If all of the current heavyweight boxers retire suddenly, how would you rank their careers?

Quite.

But also not quite in the way you went on to imply.

The quality of wins gives you a good idea of the lowest level a fighter might be... They might be better than they've proved, they might not.

The quality of fighters they lost to tells you the opposite - it tells you a level that's beyond the fighter in question.
It doesn't really imply anything much about what their level is unless it's very close - what it tells you more is what their level is not.


The more quantity there is at a particular level (in either the win or loss column) the more confidently we can grade a fighter.

And here's where, in my way of balancing it, you're going in a direction I wouldn't go down.

Wilder only losing to Fury and Parker doesn't tell us what Wilders level is/was - it tells us what it isn't and wasn't... At least, as much as it can given how few times he's fought at those levels.

So... Wilder-Fury 2, for example, tells us that Wilder's level was absolutely nowhere near fit, motivated, massive, championship level contenders - he got absolutely ragdolled in there.

Then we have Wilder-Fury 3... Which tells us that Wilder's level was lower than a much less fit, sloppier and slower version of the fighter he couldn't get near in fight 2.

And of course, Wilder-Fury 1 being more of a 50/50 affair (I did, and still do, think Fury was robbed in this fight - but it was much closer to even than the 2 that followed it) shows Wilder's level was closer to an even less fit, ring rusty and much softer fisted contender (and even then, he had to be gassed for Wilder to get his KD's).

Then we have Parker - a former champion and a legit contender, albeit one who's lost his way at times... But he came in fit, fought to a plan and he basically 12-0'd Wilder.
The excuses have been made that Wilder was shot, but he was no more shopworn than the fighter who KO1 a respectable gatekeeper in Helenius - we have no more evidence that Wilder was shot than that he was out of his depth (again) at contender level opponents.

Either way...

What those losses tell us are what's beyond Wilder's level.
Then we look at who he beat and that gives us a zone that he would've fit into.

So we look at his best wins - a 50/50 against 38 year old Ortiz who was fringe contender level at absolute best (I'd argue more likely gatekeeper, but I don't really need to, here).

So Wilder's level is definitely above gatekeeper - he beat several of them, so we can be confident of that.

But then we look at a close 50/50 win over an old fringe contender as the highest level he proved - vs - losing every fight he ever fought against legit championship level contenders...

And my, personal, conclusion is that there's a good chance he was a fringe contender level fighter - probably closer to rank 10 than 1.

Is there a possibility I'm wrong?
Yes, of course - he only fought two legit contenders...
There's a possibility he'd have won if he'd dared to fight Whyte, or Povetkin, etc - but we'll never know that, and on current evidence I'm not sure I can justify backing him against either of those guys (which might be why he ducked them).

So maybe he was better than he proved.
But.
Big but.
Why should I give the benefit of the doubt to a guy who didn't back himself enough to take those fights?
And with the nature of bell curves and levels in all elite sports, surely it's more likely that a fighter is NOT a much higher level than they proved, that that they actually are?

 

In complete honesty, I'm 99% sure it's the other way around... Especially given Wilder wanted no part of Whyte or Povetkin, both of whom Joshua had been willing to fight.

 

1. Tyson Fury (HOF)
2. Oleksandr Usyk (HOF)
3. Anthony Joshua (HOF)
4. Deontay Wilder (HOF)
5. Joseph Parker (forgotten)
6. Andy Ruiz Jr. (forgotten)
7. Dillian Whyte (forgotten)
8. Joe Joyce (forgotten)
9. Zhillei Zhang (forgotten)
10. Filip Hrgovic (forgotten)

Now out of the 4 I said HOF for, I only believe 2 of them have had what you would say would be HOF careers, but I genuinely believe all 4 of them get in...........Usyk first ballot.

 

1. Usyk (unified, undefeated, undisputed at cruiserweight, two wins over prime Joshua)
2. Joshua (has the same best win as Fury, and took on a wider variety of top ten, plus Fury and Wilder were in a rush not to fight him)
3. Fury (if everyone retired today, Fury would get the Bowe treatment for ducking + PEDs)
4. Parker (best win is Ruiz Jr. or 38 year old Wilder)
5. Wilder (best win is Stiverne or 38 year old Ortiz)
6. Ruiz Jr. (Win over Joshua, close loss to Parker)
7. Zhang (Win over Joyce, controversial loss to Hrgovic)
8. Whyte (wins over prime Parker, prime Rivas, and old Povetkin, etc. PEDs would reflect badly on him much like Fury)
9. Joyce (win over Parker, Takam, etc.)
10. Hrgovic (controversial win over Zhang)

 

Usyk then Fury. Joshua has a slightly better cv but he's been beaten three times and also stopped so that drops him under Fury for me. H2h Wilder might rank above Joshua. Zhang also goes up on h2h. His two Joyce stoppages are as good as anything Joshua has managed since the Wlad win.

 

With fair officiating Fury could potentially have three losses: McDermott (referee with a grudge against the McDemott family), Wallin (cut stoppage), and Ngannou (apparently, but I've only seen the highlights).

Ruiz Jr., and Usyk X2 doesn't seem so bad when you think about it

 

McDermott was a long time to be fair to him and hardly a marquee fight. Ngannou is by far his worst career display although he maybe edged it. Joshua was outclassed twice by Usyk. Clearly the inferior fighter. Ruiz you can maybe give him half a pass on but the rematch was about as bad as Lewis McCall 2.

 

You may well be right...Would have been a great fight while Fury wasn't in the ring over even after Fury 2.

 

Cue the moronic AJ fan herd rushing in to insist that beating a 41 year old, two years out of the ring, shot to **** fighter is better than beating that same guy two years prior when he was champion and p4p#2.

They will also tell you that losses don't matter at all on a resume.

It's Fury and Usyk for 1 & 2, Wilder and Joshua for 3 & 4, then who cares.

 

It's not quite as clear cut as that, unless you're a dyed in the wool Fury fan.

That 41 year old Wlad would've been capable of less at his absolute best than his 39 year old self... This much is undeniable.

Question is, was that 41 year old Wlad any nearer to the best he could possibly be at 41 (in terms of preparedness, hunger for the fight, fitness, etc) than the 39 year old Wlad who fought Fury was?
Again, fairly uncontroversial - Fury wasn't expected to be a major problem for Wlad, and he had more going on in the background at the time... Whereas Joshua was an Olympic champ coming in looking like he'd be a difficult fight - especially given the inactivity.

The question is... Which counts for more? Being younger or being more motivated?


The other point worth mentioning is that Wlad wasn't given the opportunity to avenge his loss to Fury... He chose not to attempt to avenge it against Joshua (understandably given his age).

Not at all - losses certainly do matter... Unavenged losses count for more.

Equally so do ducks (including ducking rematches), and having the profile and opportunity to make good fights and not doing so.

There are arguments both ways with Joshua and Fury, and Usyk by extension - to each their own, make your assessments and weigh it up in as much or as little detail as you care to... Wilder is nowhere near any of those three, really.