Wilder’s résumé is aging like a fine wine

Again no arguments but at least there is a question.

If a fighter is a world title challenger, that carries a certain level of prestige. Arreola was a two time world title challenger (Vitali, Stiverne 2) before challenging Wilder. At 35 Arreola was written off as being shot, mainly because Wilder schooled him with a broken right hand and retired him in 8. But 5 years later, after several more fights, a lot more punishment, defeat in his last fight and almost two years of inactivity, Arreola dropped and put more damage on Ruiz than AJ did over two fights, a more in shape Ruiz than the Ruiz that fought AJ on either occasion. So we either have to question good Ruiz is (easy considering that Ruiz didn't stop Morales who Wilder took out in 3, had a tough fight over the full 10 with a more washed up Liakhovich than the one Wilder brutally stopped in 1 round and had a competitive fight over the full 10 with a washed up Kevin Johnson) or we have to consider that the Arreola Wilder fought wasn't as bad as people want to believe. This is just one of several examples: check the threads before Wilder's fight with Stiverne, Szpilka's fight with Wach, Duhaupas's fight with Helenius etc. Have a look at the predictions made and judge for yourself.

If you don't rate fighters according to their performances, how do you rate them? Some absurd ranking system which said that "top 10" Martin, Breazeale and Takam were higher rated than Usyk?

"If he fought and beat someone like Andy Ruiz, then great."

Oh dear. Your standard seems to be that Wilder's opponents were poor regardless of their performances, whereas AJ's were good regardless of their performances. Everybody (even the most foaming out the mouth Wilder critics) knows that if Wilder had crushed Ruiz, he would have been roundly lambasted as a "morbidly obese featherfisted PBC bum who'd already had his 0 taken by Parker". Ruiz's best wins may well have been labouring to decisions over Liakhovich or Kevin Johnson, which is why AJ was a 25/1 favourite. Ortiz, Stiverne, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Washington and Arreola all had better wins on their records than Ruiz. But Ruiz destroyed AJ, so Ruiz was retconned as a dynamite puncher with a granite chin: "David Tua with faster hands", as described by one of the midwits on this forum.

"because he never fought any of these guys directly himself."

If fighter A beats fighter B and fighter B beats fighter C, fighter A usually beats fighter C. This isn't always the case for a variety of reasons but it's fallacious to assume that comparative performances mean nothing, they mean a lot in reality.

"Wilder has a weak resume"

You can state this without evidence until the cows come home. I'll ask again: weak relative to what? Are the comparisons relevant? What are all of the factors you use to assess the quality of a record? How many heavyweights since the start of the Klitschko era have stronger records than Wilder? Until you can answer these questions, your statement is meaningless.

 

"Wilder has a weak resume"

Weak relative to what? Are the comparisons relevant? What are all of the factors you use to assess the quality of a record? How many HW's since the start of the Klitschko era have better?

If Wilder beat guys who have relevant wins over Arreola x2, Adamek x2, Charr, Helenius x2, Wach, McCline, Molina, Mitchell, Forrest, Chambers, Jennings, Thompson, Mansour, Hammer and Martin, his opponents cannot be nearly as bad as many like to believe.

 

You don't know how to judge a record.

 

How can Wilder's record age poorly when his opponents were not rated to begin with? (or alternatively, were only rated prior to losing to him).

 

It's not personal but I find it entertaining. My threads on Wilder get thousands of views and hundreds of replies, for some reasoned many fans (especially British fans) are incensed by the very plausible idea that Wilder's record is grossly underrated. I think there is a degree of projection on their part as deep down they know that AJ has a much poorer record than advertised, which has also aged very poorly.

"So what if Arreola was a two time challenger who did better than expected against Andy Ruiz?"

It's funny that most who rag on Wilder consider Vitali an ATG (a position I agree with) but Arreola is in fact one of his best wins. 40+, 21 months inactive/retired Arreola performing much better than expected against AJ-conqueror Ruiz is very significant because it disproves the popular theory that Arreola was "shot" at 35 when an injured Wilder dominated him and it further undermines the idea that Ruiz was an elite contender, rather than a weak contender (which was obvious looking at his performances against washed up Liakhovich, Johnson and other lesser journeymen) who exposed a vulnerable, overhyped champion.

"he has a weak resume considering he’s been classed as a top 3 HW for 5 years and he had 10 defences of his title"

Being a top 2-3 heavyweight for 5 years and having 10 consecutive defences of your title, including against the likes of Stiverne, Ortiz and Fury, objectively puts you in a very elite bracket of champions. Not losing to a B or C opponent as many others have also puts you in an elite bracket. There are very few post-2004 heavyweights with even an argument for having better record's than Wilder.

"Wilder has struggled with lower level fighters"

This just comes down to your ignorance of Wilder's style. You'd probably say he struggled with Szpilka but Wilder knew he was fighting at home and would get the benefit of the doubt on the cards in a close fight. Molina gave Wilder a fight because he didn't come to take a dive but he still lost 7/9 of the rounds and got dropped 4 times. Washington edged a few rounds and then got destroyed. Wilder was happy to accumulate damage over the rounds, put pressure on the opponent with his omnipresent KO threat and snipe them late on. Only Ortiz in the first fight and Fury put significant damage on him and he schooled/KO'd all of them aside from Fury, who he dropped 4 times over 3 fights.

"his best wins were against..."

This is a matter of interpretation: are we talking about most impressive wins or wins against the best opponents? The Liakhovich, Stiverne 2 and Breazeale wins were impressive 1st round KO's but they were not his best opponents. It's also ironic because Breazeale and Molina were probably Wilder's weakest defences, yet they are mutual defences with AJ. Judging from what I saw in AJ's defeat to Ruiz, he would have had more losses if he'd faced Wilder's opponents. Aside from Fury, Stiverne 1 and Ortiz x2 would have been very dangerous. Even Duhaupas would have a chance as he was a big tough relentless guy who came to win. It's entirely conceivable that AJ would have had 5 losses against Wilder's opponents.