HW Hofs- Usyk / Joshua / Wilder / Fury / Who else?

I don't know why fans think anyone but fans are supossed to care what Ring or TBRB or their own fantasy ratings say. Jesus ****ing murphy what a sad ass state of things it would be if even the HOF cared about fantasy ratings.


Yeah buds, that's how the greats are decided, promotional material.

 

So how are greats decided then ? Surely you look at quality wins the impact they made on the sport and popularity. Wilder wasn't a big name in America and he certainly doesn't have many quality wins and he is not even close to a great.

Regarding top 10 rankings I never said they're the main factor of whether a fighter gets into the HOF. It was an example to show Wilder's opposition wasn't that good and he doesn't have many quality wins.

I mean yeah sure you can look at 11 title defenses without any context and say hes a shoe in for HOF. But realistically a majority of those defenses were against the likes of Washington, Arreola, Spzilka, Dupuhuas, who were nowhere near top 10 Heavyweights of that time. And on fair scorecards Wilder is realistically 0-3 against Fury. Dubblechin is holding on to that "Draw" like it's the holy grail when he knows damn well that no one actually believes the "Draw" was legit.

 

Only in your wet dreams

 

There is honestly no way in hell Wilder gets into the HOF. Usyk Fury and Joshua will get in. Usyk and Joshua before Fury, IMO.

 

Just took a look at Wilder's record and it seems his record against guys bigger than him is 2-1-3 (Fury, Breazeale, Helenius, Zhang). At least from the last ten years, there might have been some others from his earlier career.

 

Outside of fandom you're forced to recognize ranked fighters by their actual ratings and champions by their actual titles.

For example it's all well and fine for us to call Martin an illegitimate champion but the fact is he was a champion. So when measuring AJ none of them have the luxury of saying Martin wasn't a real champion.

Likewise you may not put any stock in Bermane, but Bermane was the champion.


Washington, Arreola, Spzilka, and Duhaupas were all rated. By an actual, real, ratings bored with actual real consequences to the sport.

The HOF can make a statement, if they like, that they too now induct based on Ring or TBRB ratings and give some credit to what is currently exclusively promo ratings, but until then those ratings are useless for anything outside of promotion.


What's being Ring's number one get you? **** all? Okay it gets you **** all in retirement as well.

 

Anyone can apply common sense and see those guys were not top 10 heavyweights though. There were at least 10 guys better than Spizka, Arreola, etc at the time they faced Wilder. Povetkin for example is clearly objectively better than Spizka and so is Chisora.

Why should the ratings of a sanctioning body matter when fighters can score good wins without holding a belt? Plenty of fighters have productive careers without paying attention to sanctioning bodies. Wins don't suddenly not count because you don't have a belt.

 

LOL.....you trying too hard.... Michael Moorer.....is that your final answer?......Michael Moorer is a 4x world champion across 2 divisions....remember he didn't start his pro career as a heavyweight. He was also beating top contenders/ranked opponents. There also wasn't 4 world titles available then as the WBO wasn't considered a major world title until 2007. Let's also not forget that MM retired three separate times due to personal struggles with alcohol abuse and personal demons. First retirement was after the Holyfield rematch in which he was dropped 5x. He came back to the sport due to financial problems fighting guys we have to research to know who they are. Got a few wins, then got a fight vs David Tua, in which he was stopped less than a minute into the fight. He retired after than for the 2nd time. Ironically, a call from a former foe (Foreman) encourage him to stay clean and he eventually came back to the sport within a few months in which he again fought less opposition to gain a solid financial income. Before the first retirement Moore had 41 fights in which he faced 4 world champs and had victories over 3 of them (not 2.....he and Holyfield were 1-1). 2 of those champs are current FIRST BALL Hall of Famers.

We can also add in the fact that the Heavyweight division also is smaller in comparison to 15/20/30 years ago due to the huge bump in $$ guaranteed early in the other major sports, specifically football and basketball. Especially with American heavyweights. So, the pool of competition is smaller with the quantity of opportunity to gain a title being a belt greater. And even after all of that......Michael Moorer was still not a FIRST BALLOT HOF'er. So with him being more accomplished that Wilder, he still wasn't a "shoe in", which is what this conversation is about in case you have forgotten.

I guess we have to acknowledge the amount of fights that Moorer had since they were sanctioned but most know that his world class competitive portion of his career ended after the Holyfield rematch. That's like trying to argue that Roy Jones Jr. is less of a valued competitor because of his last 15 fights....lol.

You are trying too hard and it's comical. Because anyone who follows any sport passionately know there are individuals who have made it into the HOF of that sport and many don't feel they deserve it before other more accomplished athletes whom are still waiting on their inducting opportunity. Wilder may very get in based on his popularity and a lack of co-stars in his own country during his era....but to label him a "shoe in" when we look at how his brand was built is HILARIOUS.

 

So you're saying not to apply context to anything ? so yeah let's recognize Arreola as a worthy title contender going 2-2 in his last 5 fights and getting a draw vs a fighter that ended up with a record of 18-8.

Stirverne hadn't fought in 2 years.

It's common sense a majority of these fighters were realistically not one of the top 10 Heavyweights in the world nor top contenders and were certainly not worthy of being title contenders.

It's called as i said applying context.

Already explained above.

I'm talking about the rematch in regards to title defenses Stirverne hadn't fought in 2 years and hadn't beaten anyone to get another shot at Wilder.

And as i asked you what is the criteria for getting in the HOF then ? i already gave some examples of popularity, achievements, resume, or impact made on the sport. I'm not saying Ring Ratings are most important factor but then as i keep asking what is the criteria for Wilder for getting in the HOF ?

Wilder was not a big name in America, he doesn't have a good resume, the only argument for Wilder is based on statistics of title defenses. But as i keep saying then you're basically looking at stuff without applying context what so ever, because realistically Wilder in 49 fights only beat 2 Heavyweights who were considered top 10 Heavyweights at that time who were Stirverne, Ortiz.

 

Michael Moorer only beat two heavyweight champions.

Two-thirds of the heavyweight champions in the Hall of Fame only beat two heavyweight champs. A third of them only beat one.

You brought it up. Like beating two was a joke. Most heavyweight champions in the Hall of Fame only beat two. Moorer included. And he fought in the four-belt era.

Sorry you don't know your ****. That's not my problem.

 

Szpilka and Arreola were subs for Povetkin. Povetkin, the WBC mandatory, said he needed more time (to clear his system, apparently). So Wilder took Szpilka, who was rated by the WBC. After Povetkin popped dirty (and continued to pop dirty all that year) to save the date for American TV, they took Arreola, a longtime contender who was also rated by the WBC.

Lots of guys who challenged for belts in every division were late subs. Andy Ruiz wasn't ranked by Ring, he was a late sub for Miller (when he failed his drug test for the Joshua fight) and Ruiz stepped in and stopped Joshua.

What no one mentions is that Wilder tore his bicep and broke his hand against Arreola, and still managed to score a stoppage win. Joshua didn't have a broken hand and a torn bicep when he lost to Ruiz. Ruiz wasn't ranked by Ring. People didn't think Ruiz was going to beat Joshua. People thought there were 10 better heavyweights than him (Ring certainly thought so). But Ruiz won.

In recent history, Ring ranks a lot of heavys who LOSE title fights but don't seem to rank the guys beforehand who actually win titles.

* Ring didn't rank Corrie Sanders before he wiped out their #1 rated Wlad. They thought there were 10 heavyweights better.

* Ring didn't rank Lamon Brewster when he wiped out Wlad for the WBO belt. They thought there were 10 heavyweights better.

* Ring didn't rate Sergei Liakhovich before he beat Brewster for the WBO belt.

* Oliver McCall was the #2 WBC contender when he knocked out Lennox Lewis. Ring didn't rate Oliver McCall in the top 10. They thought there were 10 heavyweights better.

* Ring didn't think Hasim Rahman was one of the 10 best heavyweights when he knocked out Lennox Lewis to win the title. They had 10 heavyweights rated above Rahman.

* Ring didn't think George Foreman was one of the 10 best heavyweights when he knocked out Michael Moorer for the title.

* Ring didn't think Michael Bentt was one of the 10 best heavyweights when he knocked out Morrison for the WBO belt. But jammed Bentt in at #4 when he did. And didn't rank Herbie Hide before he destroyed Bentt.

* Ring ranked a lot of guys in the 1970s. But they just added Ken Norton at a lowly #9 (below Joe King Roman) before Ken beat Ali and broke his jaw.

* And Ring didn't ranked Leon Spinks at all before Leon ended Ali's long reign in 1978. Leon got a top 10 rating by the WBA right before that. Everyone thought there were 10 better heavyweights than Leon.

Hell, Ring added Usyk to the #10 spot just before Usyk challenged Joshua. Ring thought there were 10 heavyweights better than Usyk before Oleksandr upset Joshua. The WBO is the org that had Usyk #1.

And Joshua fought Usyk because the WBO told him to fight Usyk, not because RING did. Usyk was the WBO mandatory. Joshua didn't fight him because Usyk was rated #10 by Ring.

Just like Usyk fought Dubois ... because the WBA told him to fight Dubois. Hell, Ring didn't rate Dubois ... until a couple months ago.

Ring didn't even rate Fury as one of the 10 best heavyweights for most of 2022 while he was the reigning WBC champion and fought more title fights that year than Joshua or Usyk. They're idiots just like every one of us are.

New fans going back decades and pompously insisting there were 10 better guys ... when you know the outcome of everything ... MEANS NOTHING.

It's all arbitrary.

Nobody knows until the fights happen.

Muhammad Ali, Wlad Klitschko, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis and even Joshua were five of the more dominant champs of the last 50 years. Ring ranked a lot of heavyweights during their eras. But they never considered the guys who beat them - namely Norton, Leon, Sanders, Brewster, Michael Spinks, McCall, Rahman, Ruiz or Usyk - worthy of any better than a #9 or #10 rating ... if they bothered to rate them at all (and most, they didn't) ... before they knocked off those champs for their belts.

The alphabet bodies collectively have been better identifying and rating the next champs than Ring has.

Wilder fought challengers rated by the WBC. Usyk wanted to keep his WBA belt so he defended against who they told him too. He doesn't want to fight who the IBF tells him to fight, so he's dropping that and letting two guys he already beat fight for it.

Nobody is doing anything Ring wants them to do. They have no say in anything.

FIGHTERS have never taken orders from Ring.

Fans who only follow Ring rankings ... when none of the boxers are making decisions on who they fight based on those Ring rankings ... SHOW YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

 

Boy, everyone is going batt**** crazy at just the mention of Wilder getting in the Hall.

Hilarious.

Just go on vacation that week ... and stay away from the internet for the rest of your lives.

Because once he gets inducted in a few years, he'll always be there. And even if your heads explode, it won't change anything.

 

Fighters don't have to take orders from sanctioning bodies either. You can't excuse Wilder fighting terrible opposition when he had the option of ditching the belt and trying to fight better opponents. Plenty of big fights happen with no titles on the line. Wilder didn't need to fight WBC mandatories to have a successful career.

Wilder was perfectly aware that Parker, Pulev, Whyte, Povetkin etc were better than Spizka without consulting ring magazine.

 

Sanction body rating are the actual sports ratings. They have consequences. The WBA gets sued all the time.

Ring and TBRB do not have any consequences to their ratings. They are a meaningless popularity contest that affords no rating any sort of match nor any champion any sort of mandatory. No one has any reason to sue them into fighting for their title, they do not make any promises to fairness they can be held by.

One of the very specific reasons bodies were invented in the first place is so a fighter can become a champion on the merit of their wins and losses alone. You know how sometimes modern fans claim a champion is holding a belt ransom? Well that verbiage didn't come from thin air; champions before the bodies did hold belts for ransom. It didn't matter how good you were, you had to pay a stipulated fee for the honor of fighting the champion. If you weren't rich enough you didn't fight, period. The most absurd of these are Burke/Ward if you want to read into examples.

Just think about it for a while.

You're not supposed to, by design, like the body ratings. You are meant to accept them and not like them

You are meant to like the promo ratings and wish they could be real. By design.

If Ring ratings were used for enforcement they could not look the way they do. The entire reason sanctioning bodies have poor ratings isn't because anyone ever greased the wheels for Szplika, who never showed up in any promotional material btw, but rather because they've been held by their own rules which can be used in court against them. So if Ring or TBRB become the metric so to do they become the responsible party for fairness.




The idea that the sanctioning bodies put up these names no one ever heard of and everyone bitches about because it makes them money is really stupid. They have no reason to care who wins, it makes the most sense to pair money with money, as in the names you see in Ring are the names and pairings that generate revenue for the bodies. Why TF they artificially make Wilder look good IF they can just belt Joshua? It's a really, really, really stupid conspiracy theory born out of the unwillingness to demonize the champions and the eagerness to blame the bodies.


No, the HOF doesn't go by promo ratings that don't mean anything.

No, the bodies don't somehow make extra money by avoiding giving you what you want.

No, Ring mag and TBRB are not bastions of integrity

They go by the rating system the fighters and promoters can use in court to attain fairness. Because that system can be used to attain fairness it will never be as popular as the system whose sole existence is centered around popularity and should the popularity system become the system for fairness it too will grow the number of unpopular fighters among its ranks.




Also, Pov was always ****. Artur may have been better. He's a great case in point for a shitty fighter being promoted and positioned in a way so that they look better. Was Pov better than the mirade of nameless hopeless ****s Wlad demolished? Was he? He saw Wlad once then never really did anything again ... just like everyone else. Hell, some saw Wlad twice. His resume consists of no hopers who debuted after him, made rank after him, but somehow fought Wlad before him ... not Pov's fault at all of course ... of course that's not a huge mark for a carefully timed and controlled career to give the illusion of some superiority over the division ... just bad luck ... but all's well that end's well right ... because Pov would see them, you know pass him up and fight Wlad, then he would fight them, and then they retire and he continues to not only not fight wlad but also not fight those in line to fight Wlad until after. hmmm

Heaps of credit for being Wlad's leftover munch and doing about as well as anyone else against him. But yeah, heaps of names that were rated right before he beat them.

 

Sometimes I wonder if y'all even try to not be guilty of exactly what you're accusing me of.

I'm not say you or should but the utter lack of any attempt to bring in any context while crying about context was noted.

You should be 100% sold on Ring if not TBRB. A lot of very rich men put a lot of time and effort into that.

You should detest sanctioning body ratings. A lot of very rich men put a lot of time and effort into that as well.

The HOF doesn't, nor should it.


Similarly, the NBA, NFL, FIFA, F1, whatever really, ratings by the actual leagues. they matter. they should matter. Any website or board or magazine that tells you the "real" ratings for these teams, drivers, players, etc. can adjust how you feel as a fan, but their HOF not so much.