It's not Ruiz's style or dimensions but his physical inconsistency that would worry me. If he comes into a Wider fight grossly overweight and trusting to his chin to get him in range, or alternatively comes in too light and lacking resilience then he puts himself at risk. Or if he comes in demotivated like he's done a ton of times. Wilder to his credit always comes to a fight in top shape, and rarely if ever dials in a performance. It's that consistency that would have me pick him if I were to side with him. But put the Ruiz that fought Parker in the ring and there's no way Wilder has an easy night's work. What does it matter how long ago it was? You're bringing up amateur fights like they mean something, so clearly being green or inexperienced or fighting under a different set of rules is all fair game in this debate right? Yes, Duhaupas was ultra-defensive with his guard against Wilder. So was Jennings against Wlad, while he fought in a phonebooth against Ortiz. Might have something to do with the comparative results.
I agree , minus a belt he would be more highly regarded resume wise Not the greatest HW to not hold a world title i don't think though And when your a world champion ,its inevitable you will be held to a higher standard so whilst boxing and winning is acceptable for a fighter on the up ect ,its not going to be universally accepted if you happen to a champion The being British reason is pretty laughable tbh Go read the British section Its full of people that are not fans of both or just one of them
Most of Wilder's success came in those explosive bursts he threw, which Duhaupas wasn't able to adequately guard against. That's a result of Wilder's superior speed and explosiveness, not his boxing ability. There was very little outboxing being done in that fight from Wilder's end barring those surprise one twos he threw off the ropes. Pure speculation whether a roided Teper beats Ruiz. Teper never impressed in any fight I saw him in. He was just a solid guy with a solid set of skills and decent power. Ruiz is all that, plus his very fast hands and world class chin. Put the best versions of both in the ring (the Ruiz that fought Parker and Joshua 1 and the Teper that beat... Duhaupas and Price?) and I wouldn't give Teper too great of a chance. I doubt anyone else would either. You seem to think I'm some Ruiz fanboy. I'm not, and fully recognise his flaws (which I actually pointed out in the buildup to the Joshua rematch) but he's still a very good opponent when on form, and liable to cause a lot of fighters problems. He's one of those Ray Mercer types who struggles when he shouldn't and ups his game when he has no right to be in the running. Nah, I've seen worse. Stiverne was buzzed and wobbly, and King started landing multiple unanswered right hands (albeit some shoeshine shots) to the side of Stiverne's head while he was covered up against the ropes then followed up with a couple more solid ones that prompted the ref to step in. Stiverne was still fighting back, but they were more like keep off shots, and none of them looked to have King in any sort of danger, while almost every right hand King was landing was landing solid and looking to do damage. I'm not sure if I ever painted the stoppage as Stiverne being laid out on the canvas unconscious. The fight is available on youtube for anyone to see, and proceeds much as I described above. Sorry, you haven't convinced me. Amateur fights. Irrelevant. Those things don't make a fighter inherently better. Beaten by Demetrice King. Knocked down by Rossy before he got stopped by Wilder. Arreola was never a gauge of greatness. Former LHW Adamek beat an even primer version three years earlier and wasn't outboxed for rounds like Stiverne was. He also went life and death with an old Ray Austin, who Wlad had beaten one-handed in two rounds four years prior. Yeah, I can see Wlad thinking Wilder was faster. He's definitely springier and a bit more naturally agile (though his balance is ass). Joshua has always been quite stiff and robotic. He lacks that whip-snap on his punches and is generally just a lot more textbook than Wilder. He's improved lately though, and I don't think there's too much in it where raw speed is concerned, especially now that Wilder is older and slowing down. Wilder is still more capable of KTFO a fighter out of the blue due to the way he fights, but if you can push him back or tie him up, or otherwise neutralise his one good shot he struggles. Joshua, by virtue of his superior range of tools, is much more dangerous in more situations. Wilder's jab is a bit more explosive but that doesn't mean it's better. Joshua is clearly more accomplished in using it to control the range/rhythm of a fight while Wilder frequently finds himself getting outboxed by lower level guys like Washington. At this stage I'm not sure what more we're going to see from Wilder. You're talking about him like he's a young man. He's already 36 going on 37, and if he loses to Fury again I'd say that's the end for him. You don't reinvent yourself at that age or magically gain back your athletic traits (unless you hire Mackie Shilstone as your nutritionist) so unless Joshua totally wets the bed against Usyk or gets KOed by some random dude he has no business losing to then he'd be a rightful favourite. Parker, Wlad, and Povetkin weren't no hopers. Ruiz, given he'd pushed a prime Parker to the brink, wasn't exactly a no-hoper either. Molina and Breazeale certainly were. Now Szpilka, Washington and Duhaupas, they would have been no-hopers, had Joshua fought them. Lucky he didn't. Fight wouldn't be won on resumes but on who punches whose lights out first. That'd be the Mak man.
Pretty much agree. Once you get to being the champion it doesn’t matter how you get there then you have to step up, quite simply Wilder hasn’t done that. To have your own manager say you aren’t ready for a unification whilst calling yourself the world champion is disgraceful.
It's all about THE BELTS when comparing Joshua and Wilder. Wilder stopped Joshua from winning all the alphabet belts. Wilder stopped Fury from completing his big "comeback" story by flooring him twice and drawing with him. The British fans hate him for it. There are 10,000 posts on this board to back that up. But you take away the belts, keep the same records, and everything shifts. Let's say there was ONLY the RING belt. The Lineal title. And Wilder and Joshua have the SAME records they do now, just no titles were ever on the line when they BEAT their opponents. So NONE of Wilder's wins so far and NONE of Joshua's wins so for were for ANY titles. None. We've already had two people say Wilder would be regarded higher if he had never won a belt. Would Joshua be regarded MORE HIGHLY today than he is now if he never won a belt? Not by a long shot. Unifying three belts is his "whole" thing. Not who be beat to unify them. Because Charles Martin, Joseph Parker and Andy Ruiz aren't exactly Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Also, Joshua has fought quite a few "names" in their last fights. They were title fights, so it didn't matter so much. But take away the "title" designation, and fighting OLD names on their WAY OUT in non-title fights doesn't hold the same regard. Fighting "old names" on their way out - like Cooney did - can get you a high rating but tends to be more scrutinized in non-title fights. Pulev was about 40 and competing in his last fight. Wlad was 40+ and competing in his last fight and hadn't won in years. Povetkin was about 40 and arguably could've been in his last fight (he had one win after that before retiring). Hell, if the Usyk fight (in what could be Oleksandr's last fight) was a non-title match, would anyone think this was a showcase? Joshua versus a 35-year-old cruiserweight who hasn't exactly taken the heavyweight division by storm? At this moment, Parker is rated much higher in the Ring ratings than Usyk is. Usyk is rated 10th. He's barely ranked. In a WORLD where NO belts were on the line, and Joshua was waiting for a fight with the WORLD champion Fury, fighting rematches with Joseph Parker or Whyte would be the move for Joshua. Not facing an 35-year-old cruiser on his way out. If the Charles Martin, Molina, Breazeale, Takam and the two Ruiz bouts ... if all those were non-title bouts, is anyone holding those up as stellar wins? If Parker never held a title, and when Joshua and Parker fought they had been just two undefeated guys on the rise, and Joshua won that 12-round decision, is anyone even bringing it up anymore? That fight was boring as all hell. If NEITHER Wilder and Joshua had ever won a title - neither has won the RING title yet - and both were just contenders right now ... there really wouldn't be much of anything separating them. Wilder's best performance would be his TWO-KNOCKDOWN DRAW in his first fight - a non-title fight with current Ring Champ Tyson Fury, who he is fighting again next. And Joshua's best performance against his best opponent would probably be his decision over Joseph Parker, because Parker is the best name he faced who was still remotely close to his prime when they fought. If Gerry Cooney had a WBA belt when he stopped Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle and Ken Norton ... those fights would be viewed much differently than they are. Take away the titles, and it's the same with Joshua. His "name" wins would be viewed much differently, too.
Except that they are/were both belt holders, so your argument is rather pointless. Yes Wilder would be better regarded if he wasn't a belt holder, but he was. As such, his resume and quality of opponents are poor in comparison to AJ. AJ actually attempted to unify by fighting other title holders, Wilder was content facing lesser competition. It's plain as day.
Normally go to the hell with your Wilder. 1 alone boxer enough well known in eurasia he had fought with was Fury. Bear in mind that Ortiz is absolute noname in eurasia. Now you dream that Wilder is something like DLH, Floyd Jr, Ward, Crawford ( yeah ) and the likes of Mike or Holyfield? Really? Wilder is lad who had mikled WBC World title belt 5 years in row by fighting nonames. Next even better US boxer there is Garry Russel Jr. Soon he will milk belt 6 years in row so better than Wilder while with 0 doubts he is excellent A level boxer without 1 single doubt. Cool era.
Terrible argument for Wilder tbh, all he has is two wins over a very old Ortiz who's on his way out. Kinda shot yourself in the foot there (LOL) Also brits don't hate Wilder, he ended Audley Harrison, we're eternally grateful.
It's a toss-up for me. AJ has the best win between the two but Wlad was 41, 17 months inactive and defeated and was an inch away from KO'ing AJ, all of which devalues the win. And AJ has by far the worst loss; Ruiz is worse than Stiverne but he splattered AJ all over the canvas and made him quit. Ortiz x2 are underrated wins, on par with 39 year old Povetkin and paint dry. The manner of many of Wilder's wins was very impressive, the way he blasted Breazeale, Stiverne and Liakhovich out in the first round while AJ, Joyce and Ruiz comparatively struggled, the latter two with inferior versions. There is also something to be said for Wilder racking up 10 defences while having a target on his back, AJ got to 6 and then lost horrifically to a 25-1 underdog. AJ's resume is the most overrated resume in heavyweight boxing and possibly boxing as a whole. He's always been a big, huge or ludicrous favourite and has fought precisely one KO artist (old inactive Wlad) in his career. No Ortiz in 2016, no Usyk in 2019, no Wilder or Fury.
Some good points but Povetkin didn't have one more win before retirement: he had two wins (Hughie, Whyte) and a draw (Hunter) with the first two in the backyards of his opponents. I thought the Hughie fight was very close, that Hunter nicked it by a point and that he was on the brink against Whyte but he still performed well above expectations, so AJ's come from behind win over 39 year old Povetkin has aged well. Usyk's a near-35 year old former cruiser but he's still much better than "recently sparked by shot Povetkin" Whyte and "recent gift decision" Parker based on the margin of his victory over Chisora, his amateur pedigree and status as an undisputed champion and road warrior. AJ's best win is definitely old inactive defeated Wlad, then old Povetkin, then probably paint dry Parker. Parker was in his prime but as we now know he's not even as good as prime Chisora and he's certainly not aggressive or a puncher, so he's not a dangerous opponent in AJ's backyard. Wilder's number of consecutive title defences annoy many boxing fans because it equals Ali's and puts him above Tyson, Lewis and Vitali, not to mention AJ, and Wilder flattened all of his Andy Ruiz's, while Tyson, Lewis and AJ got destroyed by some of theirs.
Everyone said the same of 25-1 underdog Ruiz, who has slower feet, far less height and reach and vastly less power than Dubois, so Dubois must have a very significant puncher's chance. I would favour AJ to beat Dubois but the latter would be a very live underdog. AJ doesn't have a rock solid defence, an iron chin or much of a gas tank and he can easily get discouraged if he's dropped. Many on this forum apparently live in a world where a non-punching fringe contender never wrecked prime AJ so he can easily breeze through hard-punching young contenders.
