McCline lost to Arreola, Szpilka, Sconiers, Lawrence, Pickrom, Bell ... even though he was 20 to 50 pounds heavier than they were. It's funny... Wilder gives up weight to Arreola, suffers a broken hand and a torn bicep, and still stops Arreola. Wilder gives up weight to Szpilka yet knocks out Szpilka so hard, Artur is carried from the ring on a stretcher, is hospitalized and is never the same fighter again ... Wilder gives up weight to Sconiers, goes down, gets up and drops Sconiers FOUR times and stops him. And Wilder's called a fraud. McCline - who had 50 pounds on some of them - loses to all the same guys ... and he's underrated.
Sure. When you remove all context and don't use your brain properly as to spin some positive yarn for fighter you've obsessively defended to the point of being a meme on here. I guess that makes sense
Name McCline's 10 best wins. You can't add Arreola, Szpilka, or Sconiers, because he lost to all of them. You can't add Zuri Lawrence, Gary Bell, Greg Pickrom, or Calvin Brock, because he lost to all of them, too. You can't use John Ruiz or Nicolay Valuev, because he lost to them, too. But go ahead.
McCline was 38 when he lost to Arreola... Zpilka was like 18 years younger than McCline... Wilder has gone 2-2 since hitting the same age bracket. You just judged a man by the twilight of his career rather than the full extent of it. And you used weight to make the judgement. Are you really this daft? It took Wilder 5 years to put together a new win streak, after Fury beat him for the first time. 5 ****ing years for us to see Wilder win two back to back fights again. Naturally you can see how silly of a statement this is given his age and career trajectory. No one serious should judge the entirety of Wilder´s career off of the last 6 years of it, it would be silly to do so, regardless of weight. By your own standard both Fury and Zhang should be undefeated. Bakole should be a world champion. So yes, McCline is very underrated.
Deontay Wilder went undefeated from 2008 to 2020. He made 10 successful heavyweight title defenses, including one against Tyson Fury. He was unbeaten in his first 43 pro fights and didn't lose a fight until he was 34 years old. Exacly how many winning streaks do you need after you put together one that's 43 fights and a dozen years long, and includes 11 heavyweight title wins? He's since lost to only three people in an 18-year, 50-fight career. Wilder was outweighed by everyone he fought from 2012 until last year. Most of the guys you fellows bash Wilder for knocking out BEAT McCline. McCline who weighed more than his opponents in like 50 of his pro fights, lost all the goddamn time. From the start of his career until the end. He turned pro in 1995, and lost. Lost in 96. Lost in 2002. Lost in 2004. Lost in 2005. Lost in 2007. Lost in 2008. Lost in 2009. Lost in 2012. He outweighed Sconiers (17-23-2) by nearly 60 pounds ... and lost. All that said, I thought Jameel McCline was a very good heavyweight contender. But you have to be the biggest hypocrites in the freaking world to claim McCline was underrated and Wilder is overrated, when the prime reason you guys bash Wilder is for knocking out guys McCline couldn't even beat ... even with 50-pound weight advantages over them. Wilder didn't outweigh any of them.
Sam Peter is a proven quitter. Who were Sam Peter's 10 top wins against again? A 30-year-old Sam Peter couldn't even last against Robert Helenius.
You always pull that question up, as if it means what you think it does. Not having better ten wins means NOTHING. A fight is not resume vs resume FFS. And perhaps you've heard this old saying, 'Styles make fights'. Who had better ten wins when: Rahman Beat Lewis Sanders beat Wlad Ruiz beat Holyfield McCall beat Lewis Pacquiao beat Marco Antonio Berrara Brewster beat Wlad Mosley beat Oscar Spinks beat Holmes Ruiz Jr beat Anthony Joshua Here's a hint, it was the one with the worse resume, who was lesser proven, who won all of those... And anyone who uses that line to try and determine who would win a hypothetical matchup doesn't understand boxing. Just fanboying...
That hilarious. I BRING IT UP ALL THE TIME? The hell I do. There are countless threads on this board, at least, asking who Wilder's 10 top wins are. And I turn the table and pose the same question in this thread, and people say "You can't do that it doesn't mean anything." Then why do you guys bring it up with Wilder every freaking week? It's a hypocrite festival in here today. I swear.
Yes, you've asked that question before. Who the **** is this 'You guys"? I'm not this "You guys" crap. I speak for me only, no one else speaks for me. You have no idea what hypocrite actually means. And besides, was I wrong about a boxer having a better ten wins meaning he would win the hypothetical? You want to touch base on that or just pretend I didn't have a solid point that renders your silly wannabe "Gotcha" question useless?
* So, it's okay for everyone and their brothers to ask who Wilder's 10 best wins are (year in and year out, month in and month out, in order to bash Wilder). But I can't ask that about Peter or McCline ... especially if you can't come up with 10? * It's okay to say Wilder's brutal ko wins over Szpilka, Arreola, Helenius, and Sconiers fights show Wilder was trash and he didn't fight anyone ... but you can't bring up that Peter and McCline lost to those common opponents ... because "context." * And, if I add context, like McCline outweighed all the common opponents by anywhere from 20 to 50 pounds ... while Wilder gave up weight to all of them and still torched them ... or Wilder had torn bicep, a broken hand, and was giving up 20 pounds, and still won by KO ... that's the WRONG context. * And, it's okay to say So-and-So has better wins than Wilder, which proves Wilder loses. But if Wilder has the better wins ... then it's a GOTCHA question and it proves nothing, because upsets happen. Do I have it now? Pretend scenarios aside, Wilder wipes out both McCline and Peter. Not only would he beat them, guys Wilder smoked wiped out both of them. Not only that, guys Wilder smoked while Wilder was injured beat them. Having huge weight advantages and only managing to hang tough and lose is one thing. Being a dominant fighter for a dozen years, despite giving up weight to everyone ... is better. In one of the few fights in his career where he was outweighed, McCline simply quit after three rounds against Valuev. He was so used to having ridiculous weight advantages over EVERYONE ... he had no answer when he was the smaller guy. And Peter quit any number of times. The worst was when, even at a relatively young 36 and having a 20-pound weight advantage over Pulev, who was the same age, Peter quit in his stool after three rounds with nothing wrong with him. He just wasn't feeling it that night, apparently. Meanwhile, there is Wilder going into hostile territory at 40 ... And even though he gave up 40 pounds to the favorite and #2 IBF contender Chisora ... and even though he knocked the favorite down five times (though only two counted according the biased ref) ... even though Chisora's cornermen were allowed to help him back in the ring ... even though the ref was allowed to help Chisora back in the ring, too, after Wilder punched him out and took a point from Wilder ... even though the ref was allowed to stop Deontay from hitting Chisora in the third and gave Derek a 20-second breather when all Wilder did was punch him hard in the eye ... even though the ref ruled a slip by Wilder as a knockdown ... despite all that bias and scandal and duplicity ... Not only did Wilder not quit ... like Peter and McCline did when they felt the deck was stacked against them ... Wilder won. So, throw out all the random upset scenarios you want ... but those two quitters aren't beating Wilder. If an injured Wilder wasn't upset by the same fighters who beat the hell out of McCline and Peter ... he isn't losing to Peter or McCline ... unless the roof of the arena caved in on his corner with him in it.