It's tough to always fight bigger guys. Wilder is longer than most and they are on the end of tat Hearns like right hand.
"Mercer, Morrison and even a 42 old year Larry Holmes would be in today’s top 10." These are just assertions, there's nothing "objective" about that. The "top 10" is also very subjective, I've got no clear idea what the order is after Fury, Usyk, Wilder, Joyce, Joshua. The way it works with Wilder is that if he beats someone they become a bum. So if Wilder was to beat a short, fat, underpowered, inactive Mercer who was in poor form coming into the fight, then Mercer would be seen as another Arreola on the record. If Wilder struggled with a 1995 Mercer clone then it would be absolute proof that Wilder was a bum. Now, if Lewis goes life and death with Mercer and many believe he lost, then Mercer is a phenomenon, or at least was on that night. Same story if Lewis is coming off a slight 2nd best boxing against Bruno or if he can't get an advantage over a greenhorn like Rahman before being bombed out. These guys are suddenly fantastic boxers and/or Lewis was having an off-night. These are the ways in which Wilder is judged by opposite standards to old fighters and even his contemporaries to a lesser extent. Most believed that Andy Ruiz would beat Wilder 2-3 years ago. We'll see what happens if/when they fight. If we're comparing best night to best night, Ruiz destroyed Joshua and doesn't have Mercer's embarrassing losses. As for the quality of Wilder's opposition, beyond Fury x3 and Ortiz x2 it's not been stellar thus far, on the same level as Vitali's WBC reign. Stiverne though was a big puncher (bombed out Arreola) and very durable (had never been dropped prior to fighting Wilder). Duhaupas was better than Puritty and similar in his best attributes; big, iron-chinned, experienced and determined. But unlike Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Vitali, Wlad and Joshua, Wilder has never lost to a big underdog. Wilder lost to Fury x2 but Fury schooled Wlad and had to change tactics to beat Wilder in the rematches, or at least give himself the best chance. It's not like Wilder's lost to a LHW, a 42/1 fringe contender, a journeyman etc. Another factor is Wilder's one-shot power. Stiverne 2, Breazeale and Helenius weren't anything more than fringe contenders at best but still, Wilder knocked them unconscious in 1 round, whereas Joyce, Joshua and Whyte went 6, 7 and 12 respectively. If Wilder lands a flush bomb in round 1, virtually anyone is going to be in big trouble if not sparked out cold and he's also shown that his power carries late, as well as against very heavy men, which wasn't so true of historical KO artists.
Of course it has, because the athletes have. Today's athletes know much more about training and nutrition than they did in the '80s. If you wanted to argue that fighters are less fundamentally sound across the board now versus yesteryear, then okay.
McDermott didn't put Fury down for a start and the Cunningham knockdown was light years ago when he squared up with his feet... Look, Stevie Wonder can see that Wilder carries absurd power so if you can't maybe you need to get your eyes tested.
The sport went to decline when Tyson beat Holmes and then started to get lazy, Hagler retired around that time and Hearns got knocked out by Barkley Duran got easily out-pointed by Leonard in 89, however training methods and fight tactics have improved since five years ago and things ar starting to pick up again, really looking forward to Loma`s next fight etc.
So it won’t be hard for you to list me all the top quality world class boxers that Wilders Knocked Out in his 44 fight career will it, off you go
Redbeard7, I’ve been studying the sport for 30 years. A 42 year old Larry Holmes hung with a prime Evander and beat Mercer. Mercer beat Morrison and arguably beat an ATG in Lennox. Today, we have Usyk and Fury who look to be very special talents, despite not having stellar HW resumes. After those, nobody else would have been a standout fighter in the 80’s and 90’s. Go and look at the Ring’s current top 10. Or any other organisation, company or publication. Of course Holmes, Morrison and Mercer would be in today’s top 10. Guys like Parker and Whyte etc, have been in the top 10 for a long time now. That’s not how it works at all. Wilder gets credit if he beats competent fighters. I give him credit for beating Ortiz, despite Ortiz being old. Because Ortiz has a lot of ability. But most of his opponents are just average guys who’d have been cannon fodder for any elite HW. On what planet would beating a 90’s Mercer be akin to beating Arreola? Get real. As if Chris Arreola could have gone close to beating Lennox. It’s hilarious how you have to hype up these guys to give Wilder’s resume a boost. Sure, fighters can have an off night. Or they can just get caught like anybody can. It only takes a punch. But you can objectively analyse their abilities and their other performances. You can try and denigrate a guy like Mercer as much as you want. But I know for a fact that other than Ortiz, you cannot name me one other win on Wilder’s resume which would have been better than a win over a prime Ray Mercer. Stiverne and Duhaupas have done nothing. And you only rate them because Wilder has beaten them. If they weren’t on Wilder’s resume, and a guy like Holmes had beaten them, you’d no doubt be singing a different tune, telling me how poor they were. Yes, Wilder might not have endured losses like some of those guys did. But then at the same time, he hasn’t got their victories either. And I’m sure that none of those would have had an issue with Wilder’s WBC reign, where he fought just twice per year against mostly B and C level opposition. Again, Tyson did not school Wlad in Germany. You are living in a fantasy. I’ve never disputed his power or how dangerous he is. He’s the most dangerous HW on the planet. He’s very unpredictable. He’s fast, powerful and confident. A very dangerous combination. He’d have a genuine punchers chance against anyone. However, due to his flaws and his lack of top level wins, he’d be an underdog against many greats of the past. Like you’ve just alluded to above, Stiverne, Breazeale and Helenius were just fringe contenders. Yet guys like that make up the bulk of Wilder’s resume. Which is the exact reason why people like me say that he’s still unproven. And it’s the exact reason why I’d favour a guy like Holmes over him. Because as yet, he hasn’t proven that he should be/should have been favoured over such guys. Again, he’s an exciting, dangerous fighter who deserves respect. But he hasn’t done anything out of the ordinary, apart from display extra ordinary power. Again, I’m sure that many other HW’s could have replicated his WBC reign, and beaten the same guys as he’s beaten. Sure, they might not have been able to have replicated his exact performances/knockouts, but his WBC reign really wouldn’t have been an issue to most great HW’s of the past. And I’m not talking about his 3 fights with Fury. I’m just talking specifically about his reign and other wins. I’m sure that a guy like Holmes etc, wouldn’t have had an issue replicating them.
No, it hasn’t. It’s nothing more than a lazy, ignorant assumption, based on the progression of some other sports. So what if there’s more knowledge of sports science and nutrition? Does everybody use that knowledge? Of course not. We can clearly see that by looking at the fighters. Are the fighters today more skilled, with more ability? No, they aren’t. We have a few special talents today, just like we do in most eras. But as a whole, there’s been no noticeable progression. There’s entire divisions from the 90’s that were better than what they are today. And not just in terms of depth and competitiveness, but in quality too. Today’s group of HW’s are no better than the best HW’s of the 80’s and 90’s. Today’s HW’s aren’t more talented with more overall ability. Have a look at the Ring’s ratings from 1991: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwict6HVrIH7AhUPY8AKHcBMA8IQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_1991&usg=AOvVaw2170E-pQNik_Rw9WeAeZiW Go and compare them to today’s: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiH8LX_rIH7AhUJesAKHUJ4BoIQFnoECAwQAQ&url=https://talksport.com/sport/boxing/1213570/ring-magazine-top-ten-heavyweight-rankings-oleksandr-usyk-anthony-joshua-deontay-wilder-tyson-fury/&usg=AOvVaw1-0PNl3n7Lq4OhxJpXgWwY Where the hell is the progression in either athletic performance or ability? Where’s the proof that today’s athletes can produce a better athletic performance? There’s several HW’s today who have stamina issues, even against non elite opposition. You talk about nutrition and sports science etc, yet look at the physical condition of many of the elite level HW’s of today. Look at today’s top 10-20 guys. Tyson Fury is never in top physical condition, and he’s always overweight. So is Luis Ortiz. So is Dillian Whyte. So is Andy Ruiz. So is Derek Chisora. None of those guys are in the best possible condition. There’s also others too. So how is today’s sports science and nutrition so beneficial? We’ve seen Wilder and AJ have stamina issues. So you come and tell me how today’s HW’s are better fighters/athletes than the best guys of 30-40 years ago. They aren’t. It’s complete and utter nonsense. Go and rewatch some bouts of the 80’s and 90’s, and then come back and tell me that today’s best HW’s are superior and on a completely different level. You can’t. This BS has to stop.
Probably not. He’s got different attributes to Wilder. It would have been a very different fight. However, I’m sure that Holmes could have followed Wilder’s same timeline and replicated the same wins.
