Wilder is well managed and a casulas wet dream i'll give him that. When you actually break down his cv I'd say his top 3 wins are Ortiz, Stiverne and Duhaupas. Maybe two of those at best were top 10 fighters at the time. It's hardly the stuff of legends. Joshua gets all the flack and we keep hearing how easily Wilder would go through him yet he's the one that actually has wins of note on his cv.
"When you actually break down his cv" Vitali's top 2 wins are a 1-3 round gas tank Sanders and the now 13 loss Chisora, yet he's considered a H2H nightmare (which he may very well be) and he's a 1st ballot "HoF". And Wilder may have a far better "resume" than Vitali when all is said and done. "yet he's the one that actually has wins of note on his cv." People often claim that Ortiz was too old to be counted as a good win/wins but Povetkin was slightly older and Wlad was considerably older than Ortiz in the 1st Wilder fight. Ortiz was still chugging along last year at 43, giving Joshua-conqueror Ruiz a razor-close 12 rounder. It also bears mentioning that Joshua has three losses to Wilder's two and the Ruiz loss was by far the worst. Wilder doesn't have a loss of that nature, or a loss to a smaller man full stop. And arguably Wilder's 2 KD draw vs Fury (regardless of controversy) was the best result that either man has produced.
Not a strong response. The point is that you can be considered a H2H force while having no "A+" wins, like Ortiz and Stiverne or Sanders and Chisora. And losses count too.
If he beats Fury he still is 1-2-1 against Fury. If he beats Usyk and preferably Joshua as well he would have beaten everybody except Fury. I think that would be a bigger statement.
Wilders best is Ortiz, who did not beat any top guy himself. Still Ortiz is in the top of the rankings, for some unknown reason.
Povetkin never beat a "top guy" either and his own promoter admitted that they avoided Ortiz: https://www.rbth.com/sport/2014/04/...itschko_rematch_continue_to_recede_35827.html
A lost fight can't boost your status when it's questionable as it goes. So I'd say Usyk if he wins against him if we ever see this fight.
I don't think Chisora is one of Vitali's top 2 wins, what about Tomasz Adamek who was 44-1 ? he was world champion at Light Heavyweight, Cruiserweight, and had a solid little run at Heavyweight beating Arreola, Golota, McBride, Grant. Samuel Peter was 30-1 and his only loss was a competitive decision loss to Wladimir in which he floored him 3 times, Vitali was coming off a 4 year lay off and dominated Peter. I believe Peter may of been the favourite aswell. Vitali's resume isn't great but the reason why he's rated highly H2H, is because he's 2 losses were due to a unfortunate cut and an unfortunate injury in which he was ahead in both fights. And in all victories he dominated his opponents barely losing a round in most of his fights, plus a 6'7 Super Heavyweight with an iron chin is always going to be a handful for most. Wilder on the other hand has looked alot more beatable, and struggled against lesser opposition losing multiple rounds to the likes Szpilka who i don't think Vitali would lose a round against or even remotely struggle with. Wilder's power makes him a threat H2H but i still need to see more evidence of it against the top guys, if he stops the likes of Joshua, Ruiz, Zhang, Usyk, just even one of those names i'll start rating him higher.
"I don't think Chisora is one of Vitali's top 2 wins, what about Tomasz Adamek" Adamek didn't turn up 100% trying or believing he could win so Vitali looked as good as ever at 40. Chisora by contrast had determination and belief and he had far better attributes to work with against Vitali. Sanders is the only other guy worth mentioning because he brought handspeed, accuracy, power, southpaw stance, determination and a prior victory vs Wlad but he didn't have Chisora's durability, stamina, physical mass/strength or pressure style, which could have potentially broken Vitali down over 12 and certainly gave him his 3rd hardest fight. "I believe Peter may of been the favourite aswell." Vitali was the favourite but the odds weren't far off even, mainly due to the unknown of whether his body would hold up. But Peter was much mentally weaker than Chisora (who has incredible mental toughness considering how many setbacks he's had, disadvantageous officiating, beatings received and the fighters he's fought, still going at nearly 40 and giving 100% almost every time) and was never in as good mental and physical condition as when he lost to Wlad the first time (and even then, Wlad was still recovering from the mental damage of being knocked down 7 times in his last 6 fights and stopped twice). By the time he fought Vitali he had gone 50-50 with a 233 lbs former middleweight, been dropped 3x by McCline and he was one fight away from being soundly outboxed by Chambers. Chisora and Peter have three mutual opponents: Vitali, Helenius and Pulev, Chisora massively outperformed Peter against all of them and his performance against Usyk was much more impressive than Peter's against Chambers. "is because he's 2 losses were due to a unfortunate cut and an unfortunate injury in which he was ahead in both fights." Vitali was more injury prone (or at least more quit prone) and more cut prone than Wilder has proven to be. Vitali didn't mess his shoulder up for no reason: he was missing wildly a lot against Byrd. Even if Wilder had sustained an equally bad should injury I don't believe he quits, especially if he's well ahead on the cards. Vitali was a victim of A-side politics vs Lewis but even so, he had 6 rounds to get him out of there and failed, against a champion with a record of being uniquely susceptible to early one-punch KO's. "Wilder on the other hand has looked alot more beatable, and struggled" Looking more beatable can be a good thing as it means people are more likely to underestimate you. "I can stay away from the right hand, outbox him" became a sure-fire KO defeat, except for Fury in fight 1 who only very narrowly avoided it and radically altered his strategy in subsequent fights. Wilder would have a far better chance of going through Vitali's record unbeaten than Vitali would Wilder's. Chris Byrd might well agree with me: “Who would you rather fight: Joshua or Wilder?” “Oh, man, that’s easy – Anthony Joshua. For my style, he would have been my choice.” “Deontay Wilder is the scariest heavyweight ever. Not the best ever, the scariest ever. I’d rather fight Mike Tyson than Deontay Wilder, easy. It’s the style matchup, the kid is super long.” From a man who was pulverised by Wlad x2.
It doesn't matter whether or not you believe Adamek did or didn't give his 100 percent that's speculation from you, you have no idea what Adamek was or wasn't thinking your not a mind reader. A 44-1 Adamek who was two weight world champion, and was rated number 3 Heavyweight in the world. Is better than beating 15-2 Dereck Chisora who was not rated in the top 10 and was 1-2 in his last 3 fights. Chisora lost all those fights ? so what does it matter ? well he went 1-1 with Pulev my mistake his "SD" win over Pulev who was at end of his career and 40+. But I can easily comeback and say Peter beating Masakev, Toney x2, McCline, would be pretty much better than mostly any win that Chisora has ever had. Peter was ranked either 2 or 7 ? when Vitali beat him i can't remember which ranking is correct. But again as i said above Chisora was not ranked and was 1-2 in his last 3 fights so Peter at that time is a better win. I think Peter is overrated personally but at that time he's a better win than Chisora. He was more injury prone yes but more cut prone ? he was only cut once in his entire by an ATG in a freak occurrence that's a little bit unfair. Again your speculating Wilder has never had that type of injury so again all speculation whether Wilder would or wouldn't quit, didn't Vitali have a shoulder injury vs Chisora ? and he kept fighting in that fight. Vitali also had one of the worst cuts vs Lewis and kept fighting. Well it can also be a bad thing that Wilder has looked beatable against mediocre opposition, and it could mean he could be found wanting against better opposition that could take advantage. Wilder certainly couldn't get the job done vs Fury in 3 attempts. And i would speculate if Wilder fights more of the top opposition he could end up with more losses, but it's all speculation really lets see what Wilder does in the next few years. He could be prove me wrong or he could prove you wrong lets wait and find out. Well again that's speculation but both fighters would probably be favoured to beat all of their best wins, although i would argue Sanders could beat Wilder, and Adamek might cause Wilder a few problems. But neither fighter has a great resume so it's beside the point. The only difference is that Vitali looked better beating B, C, class fighters where he barely lost any rounds. Again though what does this prove ? it's just Byrd's opinion which may or may not be biased. But whether or not it isn't biased it doesn't really mean anything, Byrd has never fought Tyson, Wilder, or Joshua so what does it matter ? it's just an opinion. Tyson on film looks the more impressive fighter he has better defense, better punch variety, better combination punching, KO power in either hand. Not to mention he beat better opposition than Wilder that maybe 1 or 2 them could've possibly of beaten Wilder. But again though it's just my opinion just like everybody has an opinion.
"whether or not you believe Adamek did or didn't give his 100 percent" Adamek was useless, Chisora was more competitive by every metric. Tell me objectively how the cowed, blown-up LHW performed better than Chisora. He brought less of everything to the table, despite a superficially impressive record and a meaningless ranking. "Chisora lost all those fights ? so what does it matter ?" Smoke and mirrors. Peter benefitted from A-side politics, Chisora didn't. The overwhelming majority had him beating Helenius rather than getting KTFO, he beat Pulev rather than quitting pathetically in 3 and he gave Vitali his 3rd toughest and most competitive fight rather than quitting pathetically in 8. All of the evidence from mutual opponents is one-sided favouring Chisora. His KO of Takam is as good as any Peter win and 35-0-1 Scott would also be way up there, both underdog wins coming off several losses to big favourites. Kevin Johnson (trying to emulate Byrd) also gave Vitali a much better fight than Peter, went 12 with ease and Chisora dominated him 10-2. You're also hypocritical: Vitali lost to Byrd and Lewis, so what does it matter? He never proved he could beat anyone better than Adamek by your logic, regardless of how many rounds he won (or his inferior KO/KD ratios relative to Wilder). "ranked" Certain fighters are highly ranked despite doing very little, Chisora wasn't one of them. I consider fighters who turn up 100% determined to win as much better, other things being equal, than fighters who take dives, regardless of what a rankings agency says (which is highly subjective and often corrupt anyway). Scott is on paper one of Wilder's better opponents but did that constitute a better win than Firtha or Gavern? An important basic factor in determining the quality of a win is how the loser performed, how much did he try to win. "He was more injury prone yes but more cut prone" Until Wilder (who has had 46 fights and plenty of opportunity to lose in these ways if he were especially vulnerable in these areas) sustains a joint injury that he can't recover from or quits or gets badly cut, we can only assume based on the evidence that Vitali is more susceptible to these means of losing. "And i would speculate if Wilder fights more of the top opposition he could end up with more losses" That's true of ANYONE. And it's especially true of Vitali, who had his 3rd toughest fight with Chisora and lost to the only two men he fought above that level. Wilder also hasn't lost to a Byrd, who may well not be as good as Ortiz H2H. "The only difference" The only difference that you want to focus on to suit your agenda. There are many important differences between their records and some favour Wilder, others favour Vitali. "Tyson on film looks the more impressive fighter" He didn't look so impressive getting leathered by 44/1 Buster Douglas or former 190 pounder Holyfield x2. But I bet you'll make a billion excuses for that r*pist sh*tbag.