Deontay Wilder's second best victory and title win was just humiliated by a fat cajun midget

Specifically (not that I need to explain this any further, and will not be doing so after this) it was Arreola that was viewed by execs as being a marketable commodity and someone to be given a bit of an "extra push", for a host of reasons: he drew among the sport's loyal & lucrative bedrock Mexican-American demographic, he struck a comic figure with his corpulent body, bulbous nose and tattoos and made himself seem relatable by using colorful language on live TV, and he utilized a reckless brawling style that is entertaining to casual fans. None of those qualities makes you deserving of a world title shot, and neither does rebounding from a loss with merely a victory over Seth Mitchell. Nobody around then except for Don King really considered Stiverne worth any serious investment, but the inconvenient truth was that he beat Arreola, the guy that was "supposed" to win if all had gone to plan for the powers that be.

Hence their rematch being christened, ludicrously, a world championship affair. It had exactly zero percent to do with either of them actually being any good, or beating anybody worth a damn (or in fact having any meaningful recent victories over top ranked contenders...which Mitchell wasn't. He wasn't even an undefeated prospect any longer )

 

Him cleaning Ortiz' clock twice is better than most HW resumes these days.

 

Those are both very good victories (although I always felt Ortiz was slightly overrated by some on here) - and Ortiz x2 counts for a hell of a lot more than Stiverne x2.

 

No one wanted to fight Ortiz which was a big prob, promoters and all that. Stiverne is obviously a good heavy but also never got a shot against the mid tier guys. Got a shot and was blew out by Wilder. Stiverne vs Ruiz would've been fun IMO

 

That's a huge mismatch in terms of both skills & speed. Maybe if Ruiz had a glass jaw I could see giving Stiverne a moderate puncher's chance, but...

 

But that's also up to Ruiz, he can only have so many excuses for one loss. Keep McDonald's away from his house.

 

You know it's 2023 now right?

 

Did he take him out to eat at Popeyes after the fight?

 

I've never said that Stiverne and Arreola were "worthy title challengers", you're talking to yourself. But your list of 15 guys who were supposedly better than them is ludicrous, the likes of Hammer, Price, Boytsov, Leapai and so on. Martin and Glazkov had no business fighting for a world title (let alone winning one), many fighters don't. My contention is simply that Stiverne was Wilder's best win after Ortiz 1, for a variety of reasons.

Stiverne 1: world title debut, never gone past 4 rounds before, expected to be “exposed” by many, close to even odds, step up in level of opponent, 12 round near shut out UD with one KD (Stiverne had never been knocked down in 26 pro fights) against a slow footed but heavy, big punching, iron chinned, determined, aggressive, experienced, heavyweight champion, Wilder became the first American heavyweight champion in 7.5 years: by far the longest world title drought in the storied history of American heavyweight boxing

Most of the fighters you mentioned never did anything "amazing" so I don't see how that's a good argument. Arreola had beaten a litany of journeymen and faded contenders and had given Vitali one of his tougher fights, which got Arreola a top 10 ranking and Stiverne had beaten top 10 Arreola comfortably twice, along with stopping Austin and 20-0 Manswell (who went on to go the distance with Chagaev and Boswell). As an amateur Stiverne had beaten Price (KO) and Helenius, and showed good chin and heart in going 12 with Wilder, while having a more viable path to victory than the likes of Ortiz 2, Szpilka and Washington, who all but guaranteed defeat by trying to pointfight for 12 rounds.

Unless we're talking about elite contenders, a contender's pointfighting skills don't matter much. Overmatched fighters only have one viable path to victory and that's a stoppage. Even if they manage to outbox the champion there's a good chance they'll get robbed anyway. Parker and Pulev for example were NEVER beating A-side Joshua with their tactics, whereas an Arreola or Stiverne (despite inferior pointfighting skills) would have had a chance based on their combination of chin, heart, pressure and power.

 

Your first ever response to me in this very thread was replying to a post where my overarching point was that Stiverne vs. Arreola II had exactly zero business ever getting sanctioned for a vacant world title. You chose to home in on a single throwaway comment that was completely tangential and beside that point (and even if my statement that neither was top 15 even was an exaggeration it was only a very slight one, and you still haven't persuaded me that it was - and no that isn't an invitation for you to continue trying ) - and yet for some weird reason you're choosing to waste a million words and bait me continuously over granular litigation of that statement, when it doesn't matter.

Bottom-line: both Arreola and Stiverne suck. They shouldn't have been competing in a world title match when they did. If an argument that Stiverne is Wilder's second best opponent hinges on him being a "world titlist" (which it kind of has to, because what else would it hinge on?), then one really doesn't have much of an argument at all, because his status as a world titlist was entirely the result of some farcical WBC decision-making in the wake of Vitali's retirement. That was my original point, in my original post that you replied to. You've not refuted that, and none of this runaround since has been necessary. This conversation is now over. Your replies will fall on deaf eyes.

 

Not that I'm defending it but Stiverne-Arreola 2 for the WBC made more sense than Glazkov-Martin for the IBF. I've never argued that it was a "legit" title fight anyway, so whatever.

If Stiverne and Arreola suck then so does every Wilder and Klitschko contender who performed worse than they did, which is the vast majority. Fine, only a relative handful of pro boxers in the world don't suck at boxing. It's not very meaningful.

The argument for Stiverne 1 being Wilder's 2nd best win doesn't hinge on Stiverne being a world titlist, though obviously it being Wilder's world title debut after 7.5 years without an American champion is notable. I've already articulated the various reasons in the previous reply.

I'm not bothered whether you read my comment or reply, I'll state my views regardless.