Pathetic? Ha! I still haven’t worked out if you’re trolling us all for a joke. Playing the Boxrec game of: Fighter A beat B, who then went on to trouble C etc. It’s pure desperation on your part. Let’s look at some of the things you’ve written: “Stiverne beat Arreola who was a former challenger to Klitschko” “Szpilka beat a former Klitschko challenger in Wach, who himself had given Whyte a tough fight, who was once a former opponent of AJ’” “Moilna beat a well past prime Adamek, who’d lost to Klitschko” Ha! Are you actually being serious here? If you’re not trolling and you’re actually being serious, that’s the very definition of pathetic. That’s the greatest piece of BoxRec spin I’ve ever seen in my life. Just attaching a good fighter’s name to the link of who beat who. Get real man. When you have to resort to doing things like that, you really are reaching. The ultimate sign of desperation. Have a word with yourself. Wilder’s resume is ageing like an old pair of socks.
And again, not one actual argument! Just exasperated BS. Fighters have to be rated on their performances and if Wilder's opponents had been so bad relative to these other fighters, they would have been destroyed as Wilder's critics on this forum expected/hoped they would.
There's only ooooooooone Bronze Bomber! Ooooooooone Bronze Bomber! Walking along! Singing a song! Walking in a Wilder Wonderlaaand!
NEETzschean I am on your side. Wilder will have 10 consecutive titles defending boxing history, and records must be remembered; like it or not. I will emphasize the eighth consecutive title defense (Wilder vs Fury SD draw). It is clear that Fury won by points and rounds. But... Since Fury was knocked down twice I agree with SD draw. If Fury had been knocked down only once (or Fury twice and Wilder once), then the injustice would have been much more obvious. There have been many more unfair decisions in boxing, so they are not so much in question. So 101% of the forum may disagree with me (including NEETzschean), that's my opinion. And that is that. It will be remembered that the most consecutive titles were defended by: - Joe Louis 25 - Larry Holmes 20 - Wladimir Klitschko 18 - Tommy Burns 11 - Muhammad Ali and Deontay Wilder 10 And no one can agree, and everyone can be angry; that's it.
I disagree with your titular assertion right off the bat, although I respect the utilization of both diacritics in "résumé" and so am willing to read your OP and hear out your arguments...
"Fine wine" is hyperbole but some find the phrasing amusing and it incenses Wilder's less objective critics. The claim here isn't that Wilder's record is "good", which is a different argument altogether, it's that it has appreciated over time. And that really is indisputable: look at the old threads on fights involving Wilder opponents. Molina was supposed to lose to Adamek, Duhaupas and Washington to Helenius and Szpilka to Wach. Instead Wilder's opponents got 3 KO's and a decision. Washed up Liakhovich and Arreola were meant to get blown out by Ruiz, not give him highly competitive fights and go the distance etc. None of these wins have aged badly, which suggests that these opponents were significantly underrated (just how good they were is a different question).
The stats about title defences at the end there will look great to casuals who have a limited understanding of boxing. But the thing that quite clearly separates Wilder from from rest of that list is the fact that he wasn't THE man in the division. In fact while Fury was gone AJ was the one continuously ranked as the guy to beat.
Fury was still ranked as the champion by Ring for over 2 years after he beat Wlad, so you're talking about a relatively short period of time (a little over a year) where AJ was the consensus No.1. Obviously all that went up in smoke with the Ruiz debacle. Even after Fury was stripped of 3 main belts, AJ wasn't made Ring's champion and Fury was still lineal. It's also worth mentioning that the only belts AJ won were belts that Fury had been stripped of, whereas Wilder did at least beat a legitimate belt holder prior to Fury beating Wlad. 10 consecutive defences isn't easy in the HW division (especially today with massive heavyweights) many highly regarded champs of the last 30 years (Tyson, Lewis, Vitali, AJ) didn't manage it and were KO'd in or around their primes by some highly questionable opponents. This is held against Wilder because it's assumed that for him to do so well, his competition must be uniquely bad or unthreatening. But if we just look at this era, was Andy Ruiz really more dangerous than Stiverne or Ortiz? You can make a good argument that Ruiz was far less dangerous on paper, yet he stopped AJ while Wilder survived all but Fury on the 2nd and 3rd attempts, showing immense heart, toughness and power in the process and giving a better account of himself than Wlad did. Wilder's accomplishments aren't currently appreciated by most casual or hardcore fans alike.
Not one actual argument? How the hell does he get credit for beating someone who was once a challenger to Klitschko? If he fought and beat someone like Andy Ruiz, then great. But all you’ve got, is that he fought somebody who fought Ruiz, who in turn fought AJ etc. It’s all complete nonsense. How can you not see that? You have to invent this linkage game, because he never fought any of these guys directly himself. Wilder has a weak resume. It’s not ageing like fine wine. Go and read the rest of the comments on the thread.