Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Vegan Beast, Oct 13, 2021.
Ya i love nothing more than seeing two useless *******s beating lumpsnoff each other
He looks slick, but against what?
His best win is against a gatekeeper level fighter in Jennings and his resume falls off a cliff after that.
Outboxing Wilder doesn't count for that much either - not just because Wilder's skills are limited to begin with, but because you can't really use a fighter who's never beaten anyone better to say that makes the guy in question great.
Ortiz by resume is basically gatekeeper level, nothing wrong with that per se, but (like Wilder) he's done sod all to improve his record beyond that... As I've said in the past, fraud recognises fraud, and Ortiz could see that Wilder's reputation was hugely inflated just like his own.
It might be worth a thread of its own, but resumes really do matter quite a lot - like any other skill and physique based heirarchy in life, the ability of competitors follows a bellcurve...
That is, the further you get from average, the fewer people you find - and we're talking about top couple of % of fighters worldwide when we talk about professionals.
The higher up the ranks you go, the fewer fighters pass muster and continue winning and almost none reach the elite level.
What all this means is that if someone fails to prove their level via their resume, the better you think they are relative to their resume, the lower the probability of them proving you correct actually is...
You can watch any of a few dozen guys marching through journeymen and looking like the next potential world level fighter, but the majority get stopped before they get that far, and it's simple enough to see why.
So when we look at a guy like Ortiz who has an extremely hollow resume, we can ask ourselves if we think he's better than the gatekeeper level he's proven at, but if we start throwing him in top ten discussions (nevermind top 5, that's ludicrous) then there's a decent chance we'd be wrong to do so.
Likewise with Wilder - on resume alone, you'd struggle to put him in the top 5...
Sure, most of us think he's probably better than that, but there's a good chance we're wrong and he'd lose to guys with those better resumes - it's not certain, but it wouldn't be surprising either.
Eye test shows Ortiz is clearly a more talented boxer
Im not really talking resumes here as thats In Whytes favor clearly
Eye test against one gatekeeper and a bunch of journeymen - big deal.
The better the opposition gets, the harder it is to look like you're any good (see Wilder Vs Fury, any of three fights, see AJ Vs Usyk, etc etc etc).
You cannot isolate the eye test from the quality of opposition, it's meaningless data - just as seeing Fury fight your mate Duncan down the pub wouldn't give you the first clue just how good Fury really was... The difference is, you've seen Fury do the business against Wlad.
Whyte might have some ugly wins, but they're ugly wins against much higher calibre of opposition, and that makes it far easier to have confidence in him to win at that level than it would be to have confidence in Ortiz.
You're not a fan of boxing only a fanboi and a troll. You watch boxing for all the wrong reasons.
Shut up you dribbly ****.
I love boxing, hence why i want to see fury vs wilder 4
Your really not seeing my point
When i read "levels above" i personally think of talent and skill
Whyte in fact probably beats Ortiz in a dog fight
He is in no way the more talented
If Usyk sees off Joshua and Fury I think we could see a 46 y/o Wlad take a run at Usyk in a Kiev stadium. He's talked about the age record before. I don't think he should btw. Usyk is no Michael Moorer.
I don't necessarily agree with this...
Sure, you can have levels above in skill terms (see Joshua-Usyk for example) that leads to a difference in performance.
Then you can have levels above in skill terms that doesn't lead to success in the ring - Ortiz against Wilder, both times, shows this.
Talent and just "level" to me corresponds to performance - if you can endure a lot of punishment and hit hard, you can get away with lacking technical ability (again, Wilder) but still be able to fight at a decent enough level.
If you want to caveat the discussion by insisting we're talking about technical skill levels... Sure, Ortiz looks good on the eye against fighters he's beaten, and against Wilder.
Having said that, his level of opponents and level in terms of performance potential at the business end of the division goes, he's a level or so below Whyte.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I say "levels" without specifying a particular aspect of a fighter, I'm talking about how their whole game comes together, and what they've done with it... Hence I would say Whyte most certainly is the more talented and capable, despite not being as slick.
I get where you're coming from, but with respect it sounds like an excuse to credit seemingly skilled fighters that can't turn skills into a serious resume - Ortiz would be a poster child for this.
No you don't troll. Much better fights for both men than Fury-Wilder 4 and if you were a real boxing fan you'd already know this.
Ortiz isn't worth the money on the table
Thats a huge part of why his resume is pony
i wanna see wilder vs joshua,whyte,parker,usyk.. atleast make 2 or 3 of them happen before it calls it a day anyway
Possibly part of it - he brings little in and presumably isn't willing to take a cut that's proportional to his market value... I'm not convinced that too many contenders would be scared of fighting him.
That said, if he was a greedy man, bent on making as much money as possible, then he would've taken Joshua (even at late notice) for a payday orders of magnitude larger than any other he'd had.
He didn't, which makes one suspect that money isn't his prime motivation - logically, therefore, there's more to it than that.
Maybe he thought he'd have a much better chance at taking a belt if he fought Wilder instead (a justifiable position, for sure).
Maybe he just knew he couldn't possibly win and didn't want any part of AJ - one might question why he'd fight Wilder but not Joshua, in that case (I would suggest that fraud recognises fraud and he could spot an overhyped fighter when he saw one).
Regardless, it's been within his control to do more at times and he hasn't - judge it whichever way you like, but I shall maintain that without having actually fought any contenders other than Wilder, it's impossible to know whether he'd have beaten a single one of them... We can guess, sure, but again statistically, bellcurves would lead me to believe he'd have been far more likely to achieve limited success than significant success.
Everyone is grateful he's not retiring.
The conversation here would be dead.