Deontay Wilder all time heavyweight ranking were does he stand?

No reason to think he beats Povetkin in the first place. What performance would suggest that?

 

The povetkin of 2016/2017 was past his best wouldn't you say?

 

Although DW has the power to KO most Heavies, I have hime somewhere between 60-70. Could I name 60+ fighters that could beat him? Maybe if I tried. Just off the top of my head he is a top 70ish fighter to me.

 

Povetkin lost every time he fought someone at or above Wilder’s level and Wilder beat a guy who was at or above late 2010s level Povetkin and drew with a guy who was above his level.

 

Chagaev, Whyte, Chambers and Byrd above Wilder's level

 

Sorry, bro. None of them were.

 

Whyte sparks him out of it's made. Whyte over him historically with Parker and Chisora wins

Ortiz and Stiverne his only decent wins and even they're fraud American circuit fighters

 

I'm sorry to have offended you. History doesn't care for hyperbole.

 

Povetkin has one prime loss to Wlad whose accomplishments dwarf Wilders. Nobody else beat him anywhere close to his peak.

 

Top 40 sounds about right but I never did a top 50 list tbh

 

We certainly are, and I wasn't necessarily saying you do (or that you're particularly bad for it, for that matter) - but you basically become negative (or a "hater", of you prefer)in real time if you don't take a little bit of the hype and run with it... After the fact, it's easier to be objective, but that often still doesn't happen.

See you and I see this from a different angle...

Getting a bit philosophical and/or pedantic, but my problem is precisely that he's not demonstrably anywhere near as good as he's often made out (and that's not the same as saying he's demonstrably not better than he proved - it's the difference between what you can positively demonstrate and what you can negatively demonstrate)

What I mean by that is that what's demonstrable is resume and sensible analysis of how good the guys he beat and lost to actually were.

You can make arguments for, or just trust, that a fighter is or was better than they've demonstrated (ie: that they're better than their resume shows)... But you might then come up against the objection that you can't really prove it without the resume to back it up.

It'd be silly to say he didn't have good attributes - he clearly had heart, he had power and he was quick for a heavy... The question marks come in when you start looking at the level of most of the opponents he beat and start to think about whether some of his better characteristics might've been overstated, and whether his weaknesses were more limiting than he's sometimes given credit for.

Dude was entertaining, I just don't think he was actually very good - good, but not elite and nowhere near great.

 

For all the mockery and to be fair, even to be viewed among the top 100 heavyweights to ever lace on a pair of gloves in the history of the sport is something quite special.

 

Not true at all.

Povetkin beat Byrd, Whyte, Rahman and Chagaev who were at or above Wilders level.

 

Is subbing prime versions for shot versions a thing now?

 

I selected other, Top rankings become meaningless once you list the top 30-40ish guys (which in no way shape or form is he). Wilder definitely isn't a top 30 or 40 guy..........................ranking guys lower than that gets to the point of being pointless.

Could he be top 50? Maybe.
Could he be outside the top 50? Maybe

But once you're that low, it doesn't really matter. I could say I think Michael Dokes is top 50 (he's not but I could say it). Who cares if someone is top 50?