Deontay Wilder all time heavyweight ranking were does he stand?

I was a big fan of Bowe. And I was a big fan of Wilder.

Wilder's record against Top Five Ring-rated heavyweights in eight fights is 3-4-1 (which is pretty much on par with most top names being tossed around here, Foreman, Holmes, Norton included). And the draw could've easily been a KO win with another ref.

Bowe's record against Ring-ranked top-five heavyweights is 2-1 (with the second win - the rematch with Golota - being a DQ win, and Golota beat the living hell out of Bowe in that fight and ruined him for life).

Bowe also made 2 successful defenses against Michael Dokes and Jesse Ferguson, two opponents you'd rather ignore than offer a "breakdown."

Wilder made 10 successful defenses.

Bowe reigned for one year. Wilder reigned for five.

Bowe left the sport a raving lunatic and went to prison for kidnapping his estranged family and threatening to murder his wife. Wilder is fine.

I'm fully aware of the big win Bowe had against Holyfield. However, Wilder had a better reign than Riddick Bowe, by miles. Clearly.

Bowe was also the bigger man against almost everyone he met in his prime.

Wilder was the lighter man against every man he faced for 12 years, including ALL those Ring-ranked opponents by huge amounts.

The guys who beat Wilder outweighed him 44 pounds (Fury 1), 42 pounds (Fury 2), 39 pounds (Fury 3), 32 pounds (Parker), 68 pounds (Zhang).

Golota and Holyfield didn't weigh 68 more pounds than Bowe. If they did, they'd have probably killed him.

I'd have loved it if Wilder had gotten to fight some of these guys more his size. But he fought with disadvantages most champs in the 20th century simply didn't. Yet Wilder still put together a great run.

It goes back to the Bob Foster description earlier. What do you rate higher, beating a much bigger name and holding the belt for one year, or beating a handful of lesser names and holding it the belt for FIVE times longer?

To me, they start to balance themselves out, like they do when we compare EVERY champion. (Yet, when we talk about Wilder, you guys don't.)

That's why I have him in the top 30. If we stopped at the 20th century, when most fighters were more his weight, he'd be higher. But guys this century are so big that you going a dozen years being outweighed would hamper most fighters from the past.

 

I use alphabet ratings, and you say don't use them. You're using Ring top five ratings. When I use wins over Ring Top five heavyweights for other fighters, and their win totals PLUMMET (like you did with Wilder), then we shouldn't use those? Got it.

I am comparing him with them, all of them. And I do not rate him higher than the Alis or Holyfields.

I have Wilder in the top 30, based on his all-time accomplishments. He never beat an Ali or a Holyfield, that's true. But he had a fine, long, wildly successful, exciting career.

I could probably argue a valid case for 29 heavyweights in history who could take the shot of a prime Wilder (which Parker and Zhang didn't face), weather the storm, and beat him. MAYBE. If I tried really hard. And included really big guys in the 21st Century.

If it was limited to fighters in the 20th century, like I said, I'd rate him higher. Because, head-to-head, Wilder is a difficult to bet against, especially considering most heavyweights in history didn't outweigh him by 30 to 70 pounds, like the only guys who beat him did at the end of his career.

How many heavyweights in history went 12 years unbeaten and then only lost at the end of their careers by guys who outweighed them by 30 to 70 pounds?

Does anyone think a 38-year-old Frazier or a 38-year-old Ali is beating a 280-pound Zhang, let alone a 38-year-old Ken Norton, or a 38-year-old Ron Lyle, or a 38-year-old Quarry? I mean, give me a break. The weight disparities are out of hand. And they never had to face ranked fighters that size consistently year after year, let alone at that age.

So, I sure as hell couldn't make a realistic case that 140 heavyweights (most of whome were near his weight) are beating Deontay Wilder, like you are, considering nobody his size or smaller ever did as a pro.

There are heavyweight champions who were beaten by middleweights, and not particularly good ones, for Christ's sake.

Anyway, gotta go. Have a good one.

 

Around 50 for me.

 

LMWAO at the ones who actually put him in the top 20!!!! Wow

 

I know!!! Crazy

I’ll give wilder this… he was a dangerous puncher with decent hand speed. But NOT the puncher he’s made out to be by some.

Top 20 HW puncher?? Sure. In the same class as Wlad, Sanders and Lewis?? Nope. He just threw EVERYTHING from the other side of the ring with all his might and had a long reach. That’s mainly what made him dangerous.

 

I guess a lot of that depends on how much people rate him beyond his resume...

There are those who don't think he was much better (if at all) than he proved with the quality of what he beat, and those people will rank him much, much lower than those who still think he would've beaten top 5 ranked fighters if he'd fought some before Fury (and how people rate Ortiz despite his own thin resume is part of this)...

I think he'd have had a punchers chance against a good number of fighters who would've been winning consistently better fights than him - but for me that puts him around the likes of Rahman as fringe top-100 (just in or just out) rather than way up at top 30 or even top 50 territory.

He just doesn't have the quality on his resume to put him high IMHO - and he had the belt to make those fights and chose not to... Personal judgement again, but for me that counts against someone being ranked high - others will say he was avoided and it's not his fault, and they won't hold his resume against him in the same way I would.


I guess TL;DR is there's a huge gap between what he proved and what he was hyped at - he's somewhere in between the two, but which you rate him closer to dictates where you'll rank him.

 

If Wilder was also a brit they'd probably rank him top 50.

 

around the 30-40 mark I'd guess without looking into it.

Crazy KO power and ratio, extraordinarily dangerous. Plenty of defences (although most were against substandard opposition)

Yet 2 very good wins over Ortiz, a good win over Stiverne in the first fight. And gave the the 2nd best HW of this era Tyson Fury 2 good fights.

 

He’ll probably be remembered as one of the four most important/accomplished heavyweights of his era, along with Usyk, Fury and Joshua. Including the previous era, only the Klitschkos would rank above him in terms of significance. I would say he’s top 5/6 from 2004-2024, beyond that it’s more subjective.

Wilder’s high ranking is largely a result of:

10 consecutive title defences

KO record

Fury trilogy

Most important American HW post-Holyfield and of the 21st century thus far

Of course, Wilder had opportunities that other fighters didn’t owing to his WBC connections, marketability, nationality etc. but the playing field is never level. And Wilder was at a significant disadvantage to begin with given he started boxing on the cusp of 20, yet still managed to win Olympic bronze within 3 years of entering a boxing gym.

 

Isn't Kabayel ahead of him by now with the wins over Sanchez and Zhang

 

Perfectly put