How Long Does Wilder Last, As An 80 's Belt Holder?

I don't believe the question is "what better opponents should they have fought?". It's obvious that aside from unifying with Holmes there weren't any other options.

I think the point boils down to the fact determining the quality and overall ability of some of these 80's fighters is difficult because their best wins were each other and couldn't hold onto the title for very long. Either 1-2 defenses or no defenses whatsoever.

In light of that, I get why people have such harsh criticism of Holmes for how he created a rift in the division but this was honestly bound to happen and is an entirely separate subject.

But to suggest guys like Weaver, Tubbs, Tucker, Douglas, etc would be fringe guys today? Some honestly would be. Think about how difficult it is to actually have undisputed title fights or even unifications. The last ones were Usyk and Crawford nearly half a decade ago and it had been even longer since the ones before them. You're lucky to see your favorite fighter twice a year and they rarely face stiff competition unless there's a gun to their head or millions on the line. It's honestly not a stretch to suggest guys who were notorious underachievers in one era wouldn't have resumes resembling guys like Areola or Chisora today.

 

I followed the sport then. I follow it now. Wilder is better than all those guys.

Everyone who fought for the WBA heavyweight title from 1979 to 1989 WON won a title (except Quick Tillis).

Can you wrap your mind around that?

For a decade, everyone who fought for the WBA belt won a title (except Quick Tillis).

Is that a sign of mediocrity, or greatness?

If Martin beat Glazkov. Joshua beat Martin. Joshua got addicted to heroin, moved into a retirement community, decided to record a dance album and lost to Breazeale. Parker beat Ruiz. Then Parker came in bloated and out of shape and lost to Cojanu. Then fat Nathan Gorman showed up and won a boring 12-rounder against Cojanu. Then muscly Dubois beat Gorman. But slow Joe Joyce beat Dubois into submission. Breazeale lost to Wallin.

Would you think that was the sign of an awesome era? Because, while that sounds crazy, that's kind of what it was like.

You didn't have to deliver some epic performance to win it, either. Some nights the champ would quit. Some nights the champ would hold for 12 rounds and willingly give it away. Some nights two boxers showed up and it was clear neither fighter had trained. Some nights guys wouldn't look good- like Dokes- and you found out they were on coke. Some nights you found out guys like Thomas were back on heroin. Some nights a guy like Tubbs or Bey wouldn't show up at all. And a late sub would be brought in (like Smith and Page). And the champ would take a dive against late sub or a round would go four minutes long and the late sub would score a KO. And nobody cared - because the title changed hands every fight anyway. The promoters even begged some to get in shape and they'd PAY them more. (NOPE.)

Tate held the title for five months. Page held it for five months. Tucker held it for three months. Tubbs held it for nine months. Dokes held it for nine months. Smith held it for three months. Witherspoon held the WBC belt for five months and lost it. He hald the WBA belt for 11 whole months before he said he took a dive.

It was viewed at the time as a pretty pathetic run.

Because there was another champ on the other side, Holmes, who fought any number of those WBA champs, beat them all, and moved on. Year after year.

Meanwhile, the guys Holmes beat and the other WBA champs win and lost to each other over and over.

Maybe you had to have followed the sport to GET IT.

I'm tired of talking about it frankly.

Wilder beats all those bloated, coked up, unmotivated, lazy alphabet champs.

I tuned in and watched all the WBA champs from the 80s fight live. I did the same with Wilder.

Wilder kills them.

 

Here I think I will have to respectfully disagree about the underlying reasoning. You are essentially saying that almost the entire heavyweight elite's relative standing is harder to determine *because* they all fought each other. This seems counterintuitive to me. It would mean that we would have a better idea of their abilities if they all ducked their top competition and avoided each other.

EDIT: And yeah, I can buy that some of them would be fringe contenders today, sure. But the era would really have to suck if they were ALL fringe level by modern standards.

 

Chisora, Helenius, Washington, Duhaupas, Arreola and on and on would all be WBA champs back then. All you had to do was get in the cue. Everyone who fought for it for an entire decade won a belt - except Tillis. Then again, he ended up with 22 losses. I guess they had to draw the line somewhere.

 

Isn't Helenius the WBA mandatory RIGHT NOW.

This content is protected

I guess that's not as impressive as Mike Weaver getting a DQ win and a title shot after getting knocked out in one round from a punch just after the bell.

Or Greg Page getting a title shot after losing to David Bey. Or Bonecrusher getting a title fight after losing to Marvis Frazier earlier that year.

 

1-no that's not what I was trying to say. I don't think they'd be better off ducking each other and acting like divas. It's good that they fought each other, but it would have been even better had some of them managed to put together more than just 1-2 good wins before their careers fell off a cliff like an anvil. Nobody truly stood out and virtually all of them ended their careers in a dumpster fire cluster ****.

An easy comparison would be the 70's or 90's guys. The champions and top contenders didn't lose to a bunch of scrubs and their careers didn't plummet rapidly after a big loss to never recover again. Hell, even guys like Walcott, Charles, Moorer, etc were very consistent in the 50's despite fighting in a relatively weak era. I think that's the main difference.

2-well no I don't think "all" of them would be lucky to be classified as fringe at best in today's era because today's era isn't that great for starters.

Not all the 80's boys were the same level of overall ability whether we're talking skill, h2h, or resume. Guys like Smith or Williams or Tillis were not as consistent on the world level as guys like Berbick or Page or Tubbs, and in turn those three were not as consistent and turning up good results as guys like Witherspoon or Thomas (who are probably the #2 and #3 guys after Holmes in the first half of that decade).

Considering Smith became champ via a shocking unexpected KO over an unmotivated opponent who easily beat him previously and the rest of his career he went life and death with a murders row of guys like Marvis and Rodrigues, it's safe to say he'd be lucky to have a resume as good as Ortiz or Areola today.

Berbick and Weaver would probably find their equivalent in someone like Chisora or Povetkin. A tough, strong, game fighter who always shows up in shape and gives it a good go with many mixed results and unable to beat the absolute best of the era.

Thomas and Witherspoon could possibly end up like Joseph Parker or Dillian Whyte perhaps. Able to win interim/single belts or remain consistently at the top for a respectable amount of time with good but not amazing results at the world level.

 

Oh, so even though Washington was rated when he fought for the title, beat a guy who was ranked then and now, even fought in an eliminator on the Fury-Wilder II show ... he's never been rated ...

Because you ignore the four sanctioning bodies and just go with Ring. Unless Ring ranks someone you don't like, then it's, "Why do you always choose Ring ratings?"

Got it. Another one of those "I don't recognize these ratings or those ratings ... unless we're on another topic, and then I do" things.

Enjoy the rest of your debate.

Wilder beats them all.

 

Helenius has been ranked by every org and Ring. He is a mandatory even today. You.were even joking about Helenius being ranked over Arreola by Ring earlier.

Kownacki stopped Washington. Washington stopped Helenius. Helenius stopped Kownacki

That is what the WBA run of champs in the 80s was like, to a tee.

One night one wins. One night another. Fight after fight for 10 years.

They were no better than the guys like that today.

That's what they were. I can't be any more clear than that.

Have good one

 

Like Shavers. No title.

 

I'd agree with that, but the problem is Wilder again - he didn't face Povetkin, Parker or Whyte. His best win is Ortiz who is a level below them. That's why I wouldn't be so sure about Wilder's sustained success in the 1980s.

 

I didn't say he was a hype job. Was he elite top win for ATG heavyweight though?