How Long Does Wilder Last, As An 80 's Belt Holder?

What is strange, is to class Fury and Wilder as being on the same level.

They aren't, and that obvious state of affairs has been emphatically (and some would say, needlessly) driven home, in their last two bouts.

 

I said Berbick had more “going for him” in comparison to Fury signing to meet Fury after his breakdown and a couple of inconsequential comeback fights.

And like all these guys Wilder never won a fight to decide who was the best heavyweight in the world. This Wilder has in common with all the 1980s guys.

I never said Fonzy was better than Deontay Wilder. I brought him into the discussion to prove Thomas Really had indeed fought a guy with significant reach and height “advantage” when people were saying he hadn’t. That’s all. Before they realised Thomas had it was seen as a big deal that he had not. So I pointed this out.

Seemed to me those who wanted it to be true that Thomas had not fought a guy of similar dimensions decided to change it into “Wilder as good as Fonz Ratliff” for some unknown reason.

People thought it was a really big deal that Thomas had never out jabbed a man with a Wilder type reach. I just pointed out that Thomas did. That’s all that was.

 

Wilder defended his title against Fury twice. Fury defended his title against Wilder once. Wilder dropped Fury four times. Fury dropped Wilder five times. Their first and third fights were classics.

Fury won the series, but had to get off the floor four times to do so. Wilder couldn't get up the fifth time he was down. Fury was the better of the two.

You don't get classic wars like that if one fighter is so much better than the other.

It's funny, when Floyd Mayweather was on top ... fighting defensively, throwing "check hooks", and the fights ended with neither guy marked up ... all of a sudden, there was a boom of women taking up boxing in gyms as a way to exercise and lose weight. It looked fun. It looked like something they could do. Hitting the mitts looked like a good way to burn off steam.

No women are going to watch Fury-Wilder 3 and say "Hey, that's something I could do."

Those two guys were trying to kill each other. Their third fight was a FIGHT TO THE FINISH in the truest sense. IT was beautiful. That's why there's been such a reaction. We don't see that every day.

You don't get brutal, back-and-forth fights like that when one fighter is far superior than the other. Not if you're being honest.

And the guys who say "Fury's great and Wilder sucks" aren't being honest. it shows in their comments.

Think any of those 80s alphabet champs is going to go to war with Wilder like that and lay it all on the line against Wilder like Fury did?

HELL NO. They didn't lay it on the line against each other.

Half of them didn't even bother getting shape for some fights. Some admitted they straight up quit.

They weren't going to lay it on the line like that against Wilder. If they were, maybe they'd have all managed more than one defense.

 

But they clearly aren't on the same level. Fury was down 4 times, yes. Twice he was barely touched, and he has been knocked down by the likes of Pajkic.

Fury won 3 and Wilder won 0.

Fury won between 24 and 26 rounds. Wilder won between 4 and 6 rounds.

Fury is indeed great and Wilder isn't terrible, he's very good. But Fury is on another level.

 

I think Fury is good enough for now. He at least has proved he can win a fight to decide who the best man is on the planet. He cannot do anymore than that. And it took him a very long time to prove it. Fury was no overnight success story.

And Wilder was good enough to come second to Fury. I just wish Wilder fought more guys like Parker, Ruiz and Joshua.

 

If you are going to say they aren't on the same level ... then as your "proof" give us your "opinion" on who won fights and how many rounds YOU scored in favor of one over the other ... then you aren't being honest ... and, like I said, it shows in your comments.

Fury didn't win the WBC title in their first fight. Wilder retained the title. Wilder dropped Fury twice. Wilder retained the belt. He left the ring with it. He took it home. He defended it two more times after that. Fury won the rematch. Fury dropped Wilder twice in the rematch. Fury celebrated after the rematch. Fury defended that belt when they fought the third time.

Wilder won four rounds on one judge's card and three rounds on the two others in their fight this month alone. You only gave him four for the whole series?

Opinions aren't facts. I can't have a discussion with people who ignore the facts.

Facts matter.

 

My opinion is an opinion, but another man's opinion (a judge on a stipend) is not an opinion, but a fact. Okay, good to know.

The nature of boxing scoring is inherently subjective, so I'm not sure how I could or why I should, rely on another man's subjective experience and subsequent assessment.

Wilder, at his usual best, got outboxed in the first, by a man who was a shadow of his former self for obvious reasons. Wilder, at his usual best, got outmanned and outskilled in the second bout. Wilder, at his usual best, got outfought in the third bout by a man who was also out of shape, training in a park and sleeping in a hospital weeks before the bout.

Just like your idol, you are doing nothing but demonstrating your delusion and bitterness. Let it go, bud.

 

I'm not bitter about anything. I thought we just witnessed one of the great heavyweight title fights.

We also saw how far you have to go, how much power and abuse you have to absorb and dish out in return, to beat Deontay Wilder.

Which of those alphabet champs in the 1980s was going to do that?

The one (Spoon) who got dropped three times in the first and claims he took a dive against Bonecrusher?

Or Bonecrusher, the guy who lost to Marvis Frazier and a year later was dubbed "Bonehugger" because he was too terrified to trade shots with Tyson?

Or Page, who got KOed twice by Mark Wills (who didn't knock out anyone but Greg Page) and who couldn't bother to get in shape to beat David Bey?

Tony Tubbs, who couldn't get in shape to fight anyone, couldn't knock anyone out, and managed no defenses, and who ended up being KOed in one round by Lionel Butler and James Ellis?

Thomas, the guy who was shot at 30 and couldn't last more than three minutes with Morrison before quitting on his stool?

Who are these guys from the alphabet 80s willing to engage in a knock down, drag out, "fight to the finish" in the ring to beat Wilder?

Most of them weren't even willing to do roadwork.

Saying "look how so-and-so landed a jab against Alfonzo Ratliff" doesn't cut it.

 

Fury is better. Considerably so. On another level "better".

Abject robberies, do not make for "classics", in my view. Though, Fury's performance was widely heralded as amazing, given where he had had to come back from - and rightly so.

That Wilder was able to score a couple of KDs in the first fight, doesn't alter the valid perception of him having been mugged and made to look utterly clueless by Fury.

Even the KDs scored by Wilder did more to boost the kudos to Fury.


That Wilder managed to take a lot of punishment and not quit, in both the second and third fights, is to his credit, in some sense. But, in reality, they were both drawn out drubbings, towards an inevitable stoppage loss. The third fight more so, a lot of which could be put down to Fury's own tactics and a comparative lack of sharpness in his work.

Once again, the KDs were Wilder's highlight. That's it. That's all he had. His only chance to write history in his favor. A brief two moments, which could only have been considered an equalizer, had Fury failed to rise.

As it is, Fury came back from those incidents with greater resolve and just took control from there.


Don't get me wrong - the fights were hugely entertaining and, after such a long drought in great Heavyweight spectacles, were bound to get people buzzing - but, after Fury having demonstrated how basic Wilder was, there was only ever going to be one winner.

Now Fury can finally put Wilder behind him. The matter settled. One bad decision (Draw) and two KO losses, make that incontrovertibly evident.


Faster, sharper and bigger punchers could have had Wilder out of there more quickly. It's clear he doesn't take too well to a realistic, offensive threat. Not saying he can't compete or win - just that he is always going to be at significant risk from opponents, who have a bit about them and a will to win.

Having to actually fight against someone who can, rather than just teeing off, at will, on over-matched, uninventive, mostly static opponents, with nothing special in the power department, is always going to be a bit of a test for him.

It is quite conceivable that he would drop a result or three in an era like the '80s, where unpredictability seemed to be the order of the day. Most of the top guys of the '80s, if they came in on form and determined, could put Wilder right back in that space where he doesn't know what to do, but swing a right.

Sometimes it would land and get him a favorable result; other times he'd land and find his opponent still there, firing back - and, on others, he might not find his target at all.

That's the problem when a boxer relies on their power. Sooner or later, it doesn't do what's expected. Then what?

 

Stiverne < John Tate
Molina < Mike Weaver
Duhaupas < Micheal Dokes
Szpilka < Tim Witherspoon
Arreola < Pinklon Thomas
Washington < Trevor Berbick
Stiverne < Greg Page
Ortiz < Tony Tubbs
Fury* > Tony Tucker
Breazeale < James Smith
Ortiz < Spinks

Re-arrange it how you like, but the 80s opponents were better than Wilder's opponents. To be fair Wilder's ability may very well exceed the quality of his resume but given how long it took him to fight for a title after turning pro and seeing the path that he took as champion, I'm inclined to believe that Wilder may not have enjoyed the same level of success if he picked up a title at any point in the 80s.

 

Of course the 1980s WBA champions were all better than Wilders opponents, It’s a no brainier!

it’s a nice little run of wins, but it is not a world level run of wins worthy of a real world championship.

Wilders opposition was NABF title level at best. The WBC was definitely a Micky mouse title during the time they sanctioned those fights.

 

Shoot, imo the WBC belt was kind of a joke after Holmes vacated it (pre-Tyson). I'm a fan of Witherspoon (much more than Page) and remember being disappointed in the boring and not entirely clear decision he won the title by. Thomas was the biggest bummer; he had a terrific jab and a better right hand than Holmes (for sure). But losing to Berbick completely alienated me. Especially after Holmes had totally dominated the Berb five years earlier.

Besides Weaver (whom I thought was pretty damn good, and was robbed in both Dokes fights), I was disappointed time and time again by those WBA guys as well.

 

What the hell are you trying to say here exactly? I'm matching Wilder against those guys. Not Szpilka against those guys.

Let me show you:

Alfredo Evangelista < John Tate
Ossie Ocasio < Mike Weaver
Mike Weaver < Michael Dokes
Earnie Shavers < Tim Witherspoon
Lorenzo Zanon < Pinklon Thomas
Leroy Jones < Trevor Berbick
Scott Ledoux < Greg Page
Trevor Berbick < Tony Tubbs
Leon Spinks < Tony Tucker
Renaldo Snipes < Bonecrusher Smith
Gerry Cooney < Michael Spinks

Using your example, listing them in order, all of Larry Holmes' first title defenses lose to the WBA champs. Does that mean Larry Holmes LOSES to all those WBA alphabet champs?

Of course not. Posting a list of defenses and saying "SEE" means nothing.

I'm not matching Wilder's challengers with those guys ... I'M MATCHING WILDER against them.

I'm saying WILDER beats them, not Spzilka.

Also, basically every WBA champ you listed LOST to the next guy on the list (or more than one of them). That's what I'm saying. None of them were remotely better than the next guy.

Wilder successfully defended his title against everyone he faced on that list you posted - and scored, I believe, 17 knockdowns in those successful defenses.

 

I like your post, but I don't agree there. Dokes was gifted the title in a blatantly early stoppage, then gifted a draw in a fight I personally thought he obviously got beat in. Both against Weaver. Weaver also nearly knocked a totally prime Holmes into next week, ko'd an undefeated, highly touted John Tate with one shot, and kicked the crap out of a perfectly good Gerrie Coetzee. And let's not forget his demo of Carl Williams.

What did Dokes do that was as good as the above? Honestly asking, no sarcasm