An unbiased look at Wilder’s top 10 opponents

On a bad decision, but yeah. Bully for Briggs.

 

That's the crux of the argument Wilder fans intentionally gloss over. You can look at their alphabet reigns and try and compare defenses strictly within those parameters, but the fact is that Vitali showed us he could compete with an ATG, whereas Wilder hasn't. Also, Vitali was briefly The Ring's champion, another accolade Wilder couldn't sniff.

 

HW boxing has always been garbage. People get excited by competitive fights.

 

Meh.

Ali-Frazier-Forman-Norton garbage?

Holyfield-Bowe garbage?

There are good fights in there.

 

Ali-Frazier-Norton-Foreman embellished each other by beating each other. Had just one man stood above the other then their age would not be so "golden".

 

John McDermott.

The main difference is that AJs top 10 opponents are far ****ing better.

 

Briggs was a lineal champion in 1997 and he fought Vitali in 2010. Let’s be clear Vitali had a great fight with Lennox Lewis and Wilder had 2 great fights with Fury. Championship reigns for both guys are pretty even whether want to admit it or not. Wlad had worst losses but he consistently fought fought the top 1-3 contenders for a 10+ year reign. That’s where he separates himself from Vitali, AJ and even Fury. AJ can elevate himself by beating Usyk and then Fury and even Wilder if he continues to fight. Fury can do the same by beating AJ and Usyk. Usyk can elevate himself to top 7 level by defeating AJ in the rematch and Fury after with a couple of filler defenses.

 

this hence why i have little time for boxing
ifc is the flag bearer of meaningful competitive fights
boxing and the greedy fighters just love to shyte all over the fans
whilst always claiming its for the fans
gtfoh

 

Of course not, as Vitali without a shadow of a doubt has a better resume as Wilder, with the likes of Gomez, Peter, Johnson, Sanders, Hide, Williams, Solis, Norris, Donald etc. It's on a completely different level. Also the dominance in the vast majority of those fights tells you the level difference.

 

Norton gave dominant champion Holmes the toughest fight of his career.
Foreman became undisputed 20 years after his prime in a different era.
They were special.

 

Ali’s career alone proves the ridiculousness of this. Ali did stand above in the 60s but was far from dominant in the 70s. And while 60s wasn’t a great era, It was pretty decent.

 

Carl Williams and Tim Witherspoon did. Holmes beat Norton cleanly.

60s was not a good era.

 

I think we had a similar conversation about this and you acknowledged you didn’t see most of the contenders from 60s actually fight, so your post seems more drivel than actual opinion.

 

No, you have memory related issues.