Del has a better record, win lose or draw he's fought better opponents than Wilder. I'll take that further, he'd have beaten everyone Wilder beat except perhaps Ortiz. But...I'm thinking peak Wilder probably times Del and starches him. If he can't do that he gets outpointed over twelve.
I think Chisora beat Whyte the 1st time, and beat Parker the 1st time. So if I'm counting them as wins then yes is the answer. There's no one on Wilders title reign that I wouldn't favour Chisora to beat outside of Ortiz. If you pit Wilder against Chisora's opposition how many losses does he have ? I mean Whyte was Wilders mandatory for years and he didn't want to fight him. Wilder against Chisora's best opposition Joyce, Parker, Whyte, Haye, Kabayel, Usyk, Vitali. How many wins would you be confident of Wilder getting against those names ?
So refusing to fight good fighters, as Wilder did for most of his career, is better than taking fights you might (and did) lose? Losses matter, but they matter more when the general level of opponents is equivalent - Chisora fought much better fighters than Wilder did, over and over again.
My money would be on Wilder...I could never bring myself to bet on Chisora...NEVER!! This content is protected
To be honest, it’s an interesting question. Because, although Chisora may have a deep resume, longevity, and this late career Indian summer - vs Wilders somewhat protected career and mostly high profile losses when stepped up - I’m sure that if you gave Chisora the choice of his decades of toil, or Wilders comparatively short career but long WBC world championship reign, he would take Wilders career.
Better wins maybe But worse loses in his prime We cannot know how many loses Wilder would have had had he fought Wlad, Povetkin.... So difficult to answer. From what we know Wilder has a better resume
In the case of many boxers, you might well be right. Chisora though? I think he'd struggle to live with the shame of being as protected as Wilder was - the man's a rare breed, a true fighter who wants the challenges and is prepared to accept the consequences of overreaching.
Losses to (almost always) better fighters than Wilder ever beat can't drag down the fact his wins were better, surely? With the exception of Helenius, every single fighter that beat Chisora is better than anyone Wilder beat, in most cases by a very long way: - Fury - Vitali - Haye - Pulev - Whyte - Kabayel (who I think is overrated, but not as much as Ortiz was!) - Usyk - Parker. 13 losses is undeniably a black mark on a resume. Only ever fighting 3 contenders in your whole career, and losing to all 3, is a massive black mark on a champions resume... It also, typically, means it's fair to assume that he probably would've had more losses if he'd fought more contenders - the fact he ducked multiple guys calling him out doesn't mean we should assume he'd have beaten them (we can't know it, but I would argue we should assume he'd probably have lost?).
I once saw a question on youtube asking Wilder's all time heavyweight ranking for heavyweights and most said 50-75 range. I don't think people would have Chisora that high but that being said what most people think isn't necessarily a indicator always.
Wilder could have achieved much more in his prime but they kept feeding him bums In theory Ortiz should have beat him to high hell but Wilder proved in them fights that his power was legit ATG status.