An unbiased look at Wilder’s top 10 opponents

That and context... Wilder really struggled to connect with Szpilka's glassy chin - and Szpilka's movement ain't exactly 4d chess, either. When you're a fighter that relies on connecting something big to win 99% of your fights (which Wilder most definitely is) it's a pretty big problem if you're struggling to connect with a dude that's nothing special defensively.

 

So his top 5 consists of two people, and one of them beat him all 3 times they fought?

Ortiz is by far Wilders best win, and he was as old as Wlad (rumoured to be even older) but without a fraction of the accomplishments.

That 25-1 fringe contender would be considered Wilders third best opponent in his 40+ fight 13 year career.

 

OK we are not that far off then. I guess its how you measure it. I understand that rankings are subjective and also styles make fights and different fighters sometimes fightt down to their level of competition. I completely see the point in also beating someone who is ranked 1-3 being held in higher regard as opposed to 4-10. But for myself, fighting guys who are considered in the top ten heavyweights in the world holds weight. This isn't bashing anyone either I'm not trying to prop up Joshua, Wilder, Whyte, Parker etc

 

Your mental gymnastics is special.
You've been completely dominated here with your nonsense.
Wilder and Fury have weak resumes especially Wilder.
The bending of reality to dismiss Joshua's CLEARLY better resume is pathetic.
Wilder is the biggest con in the last 10 years and utter casuals like you have swallowed all of ESPN's bollocks about the "Hardest Puncher Ever" It's all nonsense. Let's see him fight the other top 10 guys then. I reckon he can't land on people like Usyk and I think he gets starched by others. We will never know. He fought an old age pensioner (Who's also not fought a live body) and an out of shape crack head who literally rolled of his sofa to fight him. Fury's chin was considered average before the Wilder fights as he had been wobbled and dropped by a Cruiser FFS. Now both fighters are both wildly overrated on here despite paper thin resumes.

 

I give Whyte very little credit for beating Povetkin and in the same manner wins over ancient Pulevs and Wlads are disappointing for me as well. It's not that anybody can do that, hell no, but I have a much harsher criteria for men purporting to be the top of the top.

Agreed on your assesment of Szpilka.

 

Unbeaten doesn't mean **** when you fight bums.

Ortiz's only half-decent win is Jennings.

 

I had Lewis and Vitali much closer, but either way it was a shame it didn't continue one way or the other - and despite Lewis being past his best, it's definitely a huge plus point on Vitalis resume despite the outcome.

The example of Chisora isn't as impressive, but it does highlight that he's better than a lot of people were giving him credit for.

The punch stats don't tell the whole story - it was a comfortable outclassing by the unfit and rusty fighter...
The draw card is just about justifiable. I can't get there without being quite generous to Wilder, but I'm okay with that one.
The problem is the card that's wide for Wilder - that card is something no self-respecting boxing fan should be willing to accept.

Whilst true, Wilder only really came close to knocking Fury out in #1 when he was in poor condition - getting caught off balance and KD'ed isnt something that new to Fury.

Whilst yes, it's a subjective decision to not call that a KO (it's a 50/50 call IMHO), it's also potentially telling that Fury showed much less fear/respect for Wilder's power in #2 and #3, isn't it?

FWIW, that call being a 50/50 is the only way I can call that fight a draw...
Once the referee's decision is made, it's a clear Fury win on the card (and obviously if he'd waved it off it would've been a Wilder win) - the fact that one of the actual cards is nonsense doesn't make me see it as a draw.

As much as this is unpopular to say... Whether Fury actually is the best heavyweight in the world is questionable - since his return, he's only beaten Wilder and a few bums.

Sure, if you already rate Wilder very highly you might consider beating him 2 or 3 times to be enough to consider Fury the best... But you can't use Wilder as evidence that Fury is the best in order to say Wilder only lost to the best - that's circular logic.

The problem with all this is that's Wilder's resume besides Fury is exceptionally shallow and underwhelming - he might well be better than his resume shows, but he held a belt for a decent length of time and had several fighters begging for a scrap who'd have been easily his best win (assuming he'd won), so that resume is on him.

 

And Jennings hardly turned up to fight, he was awful that night.

 

"Bum" is relative.

AJ, Wlad and Lennox all lost to fighters that they were strongly favoured to beat - these are often over exaggerated.

AJ was very highly regarded at the time, losing to a fringe contender was a shock.
But Ruiz wasn't exactly a bum - he was a fringe contender, he had already achieved more than Ortiz just by going 50/50 with Parker.

Sure, Ruiz had good night's and bad nights, but on form he's always been a potential handful.

Ruiz at that point would still be Wilder's best win - his self-destruction afterwards may have ruined him, but he was a lot more respectable an opponent than some want to give credit for.

 

Horrible resume