Who's got the better legacy so far Wilder or Chisora?

Realistically, no.

Chisora might be way over the hill, but Wilder is definitely declined too...

Same with Joyce, overrated at his peak and roughly as declined as Chisora was.

At the end of the day, Chisora isn't winning a belt and holding it - as much as he was probably much closer to equal than many would believe at their peaks, on paper they're just too far apart to overcome now.

 

Against Wilder's opposition, Chisora wouldn't have even had a "smoke and mirrors" title reign because he'd have lost to Stiverne for the title just as Arreola did.

Assuming Chisora got past Stiverne, which I don't believe given Arreola lost in dominant fashion twice, Chisora would have lost to undefeated Ortiz, who Chisora's said multiple times he will "never fight" due to Ortiz being "a hard night at the office".

Chisora also may well have lost the Ortiz rematch; almost three years later after the Wilder rematch when significantly declined, Ruiz barely scraped by Ortiz.

Chisora wouldn't have had any success against a 2018/2020/2021 Fury, losing all fights in lopsided fashion without scoring a KD or scraping a debatable draw.

Chisora would have failed to drop or stop many of Wilder's opponents. He failed to stop many journeymen in his own career, and didn't put a dent in Washington or Helenius.

As for Parker and Zhang, Wilder was shot by this point. But Chisora could easily lose both those fights too, on paper he lost both to Parker, and was battered in the Parker rematch.

Whereas Wilder was 42-2-1 after the Fury trilogy, Chisora would have been 40-5 or 39-6.

 

Wilder imo

 

Wilder

A world title reign pushes him miles ahead legacy wise despite how manufactured it was

 

Joyce had been destroyed x2 by Zhang when Chisora got to him, whereas Ortiz was undefeated or had one loss respectively, and was ranked in the top 5/6, whereas I believe Joyce wasn't even top 10 ranked when Chisora beat him. Joyce also was kept away from a post Wilder 1 Ortiz by his then trainer Abel Sanchez.

A head to head victory won't do anything to swing it. To take a more extreme example, Berbick beating Ali didn't give him a better legacy than Ali.

 

Naturally, you seem to have completely glossed over what I said here:

 

I don't see it as "smoke and mirrors". I don't think Chisora was good enough to even become champion against Wilder's opponents. I don't think many in the division could have wracked up 10 defences against Wilder's title opponents, even with some A-side bias helping them.

 

What a stupid thread.

using this logic, Chisora has a better resume than AJ, fury and usyk too.
He’s fought against more decent guys over a long career than any of them, granted he loses to most of them but that doesn’t seem to matter.

also, I guess guys like Peter Buckley are better than Naz too as he’s faced more decent guys (lost but that doesn’t matter)

 

Ortiz is one of the more interesting modern boxing's what if stories. He made his debut at 30, and had his breakout year at the age of 36. By the time he fought Wilder, he was already 38 and had shown his age in a few of his recent fights.
And even tho Wilder KO´d him again in the rematch, its remarkable that Ortiz was able to win every round up to the 7th, given that he was now 40.

Such a shame that he turned pro so late, he could have been a really good addition to the division in his physical prime, which was at the time when both Klitschko brothers were still champions.

 

This logic began circulating the forum when people needed to try to boost Joshua's resume. They started counting all fights (including losses) as part of the resume. If you call it out, they simply say "it shows that he was willing to face everyone!". Try to apply the same logic to Chisora, "he wasn't even champion!".

I've had to make a thread on this topic called "Do losses count against a fighter?" to shine a light on this. It's insanity.

 

Whether its wins over Malik Scott, Gerald Washington, Szpilka or 3 losses to Fury and 2 to Parker the double standards here are kinda absurd. Knocking Helenius out in the 1st round means nothing and so does losing to him.

This is strange.

I'm actually questioning if this is like a prank, inside joke, reference or something like that. You guys don't really believe in 20 years people will be talking about Chisoras legacy and the 10x defending champion with the 99% KO rate will be forgotten by history.

 

It is so absurd, it’s either trolling or an unreal hatred level that has caused people to be extremely deluded (a common diss thrown at wilder).

Chisora has only ever been a high level journeyman type.
Wilder and AJ were the kings of the division for around 5 years…wilders the longest reigning champ since klit era with both time (I think) and defences.

chisora, as much as I like him, has never touched a world title.
Granted they are both past it now so this fight doesn’t reflect who has a better resume but who is better on the night.

 

If people see impressive records as a sign of "fraud" the next step is seeing a bad one as a stamp of authenticity. Chisora has the most losses in the top 200 or did last time i checked. Every time I try to hype up someone like Frank Sanchez, Hrgovic(who according to one poster is quote "barely even a gatekeeper") or someone like that people say "they didn't beat anybody though". Jared Andersons career is over for losing to Bakole, Bakoles is over for losing to Parker, Hrgovics is over for losing to Dubois, Sanchez's is over for losing to Kabayel. Chisora has 13 losses and his best win is Otto Wallin.