I agree with a lot of this. I think Weaver would have had a 50 50 chance of knocking Wilder stone cold. Holmes would have made him look really bad, stopped him in 10. Tucker could have outpointed him, quite possiblhy Tubbs as well. Witherspoon, ouch. Sorry Deontay....he'd getcha. Dokes, Spinks, Thomas, Tubbs, Berbick...Wilder had a good chance against any of them imo. I'd bet he'd beat Coetzee. Spinks wasn't an exactly amazing boxer at heavy (he was still very good), and I kind of doubt he'd make too much of an impression on Deontay. I see Spinks eventually getting caught flush and demo'd. We're talking about a peak Wilder, not past it, hungover Cooney. This, too. So, he'd definitely get a belt, but probably not hold it anywhere near as long as he did in this century.
Well ... c'mon. Weaver (24-9) when he lost to Dokes. Dokes (25-0-1) when he defeated Weaver. Coetzee (28-3-1) when he beat Dokes. Page (23-3 ... coming off a loss to 13-0 Bey) when he fought Coetzee Tubbs (20-0) when he defeated Page Spoon (23-2) when he defeated Tubbs Bonecrusher (18-5) when he defeated Spoon. Their combined records at that point were 161-22-2. We've been talking about them for 40 years, so the names sound more impressive. But they were what they were. And, having been a fan at that time, when Tubbs and Bonecrusher and Weaver and that lot were winning belts, nobody thought they were all that great. In fact, them winning titles, as far as many boxing pundits at the time believed, was an example of how terrible the division was. I posted this in the other thread a few minutes ago. Wilder's opponents records in his last 13 consecutive WBC Title fights had a combined record of 343-14-6. It's not like those guys who held WBA belts in the 80s were so superior to the challengers Wilder was facing. They weren't. They were just passing WBA belts back and forth every other time they got in the ring, because they were all about the same. WBC January 2015 Ratings http://www.boxnews.com.ua/en/ratings/WBC/All/01-2015 Bermane Stiverne (24-1-1) - #Champion WBC May 2015 Ratings http://wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC_RATINGS_MAY_2015.pdf Eric Molina (23-2) #9 WBC August 2015 Ratings http://wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC_RATINGS_AUGUST_2015.pdf Johann Duhaupas (32-2) #12 WBC December 2015 Ratings http://wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC-RATINGS-DECEMBER-2015.pdf Artur Szpilka (20-1) #8 WBC June 2016 Ratings http://www.wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC-RATINGS-JUNE-2016.pdf Chris Arreola (36-4-1) #9 (late sub for #1 Povetkin - who failed his prefight PED test) WBC February 2017 Ratings http://wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC-RATINGS-FEBRUARY-2017.pdf Gerald Washington (18-0-1) #8 WBC October 2017 Ratings http://wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC-RATINGS-BAKU-CONVENTION-2017.pdf Bermane Stiverne (25-2-1) #1 WBC February 2018 Ratings http://wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC_RATINGS_FEBRUARY_2018.pdf Luis Ortiz (28-0) #3 WBC November 2018 Ratings http://www.maurowbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WBC-RATINGS-NOVEMBER-2018.pdf Tyson Fury (27-0) #3 WBC May 2019 Ratings https://wbcboxing.com/ratings/WBC-RATINGS-MAY-2019.pdf Dominic Breazeale (20-1) #4 WBC November 2019 Ratings http://www.maurowbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WBC-Ratings-November-2019.pdf Luis Ortiz (31-1) #3 WBC February 2020 Ratings https://britishboxingnews.co.uk/blogs/wbc-release-their-february-2020-world-rankings Tyson Fury (29-0-1) #1 WBC August 2021 Ratings https://wbcboxing.com/mailing/2021/ratings_pdf/WBC_Ratings_AUGUST_2021.pdf Tyson Fury (30-0-1) (#Champion) If Wilder was fighting in the eighties and beat Tate in 1980, by the time Tyson rolled around in 87 and Holyfield moved up, Wilder would've been around where he is right now if not a little older. And those two guys would've been problems. But the WBA beltholders in the 80s really weren't much different than the guys Wilder knocked out in title fights. And none of them were as good as Fury, who Wilder also dropped twice and successfully defended against the first time.
He's not. For a guy who spent a significant portion of his career in the #2/3 spot at heavyweight, his relative skill level is glaringly bad. He underwhelmed in every "title" fight he had, outside of the Stiverne and Breazeale fights. Stiverne could barely handle an old Ray Austin, who Klitschko crushed in 2; Molina was a journeyman level fighter who was dominated, but still managed to rock Wilder and last 9 rounds, longer than anyone else he was stopped by; Duhaupas was a European-esque level plodder who lasted 11 and was stopped on his feet; Szpilka, not even a fringe contender, was neck and neck with Wilder before getting starched; Arreola got beaten up and Wilder pretty much got it done one-handed, but most of us saw Arreola get beat by Kassi the fight beforehand, so Arreola was also nowhere near serious contention; Washington won 3 of the 4 rounds he had against Wilder before getting stopped; Ortiz was outboxing Wilder twice (especially the second time) before getting kayoed, and Wilder got a helping hand in recovering from the whipping he took in the 7th round of the first fight; and a post-prime Fury is 3-0 (2 KOs) against him in most people's eyes. He was able to outbox and out-slug Wilder, despite his offensive sloppiness. Outside of Fury and maybe Ortiz, I think the best guys of the 80s demolish this bunch. All of this WBC ranking stuff is a waste of time, too. Only Stiverne, Ortiz, and Fury were independently ranked inside the top-10. He gave rematches to all of them and only improved in one--the fight in which Stiverne showed up for a paycheck. Both Ortiz and Fury showed significantly higher adaptability. Wilder's length, power, gameness, and ability to stay in shape are legs-up in any era, and his chances of beating guys improves because of it, but there's almost no chance he makes that many alphabet soup defenses in the 80s. His lack of technical skill wouldn't allow for it; he wouldn't be able to avoid the sharper, quicker guys of the 80s.
Wilde would beat a lot of these guys and lose to a fair few too IMO but I'm not confident as I would like to see Deontay fight opponents of this calibre and longevity and he hasn't. We would know more if he fought Usyk, Joshua, White, Wlad. Not a knock on him but for me, Ortiz, Steverine, Molina, Breazeale have too thin a resume to compare with the '80 champs so I struggle still to know how good Wilder is.
Yeah, this is the right attitude IMO. There is a huge gap between the quality of Wilder's best wins and someone like Tyson Fury. Betting on him to fill it is very risky. Fortunately, we'll probably see him fight again and maybe he'll take on some guys in between. Even seeing him beat a busted AJ would give us a better idea.
I think you are partially correct here. Those guys holding the WBA belt in the 80s were passing the WBA back and forth every time they got in the ring because they were the same level…And at no point did a single one of them represent the best active HW in the world at that time. But that is equal to Wilder. At no point was he the best heavyweight in the world either. But were Wilders challengers close to what the 80s challengers were? I don’t think so. The guys Wilder knocked out had statistically fair records..but let’s see about credentials behind those stats. Stiverne and Arreola did not represent a match to decide the best in the world anymore than the match between Tate and Coetzee represented the best in the world when that fight was made. But at least Tate had beaten Bobick..Bernardo Mercardo and Kallie Knoetzee. And at least Coetzee had blasted out Leon Spinks in one round. What did Arreola and Stiverne have on their resume? The title Wilder inherited from Stiverne was based on zip. Deontay was defending in their memory. Certainly Tate had not inherited much either…but there was some substance there before that belt started to get passed around. Arreola was a retread, already found out at world level. Stiverne beat a 40 year old Ray Austin who had not won a fight for two years in an official eliminatior! 33 year old Eric Molina (23-2) had already been beaten inside a round by the aforementioned Arreola what kind of test was he to wilder? Same with 34 year old Johann Duhaupas, already exposed, hardly fought a live opponent. Szpilka was at least on the right side of 30 but had been beaten inside the distance one year previously. Gerald Washington another 34 year old who had just beaten a now 45 years old Ray Austin to earn his shot…what that guy ever did. Breazeal had already bee;knocked out by Joshua. Ortiz was like a hundred years old… an untested drugs cheat. Yet still his best opponent….When wilder fought Stiverne the second time Stiverne was 39 years old and had not fought in two years. The guy was dug up! I am not seeing a comparison with Coetzee, Tate, Dokes, Weaver, Page, Tubbs and Witherspoon or Smith here.
15 to 20 title defenses...wow. I just can't see that, no offense. I just don't see him getting past Witherspoon's overhand right, much less Holmes. All Weaver needs is a square shot. Tyson would murderlize him. No...Deontay would win a title, but the competition in the 80s was just strong enough to see him lose it within a couple of years at the outside.
Who said he'd fight Holmes? Holmes didn't hold the WBA belt. Holmes didn't unify with anyone. And Spoon lost his WBA belt in ONE round to a late sub with an 18-5 record. From John Tate to Bonecrusher Smith, that was a pretty lax collection of WBA beltholders. The 6'7" KO artist who knocked out every man he fought for 12 years would've feasted in that era of drug addicts, unmotivated fat boys and nobody who could string more than one or two wins together once a belt was on the line. Who had the most successful WBA defenses during that era? Weaver with TWO? One of them against Quick Tillis, who got stopped a dozen times but went to a 15-round decision with "Hercules?" Please. Tyson Fury is better than all those WBA champs. And it took him two cracks at the title to lift it from Wilder. I lived through that terrible era. Wilder walks through them and likely becomes a huge network boxing star ... because most of the boxing media at the time thought all those guys were lacking. You guys hold them in much higher regard than anyone did then.
Also, keep in mind Mike Tyson didn't challenge for the WBA belt until 1987. Tate lost it at the start of 1980 in his first defense against 21-9 Mike Weaver - who had LOST TO EVERYONE (both Bobicks - Rodney and Duane, Leroy Jones, Howard Smith, Billy Ryan, Larry Frazier, Stan Ward). Wilder could do a ton of damage in those seven years.
Wilder despite not having solid fundamentals, footwork, boxing skills and ring IQ, he has otherworldly amounts of punching power that makes up for a very serious threat in the 80s. If he were to be present in the 80s he'd be the hardest puncher in that time with Foreman coming in at #2. Wilder is taller, more athletic and faster compared to most fighters back then. I'd only favour Foreman, Holmes and Ali to beat him.
You have the timeline mixed up. Foreman retired in '77, came back almost exactly a decade later. Maybe you meant that a comeback Foreman was good enough to beat Wilder by the end of the decade& he might well have, although his 2nd career peak was early '90's-but it seems you are thinking of '70's George. Also do you not know Ali was a Parkinson's & thyroid drug abusing zombie in 1980, & then only lost a decision to Berbick at the end of '81?
