Re-writing the history of boxing: WBO belt

That is not a fact. You’re stretching things and my point stands. You’re also downplaying that Szplika was decent and at his best and Duhaupas got pretty good results when not fighting Povetkin on a day’s notice. Past it Jefferson and Botha were worse than Szpilka and possibly Duhaupas. Szpilka and Shifford were at a similar level. Molina was terrible but pushed by boxing politics.

 

Szplika couldn't win the Bridgerweight belt.

Bothas an ex world champion who lost all his big fights because he only fought lineal champs in them. Hes a borderline top 10 90s HW. As high as 8th or 9th. He was a good enough opponent for lineal champ Lennox around this time I don't see how he wouldn't be a quality opponent for Wlad.

 

"In fact" is just a thing You say, obviously We're not going to calculate it mathematically.

Szpilka was not decent for a standard of HW contender. I was following him from the early days, at Cruiserweight - before prison. He was quite popular over here and was well managed, but never beat anyone with a pulse. Derrick Jefferson would destroy him. I'm also not sure if Derrick was really past his prime. He was late starter and in his early 30s. His weight suggests He could've been in sub-optimal shape, but that's another story.
Shufford beat Lamon Brewster, that's the level that Szpilka could only dream of reaching. Botha again - far superior fighter, who competed with guys that would be out of reach for Szpilka.

I honestly don't think You are familiar with early Klitschko era contenders.

 

Sounds smart, but isn’t.

 

The WBO will always be fourth. The WBA, WBC & IBF can argue for first place but name me one “Lineal” Heavyweight Champion or other weight champion the WBO’s belt belonged to without one of the other belts being on the line. Just my opinion. The WBA was first. The WBC seems to be the most prestigious. The IBF was made solid by Larry Holmes, Marvin Hagler & Don Curry. Unfortunately for the WBO they just hung on long enough to receive recognition. They’ve only had a handful of “Great” champions wear their belt.

 

Brewster turned in a crappy performance and improved later in his career. Shufford was never that good.

The premise of your entire argument is bizarre. You prefer the top 25 and top 30 guys of Wlad’s limited WBO reign to the worst guys of Wilder’s title reign which was about twice as long. Guys who are that far down the rankings can beat and lose to each other on any given night; that’s why they don’t rise to the top.

You’re stuck on this premise because Wilder’s reign was factually better in length and quality.

 

Its a case by case thing. As we've just discussed the WBO was Wlads first belt.

The thing with the WBO being the worst one its partially on purpose because its there to give exposure to underserved regions and countrys. The WBO is filling a niche more than the other sanctioning bodys. They a lot of the time aren't trying to put on the best possible matchup and thats okay they are serving a purpose that needs to be served.

 

What does "that good" even mean in the context of this discussion? He beat Elieser Castillo. That was a better HW southpaw operator than Szpilka. He does not have to be "that good", as in Muhammad Ali-Larry Holmes-Lennox Lewis good to be better than bunch of the guys that Wilder defended his belt against.

I'm not stuck on anything. I thought We moved on from it after I admited in my first response that You were correct and Wilder's WBC reign can be called superior in it's totality, due to both length and also having a Fury draw in there. Sometimes We say stuff without thinking it through and then it's good for someone to point out the inaccuracy or the fallacy.
Now We're addressing different point that You made, that "These guys weren’t any better than the bottom rung of Wilder’s reign".

They were better - but the issue is You - and many other people - are boxrec capping, You're not familiar with the guys We're discussing, so to You "it's all the same", since They all look similar on boxrec.
Average boxing fan typically can't make a distinction beyong elite/not-elite. In reality, there's many more layers to the boxing game and there's big difference between - let's take recent era to make it easier for You - Joshua defending his belt against Carlos Takam and Deontay Wilder defending his belt against Artur Szpilka. If Elite is A - Level, then Takam was B/B- Level and Szpilka was C-/D.

 

Go ahead and talk about how the worst guys have f Ali and Holmes’ reigns were worse than the fodder of Wlad’s WBO reign. There’s a reason why nobody makes the kind of point you’re trying to make.

 

\/

 

Now do Holmes, Louis, and Ali. Do it for any double digit defense heavyweight champ and you can make WBO Wlad into the king of the losers.

 

The thing with them is they got double the defenses and still have less bad ones. Louis has like 2 bad ones in Paycheck and Roper. You could make an argument Holmes and Ali don't have a single "bad" defense. Alis worst defenses are regional champs like Dunn and Coopman. Holmes's worst title defense would be Scott Frank then you've got guys like LeDoux and Zanon who were fine.

How bad were Paycheck and Roper really or Scott Frank? I don't know they were bad so much as they stick out like sore thumbs when compared to the rest of the group. Wilders worst defenses don't stick out like sore thumbs until Ortiz I they are the norm. Same with Vitalis WBC defenses. Its why I don't recognize the WBCs HW belts between 05 and 17.

 

I suspect that Wilder's reign is uniquely bad so it would be difficult to "do it" for any other Heavyweight champion, but I'm not educated enough on those eras to judge it properely. I could probably do it for Valuev if You'd like...

 

I was thinking of making a thread asking about Wilder's all time ranking. This reminded me now that Wilder has come into this.

 

Defending Scott Frank. That’s a new low. At least Wilder fought full sized heavyweights.