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

Yes, because I don't ask all of them to dominate the decade like you do with Wilder. Wilder is much more consistent than all of them, but it doesn't mean that he'd beat them all in a row. Not to mention that you implied that Wilder has a strong chance against Mike Tyson, which is nothing but a wishful thinking.

Why should I care about WBA/WBC ratings? Because you know that Wilder's competition doesn't look good by any world ranking...

 

Why are we assuming that Wilder would be immune to the 1980s social pressures that created the Lost Generation? 2010s Wilder was in a much healthier environment. Why doesn't 80s Wilder succumb to drugs and Don King's exploitation like almost all the others did?

Also, does he bring in time traveling strength and conditioning coaches?

 

Parker being better than Ortiz is a rather dubious claim.

For the record Povetkin failed a drug test twice which is why the Wilder fight never happened but people want to gloss over that anytime it's brought up. he popped dirty once when it initially scheduled, then he popped dirty again about a year later when he was supposed to fight stiverne in an eliminator. That's why the Washington fight happened if im remembering right.

Wilder asked Parker to fight him for unification and Parker chose Joshua instead.

The Whyte fight is a whole can of worms. The WBC couldn't make up their minds whether he was the #1 contender or Brezeale. Whyte refused to face Brezeale or Ortiz in eliminators but was happy to fight guys like Rivas or Chisora or Povetkin which were all very risky fights since he could have lost his ranking so it was a little hypocritical of him. And it did in fact turn out to be a mistake since Povetkin destroyed him and he had to bounce back. In many ways Whyte fits right in with the 80's alphabet guys.

Anyways, revisiting resumes aside, the bottom line is while Wilder only has 2 world level wins and the rest of his defenses were mostly mediocre opponents, he wasn't losing the title immediately or going on drug benders like the alphabet guys. He didn't lose to scrubs or last minute replacements, in fact his only losses are to Fury who people seem to think is a h2h top 10 material (myself included). So yes, Wilder's resume is not particularly amazing, he has proven to be more disciplined and consistent than the vast majority of them.

 

Let's assume he isn't, but he's certainly better than anyone else on Wilder's resume.

I don't say that it's Wilder's fault that he didn't face them - I just state the fact that we don't know how Wilder would have done against world class competition.

That's definitely true - the question is whether he'd be as consistent against better competition. I suspect not, but you can have different opinion.

 

Pretty much on par with any win during Larry Holmes’ title reign. Better than anyone Marciano beat.

And the draw with Fury.

 

If you put any stock in h2h ability and what we actually see in his matches, we do have some idea. Not just the Ortiz fight but the entire Fury trilogy. He showed more heart, determination, and ferocity than the vast majority of the alphabet boys. And against quite the opponent I might add, Fury would be a major problem for almost anyone in history. Scoring 4 knockdowns and going out on his shield in 2 of the best HW wars in history isn't bad and gives me some confidence in Wilder's chances against guys who consistently showed up out of shape, on and off drugs, and lacking enthusiasm and effort even in some of their most important matches.

I know a lot of these qualities are intangibles/x factors, but they can't be overlooked if we're literally asking how wilder does when fighting them.

Maybe, maybe not. I think just based on his discipline, effort, and overall ability and athleticism he'd do better than the majority of them if his career started in 1980. Certainly better than guys like Smith, Bruno, or Douglas who were 1 hit wonders for 1 night and the majority of the rest of their careers were dumpster fires.

I'm not saying wilder would have a long Joe Louis like reign either, at some point he loses. But I think he'd separate himself from many of those guys. They had raw talent but were so undisciplined and inconsistent.

 

I enjoy debating you. But like I said previously, you’re too hung up on the stats.

Yes, Wilder has great stats.

He held a title for a long time.

He’s a very dangerous fighter due to his athleticism and his unpredictability. But he’s not a great fighter. Like others have noted, he won his title from Stiverne, before defending his title just a few times per year, against mostly low level competition, many of whom he struggled with. When you break things down, it’s nothing great.

You say that Thomas couldn’t win a belt and keep it. And that’s true. But again, what does that mean?

It doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have beaten Wilder.

It doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have beaten Stiverne and every other guy who Wilder fought before losing to Fury.

Let me ask you this:

What if Wilder had fought Tyson Fury in his first defence after he’d beaten Stiverne?

Then what?

His 5 year title reign would never have existed.

You say that Thomas couldn’t last a round with Morrison.

How do you know if Wilder could have done better?

Yes, Wilder is more professional and has better longevity than what Thomas did. But that doesn’t mean that he was LEVELS above as a fighter.

I never see you do breakdowns.

I never see you look at match ups based upon how the two guys may have matched up stylistically.

Stop comparing stats. Because if each fighter swapped timelines, the stats could well have looked very differently.

Now considering that Wilder has literally struggled with low level HW’s, you’d have to be a fool to believe with certainty that he could have reigned the 80’s for the majority of the decade.

Regarding Mike Tyson, I’ve already told you that you’re kidding yourself.

A 1987 version of Mike Tyson would have destroyed any version of Deontay Wilder. It would have been a horrible stylistic match up for him.

The most realistic scenario, is that Wilder would have had mixed success in the decade. He’d have beaten some guys and lost to some guys.

Although the 80’s HW’s don’t have impressive stats, and they were inconsistent, again, in terms of ability, they were better than almost all of Wilder’s opponents.

 

I generally assume that if an athlete is disciplined in their era, they'd be disciplined in another era. Unless of course there is some major context to make note of.

For instance, Tyson was basically a ticking time bomb and only held it together because of the strict disciplinarian tactics and philosophical mumbo jumbo of Cus D Amato. Without a solid team of experts around him, even with all that talent, Tyson might end up just being another Dokes or Baer, undisciplined tragedy of what could have been.

Wilder might be hard headed according to Mark Breland but he busts his ass in the gym and doesn't have to be told to take his opponents seriously and keep the partying to a minimum. That is simply a fact. He doesn't balloon up to 240+ and there hasn't even been the slightest of rumors of him being arrested or experimenting with drugs either. So no, I don't believe Wilder crumbles to the 80's social pressures.

You could argue things are worse in some ways today since people love making excuses for being lazy, unmotivated, drug addicts. They hand out mental health diagnosises like cereal box toys. Influencers and celebrities get called "brave" for being dysfunctional, toxic and annoying. There is fat acceptance, a huge rise in kids growing up in broken homes, kids taking themselves out because of "online bullying", etc. statistically, Wilder is quite the exception given all that. He could have easily stuck with basketball if he was yet another POS who didn't take care of his kids and just chased fame and money.

 

More nonsense.

What kind of logic is this?

Wilder floored Tyson and retained his title?

Almost everybody thinks that Fury was robbed. But even if he wasn’t, again, what do you get from these meaningless comparisons?

Wilder knocked down Fury, got a draw, and he had a title reign.

The 80’s HW’s didn’t.

And?

To you, that’s evidence that Wilder was better than all of them?

Ridiculous.

There’s no reason why Thomas etc, couldn’t have replicated Wilder’s title reign and beaten Molina, Stiverne and Scott etc.

There’s nothing amazing about holding a title for 5 years, when:

1. It was won from Bermane Stiverne.

2. It was only defended twice per year.

3. The defences were against B and C level opponents.

 

Couple of things. First, some of your ratings are CLEARLY wrong. Page wasn't #2 when he fought Coetzee. He'd lost to the #7 David Bey the fight before he faced Coetzee. Bey was supposed to fight Coetzee. But he didn't want to fight in South Africa. So Page went.

There are 12 months in a year. Don't just depend on the first Ring ratings of a year.

Second, take one step back and look what you wrote.

You're comparing an era where MIKE WEAVER (at 21-9) is the #1 rated RING fighter. Leon Spinks (at 8-2-2) was #3 ... in the RING ratings! Coming off a draw with Eddie "The Animal" Lopez.

Weaver had lost to EVERYONE. It wasn't a good era.

You're comparing an era with Wlad, Wilder, Fury, Joshua and now Usyk ... with an era where Mike Weaver was #1 and Leon Spinks was #3. Hell, they even had Marty Monroe at #6.

You could cut the TODAY's Ring ratings in half, lop off Fury, Usyk, Joshua, Wilder, Whyte ... And rate Parker and Ruiz and Ortiz and Hunter in the top four ... and it would be much better.

Keep in mind ... all Ring #1 vs. #2 matchups or #2 vs. #4 matchups are not the same.

Some eras have Muhammad Ali as the #1 contender. Some eras have Mike Weaver #1.

Some eras a handful of top guys at the the very top, like we do now. Some only have one (Holmes) like we did then.

Where would you rate 1981 (21-9) Mike Weaver among today's top 10? Around where Oscar Rivas is? Or would you put Joyce who is currently #10 ahead of him?

Or would you put Mike Weaver at 21-9 at #1 just behind Fury?

C'mon. Wake up.

 

In an era where Mike Weaver was rated #1 and Leon Spinks was rated #3 and Marty Monroe was #6 by RING ... I think they'd have actually been rated by Ring.

Who would you pick Marty Monroe to beat out of that group?

Or would you rank Marty Monroe #6 right now in the current ratings, just behind Joseph Parker?