What does Wilder mean to Fury's legacy?

Certainly didn't pull the trigger vs Wlad.

 

How very convenient...

He was magically ruined by Fury and therefore couldn't pull the trigger against Parker, who he would totally have knocked out before, even though he hadn't beaten anyone on that level...

Once again Wilder just gets this magic pass - he doesn't have to have proved he could operate at that level, it's just assumed because he held a belt hostage for a while and "cus bomz n ****".

There were times before that where he struggled to pull the trigger against lesser opponents too - glass chinned featherfist Szpilka, for example... And ancient gatekeeper Ortiz nearly stopped him as well (and would've done if not for a little A-side intervention).


Wilder just wasn't really that good - if he was, he might've actually beaten a contender or two... But he hid like a coward protecting his belt and avoiding anyone decent - because they knew he wasn't quite all that. Have to protect the product, you see.

 

It's a great question. And I have enjoyed reading the replies.
I think I'd say that ultimately Wilder adds To Fury's legacy. But not as much as Fury had hoped. Wilder was, at the time, seen as very dangerous - and was to a degree, I feel. The trilogy was exciting and elevated both to a place in boxing history where they couldn't have got alone.
I think what hurts Fury (and Wilder) is they were happy to promote the idea they were the best two in the world at this time. And history proved that wasn't really the case. To an extent, they gambled their reputations on each other. And it backfired, in time.

 

If by magically you mean he was beaten down and took severe damage in 2 straight fights, then yes magically

Haha I know you dont like Wilder but come on haha

 

He did prove it

In the first and 3rd fight with Fury

You tried to downplay that by the whole Fury not being in shape, as if it was the Ngannou fight.

 

You love rewritng history

Stiverne was top 5 at the time
Ortiz was top 5 at the time and he knocked him out twice
Braezele was in the top 10 and he knocked him out in the round

Yes he was protected somewhat but to say that he never fought a contender is just being dishonest

 

It's just a mega, mega convenient argument...

What it essentially boils down to is a "cmon man", he was totally legit even though he never proved it... And when he proved he wasn't by finally stepping up, it doesn't count because Fury beat him up a few times.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking anyone - it's straight up special pleading and illogical.

Wilder is as good as he proved - and that's nowhere remotely close to what he was hyped as before his losses.

 

You're kidding, right?

The first fight Fury was clearly still rusty, won comfortably regardless (and was robbed) and only got hit because he gassed, because he wasn't fit.

And the third he has a fat sack of **** again, along with well publicised issues around the birth of his child - it's not at all controversial to point out he wasn't nearly 100%.


And the fact he could be out of shape like that and still win tells you there was a big gap between Fury and Wilder... Levels... Those two fights prove the opposite of what you'd like them to, IMHO.

 

Stiverne is rightly seen as, along with Martin, a joke champion.

Ortiz was a hypejob with a mega thin resume.

Breazeale was okay, but not a contender.


These aren't serious top level wins - they're guys that got pushed up the famously iffy wbc heavyweight rankings and conveniently give a facade of legitimacy for casuals who weren't paying attention to the obvious fraud... Ortiz is a respectable gatekeeper level win, but no more at that age and being on heart meds.

It's dishonest to pretend Wilder ever beat a contender.

 

Do you think Joyce was always this level of a fighter?

Do you think those 2 beatings from Zhang affected him?

 

These are all contenders

Not champions but contenders

 

No one fought Fury better than Wilder in those 2 fights besides Usyk

Not Klitshko, Whyte, Chisora, Hammer etc

Wilder showed he was dangerous vs anyone and was a top heavyweight for a few years

Was he as good as his title and defenses would suggest no

However Wilder was certainly a dangerous heavyweight and that was shown in the Fury fights

 

Not really the best example - Joyce was overrated as well... And Zhang is a far, far bigger puncher than Fury.

 

Not in my book.

Contenders are guys who should present a decent challenge to champions - legit contenders have a decent chance of winning titles on merit, fringe contenders have a punchers chance with champs.

These guys don't fit either group - or in other words, they weren't contenders.

If we're generous Ortiz might have been close at one point - but not by the time he fought Wilder at 38+ and on heart meds, he'd been fighting either mediocrities (Allen, Hammer) or being the final nail in the coffin of at best gatekeepers (Thompson, Scuba)... You have to go back 2.5 years for his only good win, and Jennings is overrated at that.

 

Wlad fought 100% Fury... We're supposed to compare Wilder's performances against 80% Fury with that?! Seriously??

He doesn't have a record that would suggest he was a titlist... And his defences are generally between very poor and pretty mediocre for a belt holder - those don't really suggest he was that good.

It was only ever really hype that suggested he was anything special.

He proved he could hit hard, if he could land - in that sense dangerous... But there's a reason that didn't happen against fit and motivated contenders (including Fury, the only fight he turned up properly fit for) - he wasn't really that good.