Deontay Wilder all time heavyweight ranking were does he stand?

For me, and ok this is really subjective, it's about who he'd beat and how. I rank Holmes very highly, and Wlad now, although neither have particularly impressive resumes, but I'm pretty sure both are much, much better than their win column suggests. Could I name 100 heavyweights who I'd bet the house on beating Wilder? Absolutely not. 50? We are maybe getting there. 30? Betting the house on it? No, but yeah, there might be 30, or 50 guys who beat him. He could also starch anyone on any given night. I rank AJ higher than Wilder but I'd say prime version of each, AJ ends up unconscious. Wilder all kinds of wrong for him. I'm sticking with my estimate of Top 30 without putting a list together if you see what I mean. I think he'd knock out Moorer, Norton, Shavers, Cooney. Let's look at the list of the greats opponents. How would Wilder have done against Louis opponents? Against Alis? Against Dempsey's? Let's be realistic, I think he beats 90% of them. Wilder would beat big Cleve Williams. He'd beat Firpo. He'd beat Jerry Quarry. Joe's bum of the month tour would be manna from heaven for him. Only the top guys are a lock against Wilder for me.

 

Zhang debatably so - he might've been old, but so was Ortiz...
And Zhang but has better wins than Ortiz does - Joyce is undoubtedly better than Jennings, and Wilder himself even aging is a much more credible win than Jennings... And Ortiz both doesn't have much else AND Ortiz win over Jennings was further back in time at the point he fought Wilder than Zhang's wins over Joyce and Wilder were when he fought Kabayel.

Sanchez though? He's not necessarily even proven he's definitely gatekeeper level yet... Chisora is a way better conquest as far as Agits resume goes.


Kabayel has an awful lot of absolute nothings on his resume too, though... He might be flavour of the month, but he still has plenty to prove and lacks depth bigtime - let's not get ahead of ourselves, it can prove to be too big a mountain to climb down from for some ()

 

Hmm...

Styles aside (anyone that'd push him back and had a decent chin would be very likely to win)... I don't see how having a credible punchers chance puts someone that high up - it'd be about how likely they are to benefit from it, and for me you just need more than one contender level win (and preferably one who's more proven, fought someone decent less than 2.5-3 years previously, and isn't old at the time - and that's being generous and counting Ortiz, which I remain unconvinced I should).


Heck, where would you put Rahman, for example?
Because he had power and proved his punchers chance counted against a way better opponent than Wilder ever did - plus had much better fundamentals, etc.

 

Rahman got punched out of the ring by Oleg Maskaev. Then he tried to prove it was a fluke and fought Maskaev again, and got knocked out again. The only other guy to beat Lewis, McCall, ended Maskaev in a round. Rahman was also intimidated by Oliver McCall. I saw it myself in person before the Rahman-Monte Barrett fight, which was another disappointing performance by Rahman for a vacant title. (I've posted about it before.)

And Rahman also got outboxed by and lost another vacant title fight to John Ruiz, after which I pretty much gave up on him.

Rahman was a big, strong guy who had a good night against Lewis in fight one. But it ended for Hasim about as quickly as it began, with him on his back and blood running out of his mouth after Lennox tore his head off.

Lots of guys have one great night. Lots of light heavyweights beat better light heavyweights than Bob Foster did, for example. But stringing those "great nights" together and putting together a long reign and dominant performances, fight in and fight out, especially at heavyweight where you may be giving up a lot of weight to your opponents, with a title on the line, for years, is a little more complex and is easier said than done, regardless of the opponent.

 

I think I'd take the best version of Wilder to beat Rahman being honest. Rahman was a lazy fighter...I can see Deontay beating everyone Rahman did, with the best will in the world Rahman knocking out Lewis was a blind squirrel finding an acorn, and that can happen more than once...

 

Top 99.9.


As someone who's usually known for, let's say, being careful...Strangely, I'm feeling in a very rare generous mood today.



It's a very alien like feeling for sure.

 

I think fundamentally this is where we always have (and probably always will) diverge - and the conclusions that follow are, naturally, rather different.

There's no doubting it was a long reign, nor that lots of knockouts was/is entertaining... I just don't value it anywhere as much as you do based on my opinions on who he was fighting (and to an extent, also who he wasn't).

 

I'm not sure who I'd take to win prime for prime, and that says plenty IMHO.

I can definitely see Wilder having a chance of winning the same fights...

Thing is, I can also see basically everyone who beat Rahman beating Wilder as well - Lewis, Wlad, Holyfield, Povetkin, Tua, Maskaev would all be likely to beat Wilder.

Rahmans record looks worse because there's more losses and less obvious excuses ("he was old"), but at the same time I think it's clear he was fighting better guys in his prime than Wilder was in his.

Honestly I don't really think there's anywhere as much between them as you might think... It's just that Wilder keeping the zero much longer and not taking tough enough fights to show his true level hides how low it might realistically have been (and that's to say that his level realistically sits somewhere between his resume and his hype - and that's really quite a big gap!)

 

But Wilder didn't have a dominant reign. Wilder didn't have a reign.

Bob Foster had a reign. Bob Foster knocked out the best LHW in the world and defended the title of best LHW in the world multiple times.

Wilder never beat the best HW in the world.

Wilder is more comparable to a Sven Ottke than a Bob Foster.

 

Don't see a huge gap between them but I think Wilder beats Rahman almost every time they fight. Lewis, Wlad, Evander all beat Wilder, but like Rahman, only more so, Wilder MIGHT stop Lewis and Wlad one time out of a dozen. Povetkin prime likely beats Wilder; and no, I dont rate Pov higher than Wlad or Lennie but styles make fights. I think he'd take Tua and Maskaev. He could outbox Tua from range...yes, really, maybe stop him late.

Interesting conversation man, thanks for your input, really made me consider...

 

I think Wilder has a reasonable punchers chance with all of them... And if he'd fought them all he might've won one or two, equally he'd probably have lost most of them - much as Rahman did.

Honestly it comes down to how much you do or don't trust your ability to pick how much better a fighter is/was than what they've proved...

That gap between resume and hype can, sometimes, allow for quite a range of opinions.

For me, given how many more fighters there are at lower levels than at the very, very top (sharp end of the bell curve)... I think it's more justifiable to assume that a fighter isn't that much better than their resume shows, than to assume that they're everything they're hyped up to be.
Plenty, as seen with numerous fighters on here (it's far from just Wilder), are much happier to jump to assuming that fighters are every bit as good as they're hyped up to be.

 

I'm not confident in him beating Quarry, Williams, Moorer, Cooney at all. I definitely think Cooney wipes him out after getting hurt. Moorer and Quarry might school him. Williams awkward style and aggression would be dangerous for Wilder

 

I don't jump on hype trains man, I try to view things objectively and subjectively, use facts to base opinions on...but, we are talking opinions at the end of the day, aren't we? I don't think Wilder is a great boxer, he demonstrably isn't. But that is a double edged sword. He demonstrably isn't as bad as many make out. His physical attributes make him a very difficult night for many. He could box, he had that strange wide stance that someone without good fundamentals uses as a basic defence, but was able to lean away from fighters with a lesser reach whilst utilising a decent jab and his own reach, he won the title like this by outboxing Stiverne. And he only had to get it right once. He had big power. The Fury he fought was a handful and a much bigger, much more skilled fighter yet he was competitive in every fight. He had one thing that many 'better' boxers didn't. A big heart. Kid liked a fight. I'm often reminded of big George Foreman in his comeback who when asked by Larry Merchant 'Who are these bums you're knocking out' replied 'I don't know, but I'm knocking them out...'. Let's have an imagine. If he had fought say Povetkin when he was signed to do so, and sparked him, as I think he would have at that point in their careers, if he'd fought AJ and banged him out, as I think he would have, and let's say he had a Del boy and a Dillian Whyte on his record, where would we have him? Now, I know these fights didn't happen and I know we aren't setting a high bar, but they are names...and would you honestly bet against him stopping them all?

I stand by my assertion that he'd blast out Quarry, Norton, Williams and tear through Louis bum of the month contenders. He'd tear through Tyson's early opposition too. Such is boxing, there are lambs and there are lions and never the twain shall meet. So, conceivably had he been born in another era he could still have a massive record of knocking over fighters, and maybe some bigger names, but he doesn't. Judged on who and when he fought, he doesn't look all that. But take a step back and put names to the numbers, top 30, 40, 50 whatever. Do you really back them to beat him?