When Wilder fought Szpilka he'd been stopped once and was on a 4 fight win streak, including over an older but still decent Adamek. When Radchenko fought Szpilka he'd been stopped 4 times and was one fight removed from getting KO'd. By your logic, Danny Williams and Kevin MacBride beat a prime Tyson.
I agree that the guy's list is BS propaganda but the WBC rankings (or any sanctioning body) are hardly objective, especially since the organisation so heavily favoured Wilder.
Even at this point Jennings would school Ruiz, who couldn't KO badly faded Liakhovich pre-Parker or badly faded Arreola post-AJ. The win over Jennings is better than any win on Parker, Whyte and Chisora's resumes and the shut out over Hammer at an official 40 as well as his more destructive wins over journeymen suggests that at 39 and 28-0 (24 KO's, never knocked down) Ortiz would have dominated Ruiz, Parker and Chisora and KO'd Whyte.
"I regard Wilder's win over Duhaupas as one of his five most impressive (along with Stiverne 1, Ortiz x2 and Breazeale)". In summary it's TRASH!!!!!
Wilder won the WBC title and defended against WBC challengers. Those were where they were rated at the time. Here are Joshua's Top 10 opponents and their ratings by their orgs, for comparison's sake. (Whyte wasn't rated by anyone in the top 10 when they fought). * Charles Martin #IBF Champ * Dominic Breazeale #9 IBF * Eric Molina #8 IBF * Wlad Klitschko #1 WBA (vacant belt) * Carlos Takam #3 IBF * Joseph Parker #WBO Champ * Alexander Povetkin #1 WBA * Andy Ruiz #5 (WBA) #11 (WBO) #15 (IBF) (Joshua loses) * Andy Ruiz - #Champ (WBA, WBO, IBF) * Kubrat Pulev #1 (WBO) 10 title fights against 10 opponents ranked in the top 10 (although Ruiz wasn't rated top 10 in two of the three). Joshua's record against top 10 opponents is 9-1 (7 kos). Wilder's record against top 10 opponents is 10-1-1 (9 kos) * Bermane Stiverne #WBC Champ * Eric Molina #9 WBC * Johann Duhaupas #12 WBC * Artur Szpilka #8 WBC * Chris Arreola #9 WBC (late sub for #1 Povetkin) * Gerald Washington #8 WBC * Bermane Stiverne #1 WBC * Luis Ortiz #3 WBC * Tyson Fury #3 WBC * Dominic Breazeale #4 WBC * Luis Ortiz #3 WBC * Tyson Fury #1 WBC/RING championship (Wilder loses) I don't see one list of opponents being WILDLY SUPERIOR to the other. Wilder fought to a draw and also lost to the best opponent on either list. Joshua lost to the lowest rated challenger (#11/#15) on either list.
Wilders resume is rather weak. Aside from Ortiz he's beaten B and C level fighters, including shot fighters like Liakovich and Arreola. Big puncher but no skills otherwise.
I think you are rightfully upset about people fabricating stats against Wilder, but you can't turn around and try to sell us on WBC rankings. This list is a clear indication why people don't trust the alphabet soups. Molina, Szpilka, Arreola, Washington, Stiverne (the second time), and Breazeale were not seen as genuine contenders by more objective observers. Of these names, only Fury, Ortiz, and Stiverne (the first time) held active top-10 positions from independent sources.
5 best wins for each... Klitschko, Povetkin, Parker, Ruiz, Whyte Ortiz, Stiverne, Duhaupas, Brezeale, Molina?? To me that seems about right... I just feel like the top row are better fighters.
I was actually working on this for a few different heavy weights but Wilders resume against contenders. I'm using the transnational boxing rankings board for these rankings and where the guys he fought were ranked at the time Fury 2 (KO Loss) (rank #2) Ortiz 2 (KO win) (rank #4) Breazeale (KO win)(unranked) Fury 1 (Draw) (rank #8) Ortiz 1 (KO win) (rank #4 after, some reason they didn't have him ranked for a few months in 2018 and 2017) Stiverne 2 (KO win) (unranked) Gerald Washington (KO win)(unranked) Chris Arreola (KO win) (unranked) Artur Szpilka (KO win) (unranked) Johann Duhaupas (KO win) (unranked) Eric Molina (KO win) (unranked) Stiverne 1 (UD win) (rank #3) Malik Scott ("KO win")(unranked) Serhei Liakhovich (KO win)(unranked) Audley Harrison (KO win)(unranked) Wilders only wins over guys that were rated in the top ten (based off of year end ring magazine rankings (if someone wants to point me to a month by month archive id check that too) and tbrb monthly rankings) were Ortiz (I'll count it X2) and Stiverne (first fight). Fury was a draw and a loss obviously but he was rated as well. Not saying Wilder is bad or good, but those are the contenders at the time.
How can you not see the opponent's AJ beat compared to Wilder not being superior to Wilders list? There's 5 AJ opponents better than any that Wilder has beaten. I know you previously sourced the Ring Magzine ratings as being "gospel" (which I totally disagree with). So on the Rings ratings of the time AJ beat Pulev - AJ had beaten the following ranked opponents: Whyte, Povetkin, Parker, Ruiz and Pulev whilst Wilder had only beaten Ortiz that is from then and currently in the top 10. Ortiz only had a high ranking in Ring Magazine for his sole win against Jennings over 5 years ago. Jennings only had a high ranking because he was awarded a win against Perez due to a very controversial late points deduction (had that not happened the judges would of ruled it a draw). Prior to that fight Perez got a gift of draw against Takam of which the majority of people thought Takam won. Therefore Jennings should not of had his high ranking but Takam and Ortiz would likely of never been ranked by Ring.
This. It falls woefully short to: AJ - Wlad Povetkin, Whyte, Parker, and Ruiz ( Breazeale doesn't even make his top 8). Whyte - Povetkin, Parker, Chisora x 2 and Helenius. Povetkin - Whyte, Byrd, Chagaev, Takam and Perez (Duhaupas doesn't even make the list and Povetkin brutally KOed him). Parker - Ruiz, Chisora, Takam, Hughie and Fa.
Jennings beat Perez while Takam got a draw but Takam is apparently better than Jennings because you disagree with the officials in both fights. You appeal to an apparent consensus that Takam should have beaten Perez but don't question whether Perez actually deserved to get a draw with Jennings. Let's look at their other more notable wins: Jennings has stoppages over Liakhovich, Fedosov, Szpilka and Dimitrenko while Takam has a decision in a close fight over Jerry Forrest, a decision over a decrepit Tony Thompson and two stoppage wins over a shot to bits Grant and a shot to bits Botha. Takam lost to Gregory Tony and Parker by decision, Povetkin, AJ, Chisora and Joyce by stoppage, Jennings lost to Wlad and Joyce by decision, Rivas and Ortiz by stoppage. It's clear to me that Jennings is better than Takam. Ortiz's victory over Jennings was arguably better than Wlad's (who took less damage but did less) and certainly better than Rivas's (who went life and death with Whyte) and Joyce's (who would easily beat Whyte, Parker, Ruiz and Chisora) and it's a more dominant win over a quality opponent than Whyte (shot Povetkin victim) Parker (Whyte/Chisora victim) or Chisora (Kabayel victim) have managed. Ruiz upset AJ but he was mediocre pre-AJ and has been mediocre post-AJ; it will prove to be nothing more than a fluke victory over a vulnerable champion.
The fact that you don't mention that Povetkin was 41.5 years old and a sick man on wobbly legs before he even entered the ring just shows how disingenuous you are, along with the fact that shot Povetkin at 41 blasted prime Whyte out with one punch, which has to seriously damage Whyte's resume. The idea that Povetkin was the same man who beat Byrd, Chagaev and Duhaupas (who had 10 hours notice and was post-Wilder) is a sick joke.
This is true but who were seen as genuine contenders against AJ? Common opponents Breazeale and Molina? Charles Martin? Old Takam? Ruiz? Old Pulev? The only ones who were seen as legitimate threats were retired Wlad, old Povetkin, Parker and even more obese Ruiz in the rematch. Even then, AJ was a very big favourite over Parker and Povetkin and a pretty big favourite over Wlad and Ruiz 2. Fury both times, Ortiz both times and Stiverne the first time were all seen as legitimate threats to Wilder. Wilder was a large favourite over Ortiz the second time, pretty big the first time and close to even money against Stiverne and Fury x2. Wilder's only loss is to the No.1 heavyweight, while AJ's only loss is to what is really a fringe top 20 heavyweight.
In regard to the belt, many seem to forget or ignore that Wilder, Stiverne, and Arreola all got political gifts in fighting for the WBC strap. Stiverne, who was promoted by Don King, essentially a family member to the Sulaimans, was given what was supposed to be a layup in a title eliminator against a 40-year-old Ray Austin, who had lost his last fight. Stiverne had a helluva time in that bout and was likely losing (Lederman had Austin up by two) until one shot pulled it out in the 10th. Arreola was only given a shot because the WBC had a chance to scratch one of two major itches: give their friend Don King a titleholder or get the first heavyweight "champion" of Mexican descent. Wilder then gets soft-touched to Stiverne because he was an exciting American with good amateur credentials. In regard to Wilder's title run, we can't conveniently gloss over the fact that he either struggled or struggled more than anticipated in virtually every bout he had -- Stiverne (1st fight), Molina, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Washington, and Ortiz twice. I didn't see the Arreola bout as some sort of prize performance, either. Sure, he was competitive with Ruiz recently, a guy who is streaky like most guys above 200 lbs., but Arreola was never a genuine contender, even at his peak.
