Does Fabio Wardley rank above Deontay Wilder all time now?

Ortiz is better than Parker based on what? Parker has fought almost everyone. Won some and lost some. Who has Ortiz fought to compare him to Parker. His only notable fight was Wilder.

 

If Wardley is better than Wilder because he beat Parker, I guess Andy Ruiz is better than all of them because he beat AJ in his prime, right?

The answer is the obvious, of course Wardley isn’t better than Wilder historically...

That could certainly change, but right now, that’s what it is.

 

It's a nonsense, always was, that Ortiz was a top tier contender... At best, beating gatekeeper Jennings would've put him at fringe - and that was several years before Wilder got to him.

Still, there are narrative reasons some people want to keep the myth alive - Wilder's resume collapses without it, and Fury's takes a hit as a result - there's plenty of fans who simply need to believe it.

 

When you look at guys with one win that sits quite a bit above their others... It's not necessarily invalid to take that in isolation, poor sample size though it is.

Of the 4 (Wardley, Wilder, Parker, Ruiz), Parker is the only one with real depth... Ruiz at his best was a rare beast, but he went 50/50 with Parker and beat Joshua - that rare "peak Ruiz" probably is the best of the 4, rare though it was for him to fight anywhere near his best (ironically, nobody makes similar caveats when ranking Fury highly, despite his inconsistency).

That will probably stay the consensus much longer than it should - more because of Wilder still being overrated compared with his actual achievements than anything.

Wardley has a thin resume and plenty to prove - that win over Parker is better than anything Wilder achieved, but Wilder has a lot more solid journeymen and mediocre gatekeepers for depth than Wardley does... So it depends what you prefer to see.

 

I tend to prefer resume, and while I don't think much of Wilder's it does has far more depth than Wardley at present.
That could change.
I already agree with many of you that a controversial win over Parker easily trumps a controversial win over Ortiz.

 

Not so outlandish
Snickers Andy was a hungry fighter with fast hands, a great chin, and a big heart

 

I tend to prefer resume, too...

And agreed, Wardley could do with depth to cement that Parker win as something other than a flash in the pan or fluke.

I tend to see Wilder as a lot more overrated than most (because of that poor resume), but there's a reasonable amount of mid-tier depth on it... Enough to make it hard to argue he wasn't realistically, just about, a fringe contender who'd have had a punchers chance against proper championship level fighters - even if it's less likely than many would still think.

Is Wardley there, yet? Maybe... Parker's resume is mixed, but there's enough there that (without Usyk on the scene) he wouldn't be an illegitimate champion if he got hold of a belt... And beating him suggests Wardley is realistically a fringe contender type too - though I'd like to see more proof of it.

We'll see - plenty of fighters have turned out to be very short lived in popularity, or highly inconsistent (since someone mentioned Ruiz)... And as you say, Wilder has plenty of depth at a mediocre level - he had staying power even if it wasn't at the level that should be expected of a champion.

 

He was better than Wardley.

 

Fabio Wardley just entered the Ring Top 3 contender rankings (at #2) about SIX days ago (last Monday).

Fabio has been a Top 3 Ring contender at heavweight for less than one week.

Deontay Wilder was ranked among the Ring Top 3 contenders EVERY SINGLE MONTH, for 12 MONTHS A YEAR, for EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS.

That's roughly 417 straight weeks - from January 2015 to December 2023 - listed among the top 3 contenders.

Wardley will be rated that high for ONE whole week starting tomorrow (Monday).

So, NO. Wardley is not remotely close to being rated above Wilder all-time.

Don't be ridiculous.

This content is protected

 

Yet somehow he has better wins. Maybe ratings based on guesswork don't mean much

We could retroactively give him a top 3 ranking for the last 5 years

 

Deontay Wilder was an Olympic medalist, the WBC Heavyweight Champion for five years, made 10 successful heavyweight title defenses, including one successful defense against Tyson Fury, participated in 13 actual heavyweight title fights (not interim fights), was ranked among the top three heavyweight contenders in the world by Ring every month for eight straight years.

Wardly has yet to win an ACTUAL TITLE yet and has been ranked in the Ring top 3 for one week.

I think Wardley is exciting and I love watching him fight. If Wardley wins a real title, and is still rated this highly and still KOing guys like this eight years from now, we'll talk about who was better.

I know you guys love to hop from one bandwagon to another, but ONE WEEK near the top of the ratings doesn't get you much in terms of all-time standings.

 

We just got over Ituama hype now get straight into the Fapio hype. SO many brainless mf's out here

 

Wardley obviously doesn't need to hold a belt to surpass Wilder resume wise because he already arguably has better wins. Some sanctioning body making all his fights title defenses doesn't impact the quality of opponents.

Huni and Parker are easily on par with anyone Wilder beat

Why can't ring magazine have overrated Wilder and underrated Wardley?