Wilder says he's a Hall of Famer.

Surely but thats not how it works. Non boxers are in the HOF, what makes you think that once Wilders career is over that he wouldnt be qualified? I said he was borderline as of now, and youre arguing the fact so whats the deal?

 

Wilder has never been a dominant HW. Wilder has never been The Champ.

There's 2 schools of thought here.

Vitali->Wlad->Fury
Vitali->Wlad->Fury->AJ->Fury->Usyk

Wilder doesn't appear on any list however you form it. He was ranked 2 for a decent amount of time. Does that qualify someome for HOF? Of course not.

 

Damn it! He prattled again.

Yeah hes number one ranked in the Hall of Fame of Bums.

My grandkid who is 12yo has better fundamentals than him.

 

Shavers fought several ATG's....Wilder fought Fury and that's it.
So no.

 

Wow! I saw Shavers just died September 1st of this year. He was 6', 211lbs. I also saw that he was inducted into the Boxing Hall of Fame in 2013, so I think Wilder should definitely be inducted. Should Fury be in the HOF? Yes and you know he will be. Wilder battled Fury in 3 incredibly tough fights. He dropped Fury several times and nearly beat him. Wilder is worthy of the HOF. Hell, Tex Cobb nearly defeated Shavers and Wilder would have KO'd Cobb early. Wilder walked through almost all of his competition. I'm not fan of Wilder's but he should be in.

 

To be fair Cobb did beat Shavers in 8 rounds. My point was Shavers fought Lyle. Young. Holmes x 2. Ali and a couple of others who relatively speaking era for era were better than all other Wilder opponents barring Fury.
I think Wilder may get in but it isn't by merit of fighting the best in the division. if he was from another country other than the US he would not get in on any level.
You could counter that Ward and Gatti don't belong the difference is they were a lot more competitive fights. Fury although out of shape in two of the encounters was a level or two higher than Wilder in most attributes and really a fit Non sabbatical Fury wrecks Wilder every time.
Yes the third fight was a grind mainly because Fury barely trained and got hit far more than he should off

 

HoF because:
Knocked down or knocked out EVERY opponent (I know about TKO Johann Duhaupas); who else did it: The Greatest, Louis, Dempsey, Lewis, Tyson, Foreman, Fury, Frazier, Shavers, Holmes, Bowe, Holyfield, Moorer, Patterson, Walcott, Marciano, Charles, Norton, Klitschko Brothers, Usyk, Liston, Tunney, Johansson, Schmeling, Joshua...???

 

It doesn't ****ing matter if 40 out of 41 of your opponents run burger vans part time.

 

Helenius is a live dog to end Wilders career next month.

 

If Wilder goes on to beat both Ruiz and Usyk would you haters finally give Wilder his just due.

 

That ain't happening.
Wilder will be shot to **** soon

 

Wilder should only be in the hall of shame...

 

Most of his title defenses were against unranked bums.

 

He said a lot of things... after his first loss to Fury. So we know he's delusional, but also extremely stupid and has no clue what dignity means.

 

I understand the appeal of heavyweights. It's why they receive preferential treatment in the media and in consideration for the Hall of Fame. For instance, you have Ingemar Johansson, who is arguably not a top-40 heavyweight all-time, being inducted into the IBHOF; while Willie Davies and Pone Kingpetch, two arguable top-10 flyweights, get left out in the cold. Add in Accavallo, Chitalada, Gonzalez, Kane, Monaghan, and Arbachakov--all of whom are potentially top-20 at 112--and you get the scope of slant quickly. I don't see the ability to induce greater "awe" as justification for this, however. I see the sport as being one of global participation and size and stylistic diversity, and it should be honored as such, especially by the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

I respect Wilder for consistently starching bigger men. It highlights that his power is serious. But weight is not an interesting variable by itself. It has to serve a function to matter. What exactly makes Molina, Duhaupas, Szpilka, Arreola, Washington, Stiverne, and Breazeale (those vaunted WBC challengers) interesting just because they weigh 230+? As with everyone in the class, benefits from the added poundage come with side effects, namely the inability to perform basic fistic functions. That fact is why heavyweights sustain relevancy longer than all other classes. A quick glance at Boxrec's top-10 in each traditional class shows that 200+ has the highest median age (36), the oldest contender (Ortiz, 43), and seemingly the most prospects who are 30 or older (Joyce was basically the sport's oldest until Saturday). In short, it's full of stiffs and none of Wilder's opponents, outside of Fury, are particularly adept at utilizing their size. I don't think Fury's weight was that interesting of a factor, either. My own view is that he would have made significantly easier work of Wilder in fights two and three had he weighed closer to the 256 he was in their first bout. The 247-pound version that beat Klitschko fries Wilder nearly without hiccup.

My point about Rosi, Calderon, Serrano, etc., was that HOF voters are willing to ignore double-digit defenses, so insinuating that Wilder's total 'can't be ignored' strikes me as a fallacy. Like you said, most HOF voters are smart enough to see why a heavyweight with a lot of defenses is generally more deserving than a 105-pounder with nearly as many or more. Likewise they should also be able tell when 10 alphabet defenses doesn't look like 10 Championship defenses within the same division. You and others happily blur the lines to suit your argument, but it's a distinction worth making because every heavyweight in history who has managed 10 consecutive defenses has become THE Champion at some point. Wilder is the only one who hasn't. In fact both Joshua and Wilder are odd-men-out with this distinction if we look at reigns, alphabet or otherwise, that had 5 or more defenses. Even Vitali managed to nab The Ring's title.

But no matter how "awe-inspiring" Wilder may be, the most important metric that fighters can be judged upon is the conditions of their wins and losses. The numbers are fuzz until given clarity by context. It simply cannot be overstated how weak it is that his best wins are Ortiz and Stiverne, with a string of fringe guys following. Mind you, I think the Ortiz wins have aged well, but they are nowhere near the greatest victories in the history division. I can barely imagine where they would rank all-time if a proper list were compiled. It's also worth asking where Wilder would rank all-time as of this moment, seeing as he's descending down the contemporary ladder, let alone the historical one.

In my opinion, there are just too many guys with better credentials than Wilder for him to get, even in an "off" year. Wilder still has time, though. We will see what he does with it.