What exactly is Wilder's resume built upon?

... Nichols? Liakhovich? Malik Scott?

 

He's not wrong. Wilder's a good fighter with devastating power but based on his resume and performances against his best opponents he's overrated

 

In general that may be true but in Wilder's case he really did stay in the WBC lane blasting lumps and never fought anybody that was both remotely prime AND remotely good. Never mind a peaking HOF elite. Just anybody halfway decent even near their best. Not one.

Eh, maybe you could argue that Washington, Duhaupas, and Szpilka were so-so, but not exactly the stuff legacies are made of, and Ortiz was ancient when they first met and would have cleanly outboxed him twice if not for being an old slob and getting caught and dropped continuously. Arreola, Stiverne, Breazeale, Molina, Gavern, Firtha? Trash.

 

If he had a 40 year old useless Pulev and a few other fighters on that level then I'd rate him.

 

It depends on the fighter. You can't say "Ortíz at his age was still (if ever) very good or great simply because he did well against Wilder" and let your argument rest on the laurels of that alone; that's a logical fallacy called circulus in probando. What else of note has the same geriatric Ortíz actually done?

 

Its built on somekind of boomerang theory.
Where Wilder is the champ and gets hyped up to be the baddest man on the planet.
Fights some old guy from Cuba or a French Chef who's no one ever heard of.
They give him a hard time, but since he is the baddest man on the planet they themselves must of been good.
Therefore he beat a good opponent.

Except if you look at their resumes or watch the fight, then you realise they are just bums and he struggles with them. But most casual dont look at resumes and have no clue what they are watching when it comes to boxing.

Literally there is no limit to hyping a guy who has a belt and an undefeated record.
Too bad both have been ripped away from Wilder.

 

Who's not giving him credit ? Ortiz was a good win because Ortiz even at old age stopped Jennings. But a resume consisting of Ortiz and Stiverne doesn't make you 3rd best heavyweight or a H2H monster

 

Eh, that's laziness.

It really isn't a very rigorous or unfair amount of scrutiny that neutral observers (never mind haters) must place Wilder's record under before it falls apart. Not sure why that hurts you so. Believe it or not, you can be a fan of someone's and admit their résumé is shallow and thin on substance all the same.

 

Carnival fat men.

 

I happen to agree with you. Neither has all that great a résumé, and Joshua's is only marginally better. It happens to be a **** weak division, aside from Usyk.

To really salvage a terrific résumé from the current landscape - or that of the last half-decade - if you're any of that trio, you'd need to have beaten old Wlad, Parker, Whyte, Chisora, Miller, Hunter, Ruiz, Povetkin, Joyce, Pulev and one if not both of the other members of the trio. And all of that adds up to a résumé that still lacks a single glittering W. Where there is a dearth of high-quality scalps you must plug away and amass the highest possible quantity of middling-quality scalps. Wilder only has a few scalps that are so much as even middling quality for all his years with the green belt...and Fury has even fewer for being the lineal champ. It's all quite pathetic really.

Usyk can beat the whole trio and still will have fought lesser p4p fighters in the pros at heavyweight than he did in the amateurs or WSB or a couple of his pro victories at cruiser.