Chisora Greater than Wilder?

The problem is Stiverne and Ortiz never should have been ranked that high. And those are Wilder's notable wins. Ortiz never beat anyone of note and Stiverne picked up the title from Arrerola, who also should not have been ranked that high (he won the title off of Drummer Boy FFS). Arreola lost to Adamek in his prime, a blown-up LHW.

There is no comparison between level of competition between the two fighters. Chisora was never given the opportuinity to fight for a title against weak fighers like Wilder did. You can only make that comparison if both were able to fight Stiverne and Ortiz, and Wilder won while Chisora lost.

 

Yea I saw that later in the thread oops

 

If Johan Duhaupas is in your top 5 wins, your resumé is dog crap...

And resumé is what makes Chisora better!

 

Chisora did no win, but also did not lose several important bouts, those were even fights and deserve credit. Helenius, White 1, Parker 1, come to mind.

Pulev, Joyce, Wallin, Takam, are good wins.

Id say they are about even, record wise.

 

In terms of resume Chisora is superior. In terms of public perception Wilder is higher. Depends how much of a casual you are I guess.

 

One was a world champ and ranked top 3 for several years, the other is kind of a high end journeyman so of course he has good names on his record

 

Wilder is also twice as quick and achieved way more than Chisora. But we are talking resume here, Mike Tyson’s has fought similar level to chisora.

As stated in the thread, in 19fights Chisora fought big names, Tyson was still fighting taxi drivers at 19fights.

 

Well no the problem is they were universally ranked that highly.

Stiverne knocked Arreola clean out and was ranked by everyone in the top 3. No denying that. Ortiz was ranked by every single person who follows boxing within the top 5. And then he proved the ranking right by coming within a cats pube of stopping Wilder in his title shot.

 

Both guys were trash though, the only reason Stivene got the WBC title shot was because somehow Don King still had influence. Stiverne's career never panned out and neither did Ortiz. Stiverne at best was a gatekeeper and Ortiz at best was a fringe contender.

If people want to use those wins as why Wilder is better than Chisora, they are entitled to it. I think they are wrong.

 

Wallin is useless stop acting like he’s a top win, Helenius who Wilder knocked out is better than him.

Wilder made 10 world title defences and was at the forefront of the division as one of the 3 faces with Fury and Joshua. He’s clearly greater than Chisora.

 

But both guys were people Wilder had to fight regardless of what hindsight is used.

Stiverne knocked out Arreola, he had the WBC title. For Wilder to get the title he had to fight Stiverne.

Ortiz was the boogeyman of the division and a favourite to beat Wilder. For Wilder to prove himself he had to take that fight.

 

Why was he the boogeyman? His resume was paper-thin, his only notable win was Jennings. Jennings never did anything either. Ortiz was unproven when he fought Wilder and he showed he wasn't all that good.

If Wilder had fought AJ, Wladimir Klitschko, Povetkin, Parker, Ruiz, Whyte, etc and beat those guys, there would be no argument. In fact, this thread would be a good case of trolling. But Wilder didn't, he beat guys who never proved to be anything in the HW division.

 

Ortiz as some sort of 'boogeyman' is a myth that needs to be shut down. I liked ortiz, thought he had some very good potential. But he's done squat.

 

I agree, I liked his backstory and he seems like a genuine good dude. But we are talking about his skills and accomplishments in the ring, which were nothing over being a fringe contender, no serious threat to any of the top HWs.

 

Did you follow boxing back then?