Okay... So he fought some guys who were shot, does that do a thing to improve his resume? Not for me. Even now Chisora's more formidable than Ortiz was - let's not forget that Ortiz was off the PEDs and several years past his best win, a disinterested looking gatekeeper Jennings whose greatest achievement was winning 2-3 rounds off Wlad... It really isn't that great a win, yet still Ortiz gave Wilder trouble. Sure, styles make fights and there's no saying Chisora would necessarily do much better, but he's got a way deeper resume than Ortiz.
wilder deserves a "winnable" comeback fight after the beating the greatest HW of all time just gave him
Flip a coin on Ortiz and Chisora. Liahkovich prime was better than both. He took a blatant dive against Wilder though. The fake convulsions were hilarious
I'd back Chisora over Ortiz - resume is significantly better (way more depth as well as better signature wins). Ortiz looked way more declined against Martin than Del did against Pulev (despite the decline Pulev is a way higher caliber opponent than Martin) so right now I'd back Chisora to whup Ortiz with some ease. Peak Vs peak... Chisora's got more losses but then he's fought way better fighters than Ortiz has, so that's not much of a surprise. It also depends whether we're counting PED's when assessing Ortiz at peak.
For certain. There's a few possible reasons... 1) Terrified of losing the 0 - desperate to hold onto it at very least until a title shot comes along, lots of heavies do this now (see Joyce, for example). 2) He's just not as confident in his ability as some fans are - plenty goes on in sparring and behind closed doors, fighters know they have weaknesses and some are happy to keep a decent reputation by avoiding fighting real top opponents that they know will destroy them. #1 was irrelevant the moment he'd lost to Wilder, yet he turned down a shot at AJ after that suggesting #2 is more likely IMHO... You could ask why he fought Wilder at all in that case, the answer isn't popular with a certain rabid set of fans but quite frankly it's that Wilder exhibited both points and even a borderline fraud like Ortiz could see Wilder was a risk worth taking (and it almost worked). Before someone tries to give me a #3 "avoided by everyone, far too dangerous, etc"... That's bullcrap - every fighter presents a risk/reward consideration... If a fighter looks risky but wants good fights they need to be prepared to demand a bit less cash - its not rocket science.
So, when exactly was his 'prime'? When he was KO'd by Maurice Harris in 2002? Or when he first stepped up and was KO'd by Briggs in 2006? Or when he was stopped by Helenius in 2011? Or was it when he was propped up as some sort of World Champ against Wilder in 2013? No way in hell he was better than Chisora, prime or now - Ortiz, maybe... as he really does have a weak resume. However, head 2 head, Chisora beats Liahkovich 5, 10 or 15 years ago.
Nah that wasn't a dive. Did you see the way his head smacked off the canvas when he went down? You can't fake that.
lmao. Chisora needed brit stoppages against Pala and Gerber after they both stunned him. The Briggs Liahkovich faced stops Chisora. My god, Chisora is as overrated as Wilder