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

The answer to your inane question is beyond irrelevant, that's why.

Yet it's the only flotation device you feel you have, so.........

 

When you shift the goal posts you admit your opposition made a valid point but you want to ignore it.

It's absolutely relevant what tall fighters Thomas faced if you're going to claim he "easily" outjabs wilder without getting touched.

It was significant enough for him to get stopped. You do not need to render your opponent unconscious drooling on the canvas to stop them. If Thomas takes too many unanswered powerful shots he will begin trouble just like he was with lesser punchers such as Hoylfield. No need for air quotes unless you think Hoylfield is in roughly the same ballpark as wilder.

Too much is made about rankings when it comes to styles, matchups, and durability. If Butter bean is allowed to land his best punch on Joe Louis sticking his chin out he's going down. Power is power.

Exaggerated examples aside, Thomas is not in some class of his own compared to Wilder. That's the part that has me scratching my head in this debate. He was an ABC champ who did not reign for very long and has very few clear wins that separate him from his peers. The same people blasting wilder are overlooking the fact without the splintered sanctioning bodies Thomas would be just another highly rated contender. He was neither lineal nor undisputed and most his best wins were close decisions that could have gone the other way. He lost to the most of the best men he stepped up in class against (although to be fair he was last his peak for some of these bouts).

Well, yes burden of proof is the be all end all of you make a bold claim.

I didn't make any bold claims btw. I never claimed wilder easily outjabs Thomas. I never even claimed he would definitely win or that he brutally KOs him early. I made very few claims other than my counter claim to the notion Thomas just easily pops his jab out and outboxed a much taller fighter with dangerous power.

Well that's not the only strategy wilder uses. Just one of them. My point was that using Ortiz to support the idea Thomas easily outboxes wilder is dubious since it was part of Wilder's strategy to lull Ortiz into a false sense of security to set up a nuclear right hand.

That's possible. I don't find the idea of Thomas stopping him crazy at all. But I certainly don't see him just sitting behind a jab easily coasting several rounds then taking him out early.

 

Already answered it.

 

You claimed Thomas would easily outjab a taller man with a longer reach. I simply asked if he had ever done that in his whole career. It's totally relevant.

Rocky never got on his toes and boxed his way to a decision with slick movement so it would be equally absurd to claim he could do so in a hypothetical matchup without a single shred of evidence that he ever did that.

You keep claiming I think height and reach are the end all be all when I never said that. It's equally ridiculous to clean height and reach don't matter at all.

 

You didn't answer anything.

This is tiresome.

 

This wasn't directed at you.

 

without splintered sanctioning bodies Wilder would be just another highly rated contender. He also was never considered the best HW in the world. It works both ways. He inherited a title based on the worth of Stiverne v Arreola. That’s a fringe level fight. He was not beating AJ, Parker, Ruiz or Fury.

Thomas beat Witherspoon.

 

Ok cheers.

 

Yes I did. Ratliff and Coetzee. Both significantly taller than Thomas. and both more advanced technically than Wilder.

 

Ratliff was only 1 inch taller.

Ratliff was literally a cruiserweight and a string bean with little power so that makes the comparison even more absurd.

Coetzee was half an inch taller.

Neither fighter even remotely meets my criteria.

Height and reach weren't as much of an issue in those days because trainers were often clueless on how to train big men. They were rarely good. The best examples in that time frame were the stiff robotic poor stamina Bruno, the infuriating jab and grab Terrel, the plodding sluggers such as Baer or Willaed, etc. No one had seen anything remotely close to an athletic explosive tall hitter like Wilder.

"Any" top fighter could have stopped Areola with a broken hand?

Do you guys have a fetish for bold wild claims or something?

The point wasn't that stiverne was amazing. The point is that it's especially noteworthy to ko an opponent who went the distance in the previous bout. Especially by 1 round ko. I mean, the old timers make a huge deal out of Louis brutalizing schmeling, Rocky taking out Walcott early, etc. Seems a bit hypocritical.

 

So how would he beat Wilder?

 

Different thread. Don't want to derail it.

Ali probably wins with constant in and out movement. Stamina would be a major factor as he would set a pace wilder isn't comfortable with. I certainly don't think Ali simply jabs his head off from a distance.

 

How long have you been watching boxing, out of curiosity? Some of the points you make and the assumptions you draw are just beyond the beyond.

 

have you seen the fight? There was more than that between them.

you have not seen this fight either have you? There is much more of a visual height discrepancy than that. But you would know if you saw it.

This sounds like a wild and bold statement to me. You cannot back this up.

Gerry Cooney?

There’s nothing bold or wild about it. I can back it up.

You can’t.

Areola couldn’t beat a top fighter. He wasn’t one himself. Therefore it’s not a big deal if somebody or anybody beat him with a broken hand.

It is about levels. You need to consider the talent level of Areola here before deciding he is something to boast about. He never presented a 50-50 fight. Wilder was already matched to win.

“guy wins fight with broken hand in a fight he was already matched to win”. Big deal. Happens all the time. Never makes a headline.

Tell me what is wrong, untruthful or un-factual about that?

 

To avoid devolution into a boxing edition of a Reddit atheism debate, with everybody huddling behind their burdens of proof and demanding extraordinary evidence and stationary goalposts, it might be best to share the burden of proof.

I don't really see extraordinary claims being made by either side, here. Possibly *wrong* claims, but not really extraordinary. Thomas and Wilder aren't alleged to be aliens or leprechauns, for example.

Anyway, that aside, it's an interesting debate. Feel free to proceed, everyone.