No. Mike Tyson made 8 defenses of the unified titles and 2 defenses of the undisputed lineal HW championship. Wilder is just an alphabet title holder like a Jurgen Brahmer or a Maro Hock.
Sure he has, and you know he has. Stiverne was ranked #2 when Wilder beat him. You know that but choose to lie about it. Wilder is on his way to having a better resume than Vitali. If he beats Tyson Fury it won't even be up for debate.
I think if there's one thing this thread shows, it's how stupid this whole current boxing multiple champions, multiple organizations situation is. For my money, Wilder is a contender with an organizational belt. The 'defenses' mean virtually nothing apart from a win streak. He won't be THE champion until he beats Tyson Fury or whomever Fury's successor is. I'm not a Wilder fan, but I thought he'd crush Tyson Fury. But he didn't. Organizational belts do hold some value, but you can't have 2 or 3 or 4 or more guys claiming to be THE champ at one time. Sorry, but Joe Frazier wasn't THE champ until February 1970, Larry Holmes wasn't THE champ until 1980, Mike Tyson wasn't THE champ until June 1988, and Muhammad Ali wasn't a 4-time World Heavyweight Champion, despite what the WBA says.
You must be related to Redrooster ! The two Liakhovichs are different animals. Briggs' Liakhovich was 30 years old and came into the fight with a a streak of seven wins behind him. Wilder's Liakhovich was 37 and had lost his two previous bouts before facing Deontay.
Liakhovich arguably beat Andy Ruiz after getting obliterated by Wilder. (I thought Sergei won.) Liakhovich certainly did better against Ruiz than Joshua did.
Mike Tyson and Vitali Klitschko made nine consecutive, successful WBC title defenses, the same as Wilder. That's all the video is pointing out. He's on a solid run. No matter how you slice it. And Wilder's career isn't over. Tyson's career and Vitali's career are over.
No. Neither Wilder nor Vitali ever made made unified and undisputed title defenses like Mike Tyson did.
Wilder's career isn't over yet. The WBC and WBA are discussing mandating Ruiz and Wilder unify. Fury may get the WBO title if Ruiz is stripped (that seems to be in the works). Wilder may have multiple titles - or all of them - by next time this year. His career is still in progress. Tyson's isn't. Neither is Vitali's. To just dismiss nine successful WBC heavyweight title defenses is a mistake. There have been a lot of heavyweight champions. You can count the number who made nine successful defenses of any title on two hands. And Wilder is one of them. And he's moving up on a very short list.
Im only discussing the present situation. What you just said is speculation since its in the future. They say the future is unwritten unless you're Marty McFly.
I normally find a lot of points of agreement with the author, but in this case I am just not seeing it. I would never draw any sort of equivalence between ten defenses of the lineal title, and ten defenses of an alphabet title. Even comparing wilder to other alphabet titlists, I find Wilder's reign somewhat underwhelming. It has basically been a game of brinkmanship, in terms of how low a champion can go, without getting stripped. I would add that I consider Wilder to have lost to Fury, in everything but name.
Be assured that I will never change my position, unless he dramatically improves the quality of fighters that he is beating!
I am talking Ring Magazine ranked. Stiverne was never #2 there. Alphabet ratings mean little. Once again, you are not following the points made. If needed I can show you the annual rankings before then fought. Or you can say you're right and we move on... Wilder didn't beat Tyson Fury. He was lucky to get a draw and won maybe 4 rounds of the 12 when they fought. The vast majority of Wider's title defenses came vs non top ten ring magazine ranked opponents. Heck, they were even top ten ranked at box rec either.
Open questions to Wilder fans infatuated by the amount of times he defended his title. Question #1, who is the highest rated Ring Magaine opponent Or Box Rec if you prefer ( When they fought ) that he has beaten and where was that fighter ranked? Follow up question your answer, in hindsight, did that fighter even deserve the rating? Yes or No. Question #2, How many wins does Wilder have over top ten Ring Magazine ranked opponents, that were in their prime? Question #3, Do you think Wilder for the most part, picked easy title opponents? Yes or No.
Deontay Wilder is the WBC Heavyweight Champion. He fights the guys ranked by the WBC or he doesn't get to be the WBC champion. He doesn't fight the guys RING tells him to fight. He doesn't fight the guys the WBA tells him to fight. He doesn't fight the guys the IBF and WBO tell him to fight. So why would you look at the RING ratings or the WBO ratings or the IBF ratings and then WHINE because Wilder didn't fight those guys? And why do you hold so much value on ONE ANNUAL RANKING BY A MAGAZINE each year? It's laughable. The other orgs rank fighters 12 months out of the year. The WBC ranks fighters 12 months out of the year. Everyone Deontay Wilder has fought in a WBC title fight was either the WBC heavyweight champion or RANKED by the WBC. So stomping your feet and saying Wilder didn't fight someone ranked by some other entity means NOTHING. I don't know why some of you RING ANNUAL RATINGS folks can't grasp this.
