Yes because Luis Ortiz getting dropped by a jab from Charles Martin means Wilders resume has gotten much better even though Martin who according to you is one of the worst heavyweight champions in 2 whole decades: lets see here.... This thread some of the most meaningless sewage I've ever seen on this forum but the OP is NEETz so it's par for the course.
I see only facts in the original post. I personally would've omitted this one, given that Stiverne, while appearing to retain some vestiges of ambition and landing a smattering of good right hands on Joyce, still only got smacked around by Painterly Joe for six rounds before having his career effectively ended by Trevor Bryan after Wilder II. Otherwise, I don't see an issue with what the threadstarter has laid out here. Perhaps the use of the term "fine wine", which, admittedly, does oversell the degree to which these victories have appreciated. But he's correct in pointing out that they have appreciated to some extent.
It's Just one sided spin ignoring counter context in an attempt to make Wilder's very poor record of opposition look positive.
If you mean it aged like milk then I agree...... Wilders resume is dog dirt and no amount of spin will change that fact.
I believe I give balanced opinion. With Wilder it's glaring obvious he has an poor record in comparison to say AJ who has beaten 6 guys with better records than Wilder most and only notable opponent he has beaten in Ortiz.
If Wilder hadn't beat Molina (who actually came to win and not dive) and Breazeale, you'd be calling them "top 10 fighters" too. @NEETzschean has just beaten you at your own game.
That was hilarious, thank you, but what are you doing with your life where you have the time and energy to waste this sort of rigour and analytical thinking on something so idiotic and inconsequential? Is Wilder paying you? If not, you’re wasting your life and potential my friend.