

But I see the quality of Wilder's opponents to be relevant, considering that the alphabet champs at least competed with each other, however inconsistently.

 

One way to settle this is by looking at Ring ranked guys each of these people beat. It might hold some surprises for either side, but at least we'd get some ways toward a more objective picture.

 

You seem to feel since Wilder didn't lose to his challengers, then his challengers weren't good.

Whereas the 80s champs signed to fight guys who had lost to everyone, the champs lost to the guys who lost to everyone, and now you guys think they were all better than they were.

At that time, nobody thought it was awesome no WBA champs could successfully defend their titles.

Nobody thought it was awesome when they did, that guys like Quick Tillis went 15 rounds.

Larry Merchant would spend minutes after nearly all their title fighs wondering how if hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars couldn't motivate these guys, what could?

Frankly, I can't believe I'm on a message board 40 years later arguing with people who insist they were a great group of champs.

Holmes was a great champ. He'd fight them. Beat them. And move on. That's what Tate was supposed to do. That's what Dokes was supposed to do. That's what they were all supposed to do. But they were on drugs, not training, and basically didn't care much.

If nothing else, Wilder cares.

 

Ortiz and Stiverne (I) were definitely on the level of 80s titlists. Scott, Szpilka, Arreola and Breazeale were equal or better to Holmes’ garbage defenses.

 

You do know the WBC and WBA and IBF reached the heights they did back then ... and HBO basically matched up anyone the WBC and WBA ranked ... and even created a heavyweight unification series based on the org's ratings ... because no one followed the Ring ratings in the 1980s due to the Ring rating scandal. Right?

 

Nope. Was unaware of that. The 80s aren't really an era I spend much of my time on, which is why I've chimed in on pretty limited issues in this thread.

 

It's too bad Wilder didn't lose to all of them. Then maybe Deontay would be held in the same high regard as Mike Weaver is in classic.

 

Probably because the 'Ring Ratings scandal' happened in the 70s.

 

It's not about being champions, it's about notable wins. Exclude Wilder from the equation - who exactly Stiverne or Szpilka beat to call them any good? What makes Ortiz such a good win if he never faced anyone notable until Wilder?

It's really not about title defenses, it's about the competition faced. Calling Wilder a champion is already a questionable opinion (when did he face top tier competition before Fury?), but suggesting that his opponents would have great careers without him is just dishonest. We've seen Stiverne winning a belt and nobody (including you) wouldn't call him a champion before Wilder fight. He was a nobody who was lucky enough to get the belt.

Now, you're comparing Wilder's quality of competition to Mike Tyson and you say they are comparable... no, they aren't. Wilder's whole resume is beating Stiverne and old Ortiz - these top wins are extremely bad in historical terms. When he stepped up to the world level, he got dominated by Fury in trilogy.

 

Yes, I can just hear the HBO brass in late 1985: "Let's hold a tournament and crown one heavyweight champ."

"Whose ratings should we use?"

(Guy in the back chimes in) "How about Ring's ratings?"

"Well, they did so great with the ABC tournament in 1977. I've always wanted to be called and forced to testify before Congress. Somebody get this guy out of here."