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

I was born in 89 so thank God I missed out, but according to many gen X and boomer people I talked to that whole decade was a complete dumpster fire when it came to dysfunction and drug abuse. Plenty of athletes and celebrities in other fields were as bad as the alphabet boys, if not worse.

It would require a lot of sociological and psychological analysis to really dig deep and find out why.

 

Well let's take Thomas for example. He was one of the few with a decent resume before getting completely derailed by heroin and actually did manage one title defense over the respectable Weaver in 85.

Berbick was not a mandatory and was actually slightly past his physical prime and already had 4 losses. It was not remotely essential for Thomas to fight him. Alternative timeline in 86, maybe he fights Cobb for a relatively easy touch, then maybe he fights Douglas in the summer. Douglas had just beaten Page so this would be a good momentum boost for Thomas if he could win credentials wise.

87 Thomas could fight Williams, a respectable athletic big man with a good jab who had just beaten Bert Cooper. End the year with a stay busy fight against maybe Renaldo snipes?

This means by 88 he has Witherspoon, weaver, Douglas, Williams, snipes, and Cobb on his resume. That's a very, very good list for a guy whose only holding onto 1 belt. 88 he could have a tune up, then finally face berbick and hopefully wins this time and hopefully isn't back on drugs.

This alternative version of Thomas would be top 30 HW material. Roughly Ken Norton/Walcott/Vitali territory..very respectable. This resume would make for a very lucrative and exciting clash with Holmes or Tyson.

 

There's another heretical option: that the problems are just as bad now, but the talent pool is larger and therefore harder for drug abuse to nuke completely.

But yeah, I lean toward a sociological explanation. Until we know what it is, we can't be sure that Wilder wouldn't be susceptible.

 

Drugs are everywhere. Then and now. Larry Holmes wasn't a drug addict. Gerrie Coetzee wasn't. Mike Weaver wasn't. Not when they were broke. Not when they made money.

Thomas was an addict when he was broke. He was an addict after he won the title and had money. Same with Dokes. Same with Tubbs.

Deontay Wilder could've abused drugs at any point of his life - when he was dead broke or when he had tens of millions of dollars. He isn't.

If the discussion is now "Wilder probably beats them, but what if he was a drug addict in the 80s?" ... I think the discussion is over.

If he wasn't the first 36 years of his life now, he wouldn't have been then.

 

That’s because it’s thought the titles are equal if not legitimate. And that the credibility of opposition was equal.

One guy dominating an illegitimate title at a lower level cannot surpass a losing thread of men exchanging an equally illegitimate title nearer the top of that division.

Even stylistically, it’s not proven how effective Wilders prowess was against the winning level of fighters from his own time. When Parker scored an important win he did not meet Wilder. When Whyte scored important wins he did not meet Wilder. When Joshua scored important wins he did not meet Wilder.

now that’s not Wilders fault they did not fight him. He was taking care of business a level bellow that. And getting well paid to do that.

As fat and lazy and inept as the 1980s guys all were in their own way, they won at least one fight that was a 50-50 competitive match closer to the top half of the division than Stiverne and Areola represented when Wilder was just as incorrectly celebrated as a champion of some kind.

Tubbs was the worst of the 80s strap exchange era in my view. And whilst Page was not ever the best heavyweight in the world when Tubbs beat him, page was at least coming off an important win near the top echelon at that time when Tubbs beat him. Even Tubbs.

Tate beat Coetzee right after Coetzee flattened Leon near the top.

Weaver still knocked Tate out when Tate was considered near the top.

Dokes was awarded a stoppage win over Weaver while Weaver was classed as being close to the top.

So whatever we can say against these men, and admittedly there is a lot that can be said against them, They had wins over men that had important wins near the top of that division. It’s factual and statistically true.

I can’t find any important wins in the division for Areola, Stiverne or Ortiz against anyone considered close to the top of that era.

Even Fury, the guy Wilder knocked down and drew with, had not recorded a recent important win near the top of the division for many years.

Fury deservedly surpasses Wilder in winning their series and is enhanced also by Joshuas losses nearer the top of the division.

so you could say Wilder has played a part in enhancing Fury’s claim as top dog. But that’s it. Wilder was nothing more than a policeman for the lower half of a division.

 

Some would argue Fury NEVER recorded a truly important win before Wilder...the same people who doubt Fury would have made it 11 against an even five years younger Klitschko .

 

Wilder is arguably Fury's best win.

Wladmir was a gunshy 40 year old man who refused to let his hands go and had worse reflexes and timing.

 

This is true.

Fury has a kind of “last man standing” status out of his linear claim and wins over the long standing policeman of the lower half of the division. Joshua, a policeman of a slightly higher section of the division, dropping the ball twice enhanced all of this even further for Fury.

 

I believe that Thomas had a long period without using heroin and went back to it after Tyson kicked his ass. His performances fell off a cliff after that point too. He turned into a dumbass Teddy Pendergass wannabe after beating Spoon which accounted for his sloppiness as a champ. I don’t really think his peak would’ve been any better without drugs, but he might’ve remained in the top ten until the early 90s.

For Biggs, I don’t really regard the coke as an issue. He kicked it early. He had some bad breaks like the cut against Damiani and the layoff after. He also should’ve bulked more and didn’t totally adapt to the pros.

Tucker was more layoff than drugs/alcohol IMO.

I never heard anything about Williams being a partier.

Berbick was a pretty hard worker….

 

Though I can't heartily argue against Fury's being the best in the division...the knockdowns in the first and third Wilder fights bug me still.

Both fights featured what I thought were somewhat iffy ref decisions. I can think of quite a few refs who would have stopped the fight after Fury's being obviously unconscious in the first....even moreso in the fourth round of the 3rd.

To be completely transparent, I feel the 3rd fight would have been fair having been stopped in the 4th round...it's really sticking in my craw.

That said, it is revealing that I never cared much for Fury as a fighter, and was pulling for Deontay during every fight. So, I'm biased lol.

 

IIRC, a major point of your case for Wilder was how inconsistent, drug addicted, and otherwise mediocre the 80s heavyweights were. If you're now saying that those issues weren't any more of a problem in the 80s than they are now, one of the planks of Wilder's claimed superiority over the 80s guys would fall out.

 

I'll also add: I'm not saying "Wilder probably beats them except for drugs." The people discussing this with you are not a unified bloc. As I already explained, I think Wilder is a top 3 guy in the post Klitschko era, which puts him above most, but not all, of the ABC beltholders. But if you're bringing up the conditions in the 80s that made their contenders inconsistent, in a thread explicitly about Wilder's performance in the 80s, then they should be considered.

 

It’s better to just use today’s version of Wilder to discuss.

Although it’s very interesting to speculate what could have happened had he have been caught up in drugs etc, there’s too many variables.

We can however assume that he may not have been at his best for every fight.

Was it yourself or Glass that said that Wilder wasn’t at his best for the first Fury fight?

What if he’d have caught a red hot Page, whilst not being at his best himself?


IMHO, it’s not a given that even a 100% version of Wilder would have reigned for almost a decade in the 80’s. But if he wasn’t at his best in every fight, then he’d have had even less of a chance.

 

What?

How does saying Wilder wouldn't have been a drug addict in the 80s change anything?

Everyone wasn't a drug addict then. Those guys mentioned were. Just like guys are now, and he's not.

Fury was an admitted addict. Sought treatment. Joshua dealt drugs and got arrested. Wilder wasn't a drug addict and didn't deal drugs.

See?

Again, if the discussion is "what if Wilder was a drug addict then?" ... then the discussion is over.

If Larry Holmes was a drug addict, I'm sure his reign would've been cut short (if he had one at all). But he wasn't. Neither was Wilder. If you want to pretend people are drug addicts who weren't in an attempt to win an argument, go ahead.

But I'm not doing this today.

 

80’s were a fun time to be growing up.