Deontay Wilder: top 10 wins

It's context based for me.

 

Chisora was 36-13 going into the fight, not "25-24" and had won four of his last five fights, beating Pulev, Joyce and Wallin as the underdog, only losing to Fury by late safety-first TKO. Chisora had also been the victim of bad decisions earlier in his career (Helenius, Whyte 1, Parker 1), his record should have been more like 39-10.

If your case was strong you wouldn't have to exaggerate ridiculously.

I don't think Wilder proved less shot. Chisora had the better form going in, most people thought he was less shot, he was a clear favourite. To me, it showed that Wilder was better than Chisora despite being more shot, and had a stylistic advantage.

The stacked deck was the corrupt British refereeing and judging, which even many Wilder detractors noted.

Wilder's haters were desperately hoping for Chisora to win, so they could say "Wilder wasn't more shot, he was just never any good, Chisora would have always beat him" etc. etc.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/chisora-vs-wilder.746337/

46-10 on this forum picked Chisora, 40 of them by KO. Virtually no one picked Wilder to outslug Chisora in a 12 round war.

You guys were writing Wilder off before the fight but also want to write off Wilder's win after you were proven wrong. Zero integrity.

 

This version of Chisora isn't a top 3 victory on pure ability, it's top 3 given the context of Wilder being even more shot than Chisora. And beating Chisora with the officials against him, something the likes of Parker and Whyte wouldn't have done, and Pulev failed to do.

 

It depends. Charles Martin had a title but it didn't inflate the value of the win much.

Stiverne being ranked as the 3rd best HW in the world by Ring was a joke. He'd beaten Arreola x2 and 40+ Austin, and had a couple of bad results against no-name journeymen, a level of opponent Chisora never failed to beat. It was questionable whether Stiverne was a genuine top 10 heavyweight on ability. He only snagged a belt because Vitali retired and he got Arreola for the vacant, whose best wins were faded McCline, Seth Mitchell and Eric Molina. Every time Arreola stepped up even to Adamek or Kownacki level, he lost. A prime Ray Ausin may well have beaten Stiverne, based on what we saw.

Prime for prime I'd take Stiverne over Chisora directly H2H but against most styles, I think Chisora is a better fighter. He certainly had a better collection of wins (Scott, Takam, Pulev, Joyce, Wallin), and was the victim of a few bad decisions (Helenius, Whyte, Parker). If you think the version of Stiverne that Wilder beat first time was better than this Chisora, I have no disagreement. That isn't my point though.

For me:

Chisora > Stiverne prime for prime

Wilder was more shot than Chisora

Wilder had the British officials firmly against him


Which makes it a better win imo, though not as important as winning the WBC title (though neither was his win over Ortiz, who was also better than Stiverne).

 

TBRB rankings

8 March 2016

Heavyweight

Champion: Tyson Fury
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Alexander Povetkin
3. Luis Ortiz
4. Deontay Wilder
5. Kubrat Pulev
6. Bermane Stiverne
7. Carlos Takam
8. Anthony Joshua
9. Charles Martin
10. Lucas Browne

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/chisora’s-résumé.701100/