It' s hard to rate Wilder when it comes to ATG rankings but I think he is at least A-level.

Ah yes, all those top 10 heavyweights in their primes who Wlad beat. There was Alex Leapai. And Francesco Pianeta. And Calvin Brock. And Ray Austin. And Tony Thompson (TWICE). And Mariusz Wach (Oh, wait, he didn't stop him). And a one-eyed Lamon Brewster. Oh, and Jean Marc Mormeck. Oh, and Eddie Chambers. And Bryant Jennings (Oh, wait, he didn't stop him, either.) And David Haye (who he couldn't stop) with his broken toe. And Sultan Ibragimov, who couldn't punch any higher than Wlad's waist and never fought again.

Wlad went on a very nice run after he was an extremely "hot and cold" performer in the ring for an entire decade. But he wasn't facing any guys who'd make a "Murderer's Row" in any era. Honestly. That's why he went on a nice run.

 

Why thank you, at least I can drive now lol

To be fair to then Spinks was one of the worst HW champions ever, like we make jokes about Valuev and Wilder but Spinks really was one of them. Holmes on the other hand is a top 5 HW ATG but was hated for bullying Ali as an older man

I agree, Holmes definitely should have unified. Can you think of someone else who has a long list of Defences with no attempt to unify? Hmm...

Well that's fair, but there have been far worse title defences than Holmes and Foreman.

Botha and Seldon were pretty **** champions, Foreman proved himself as a top 5 HW when he KOed Moorer. Tyson was always overrated, his aura of invincibility was always fake, he was great not unbeatable

The McCall loss was a technical master piece and perfect plan by Manny, he showed Lewis's flaws for what they were
Rahman he had his eye off the ball and was training on a film set with Wlad, Lewis has a better chin than most give him credit for (granted they have good reason not to). He withstood punishment against Mercer, Bruno, Briggs and Vitali. Who other than Briggs I'd pick to beat Joshua and Ruiz (until further evidence)

Wlad would be absolutely hurt against an old Corrie Sanders and a journeyman in Purity, they had right to be worried.
I don't know if Vitali quit or if he was pulled out, either way it doesn't look good. Byrd was a good HW in his prime and has a very good résumé for his era (better than anyone today) and always thought the best.
Ruiz was shocking, it's embarrassing he was Champion and has a win over Holyfield.
Roy Jones and James Toney winning titles proves how shocking the division was at the time

I genuinely think it was the worst time for the division, but the top talents at the time I think we're better than now, see what I'm getting at? I don't even care if people disagree.

Yes, you can do this whole thing where you take the worst of the time but if you take the best then imo it's clear what eras are best, the division is as interesting as it's ever been today but that doesn't mean that it's as good. I don't think Wilder would've been Champ in the 80s, 70s or a significant player in the 90s

See that's the thing, I don't consider this the worst. I actually think it's quite good, just the top talent today isn't as good as yesteryears. Just an example
Lewis > Fury
Holyfield > Ruiz Jr
Bowe > Joshua
90s Tyson = Wilder

The rest of the division is pretty average, and I think the B rate contenders of the 90s are better than most today as well, bit that's certainly debatable

I agree Marciano is a clumsy swinger, just like Wilder
I also consider Patterson a ducker, he should've faced Liston in 1959, just like Wilder and Joshua should've fought in 2017/18, or anytime before June 1st

Well Ali did do everything stylistically different, just like Wilder and Fury are doing, if it works for you do it. And the Mafia-Islam thing is foul

I agree this era is fine, but I don't rate it higher in terms of the top talent at there best, Bowe in 96 would be killed against Wilder, but in 92 (his best) I think he demolishes Wilder, Fury and Ruiz.
Guys like Whyte, Ortiz and Povetkin are all good contenders, guys like Tua, Ike and Mercer (despite winning the WBO, which is like Povetkins WBA run) are much better imo and beat all 3 of the others. And I'd pick all 3 to beat Joshua and Ruiz and probably Wilder

This era is the most interesting not the most talented imo

 

See, you fit in just fine. I think this era is fine, too. We'll see how it plays out.

 

I look forward to it, Fury vs Wilder 2 is a huge fight and Whyte vs Ruiz would be a war

 

See, that's where you trip yourself up. With statements like that.

You don't think Deontay Wilder could win a title against John Tate, Leon Spinks, Mike Weaver, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Bonecrusher Smith, Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Bruce Seldon, Frans Botha, Tommy Morrison, Frank Bruno, Michael Moorer ... guys who were all significant players and held titles in the 70s, 80s and 90s?

Because Wilder has more successful title defenses than all of them COMBINED.

How many times was someone like Morrison flattened by average guys?

I think statements like Wilder never would've been a champ in the 70s, 80s or 90s is laughable, because I followed boxing in those eras, and I follow it now, and Wilder would KILL nearly all those guys. KILL THEM. Those guys had so many awful nights against awful fighters that I can't even add them all up. And I sat thru most of them.

In fact, I remember watching the Berbick-Thomas fight and just WISHING OUT LOUD to friends that a heavyweight who threw 20 punches a round would show up, because he'd outpoint all these sluggish, out of shape, uninterested guys clogging up the top.

On Wilder's WORST night, 15 pounds underweight, his timing totally off, he floored Tyson Fury twice and got a draw.

I'll take that guy over most.

 

I think he can beat some of them, so I'll rephrase that, I can't see Wilder as major player in the 70s, 80s or 90s

And Bruno, Morrison, Seldon, Botha and Moorer weren't major players in the 90s. Some were world level and others were slightly lower, none were Elite

 

I don’t find your arguments convincing at all. Wlad has never shown deterioration in the ring, I know what a shot fighter looks like. He couldn’t land his left hook against Joshua because Joshua is a tall fighter who was staying on the outside for the most part. He looked fine against Jennings, and Jennings was always a pretty skilled fighter. Your inference that other fighters are shot by that age meaning that Wlad was shot as well doesn’t work. The eye test shows that he was still an elite athlete and boxer.
Joshua was undefeated until the Ruiz fight. He was not exposed before then. A 6’6 explosive 250 pound man is obviously going to look gassed at times, that’s inevitable. His outstanding fitness is shown in the way that he recovers from that extreme amount of work his body does. You say that Joshua can’t fight against smaller guys, do you give Usyk a pass or has he been exposed as well? That same Nistor made Usyk very uncomfortable. Beterbiev beat Usyk, and then should’ve won at least one of their next two fights (he also dropped and hurt Usyk there). That’s not getting exposed, that’s simply styles making fights.
You’re clearly underrating Joseph Parker.

You can’t claim the Klit era was better when there was only one elite fighter around. Povetkin is the only other guy, and you can make a strong case that he improved in recent years.

Your standards for Wilder are absurd. He doesn’t need to clean up the division to show his power.

 

OmG JOshUa BeAt a PRime WlaD!!!

 

His inability to defeat a man the same size and actual skill. He looks amazing when dealing with guys who are smaller with inferior skills though.

 

Yes, it does work because scientifically, it's a proven fact that athletes decline when they reach their late 30's in athletic sports. Go ahead and find me just ANY, and I mean ANY past heavyweight who was beating the top tier opponents after age 38. Hint, you can't because those heavies were either well retired or losing to far inferior opposition than Joshua or Fury.

You literally have to make one in a thousand exception to hold ONLY Wladimir Klitschko to that standard out of hundreds and thousands of boxers that competed in the sport of boxing and not just at heavyweight, to think only Wladimir Klitschko wasn't past his best, when pretty much no other boxer by that age were beating top-tier opposition like Joshua and Fury.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? I challenge you to name me not just pro heavyweights, but even amateur heavyweights who were winning titles and medals after age 38. You'd be hard-pressed to find any. Meaning, if we have such a large sample size of athletes no longer being relevant at the elite level after age 38, then it's more likely that Wladimir Klitschko was also past his best and shot, rather than not.

You see, my argument is ASTRONOMICALLY and I mean ASTRONOMICALLY more convincing than your argument that Wlad wasn't past his best, based on the fact that there exists sufficient historical evidence that past heavies were also past their best by the same age. So based on Occam's Razor, so was Wlad.

Wlad has landed left-hooks on taller opponents before, no problem. In fact, he found it easier to land left-hooks on taller opponents than shorter ones (due to them being less elusive). Kubrat Pulev, Ray Austin and etc. Wlad has also accurately landed his left-hooks on far slicker opponents than Joshua (Eddie Chambers being an example).

Wlad was missing because he was shot to pieces. It's really that simple. He had no timing at age 41 on his left-hooks.

It's your argument that isn't convincing here, as you're trying to paint Joshua as this defensive / elusive master when he's never been one. Wlad has landed clean left-hooks in his prime on far more elusive opponents than Joshua. The fact that he couldn't do so on a static / less elusive Joshua, is evidence that he was shot to pieces when it came to his timing.

The problem with your Usyk example is Usyk has never been stopped the way Joshua has been. But I do agree Usyk struggles with shorter fighters too, but not as much as Joshua does. Usyk definitely struggles more against skilled smaller boxers than taller ones. that much I can absolutely agree!

Wlad wasn't looking 'fine' against Jennings by his PRIME standard. He has faced quicker, slicker, more athletic and skilled guys than Bryant Jennings in his prime that he flat out shut-out, and / or knocked out in the process too. David Haye, Eddie Chambers and Calvin Brock being prime examples. Whereas against an inferior Bryant Jennings, he lost more rounds and was missing more punches. Which is a clear sign he was on the decline. That you choose to ignore this simple fact, is simply on you

Actually, being 6 foot 6 and 250 pounds isn't an excuse to regularly gas. Otherwise, why didn't we see Vitali Klitschko gassing regularly. Or how about Kubrat Pulev? The fact that Joshua has gassed in not once, but at least 3 major fights, and also lost in one of those fights due to gassing, is evidence that he was exposed.

So yes, Joshua absolutely was exposed way before he fought Andy Ruiz. Everybody and their mother could see Joshua got one of the most laughable stoppages in the history of boxing against Takam. The referee potentially saved Joshua from losing via gassing. Same is the case against Wladimir Klitschko too.

Yes, I ABSOLUTELY could claim the Klit era was better when he have literally 2 Klitschko victims in Povetkin and Pulev, still officially ranked in the top 10 TODAY. This is not my opinion, this is a cold fact!

In reality, there literally isn't any 'elite' fighter around today. Until somebody at least totally cleans up the division, this division is still up for grabs when it comes to determining who the elite is. You have very low standards for what constitutes an 'elite' fighter. Wlad cleaned up the heavyweight division and stayed on top for a decade. Which is why he earned his elite status. None of today's heavyweights have come close to doing such a thing and until they do, that status will continue to remain up for grabs.

And it's ironic how you make excuses for Joshua's lack of stamina due to his size, yet exempt Wladimir Klitschko from being past his best at age 40 after 2 decades of boxing as a SUPER HEAVYWEIGHT at 6 foot 6 and 240+ pounds? So you're trying to convince us that 2 decades of continuous training camps and bouts is not going to have a deteriorating effect on an athlete's body, especially when that athlete is 6 foot 6 and 240+ pounds? You trying to convince us that such an athlete is not going to be more injury prone, weaker, less durable and have less left in the tank after such mileage? You trying to convince us that such an athlete is immune to mileage and accumulated damage?

You need to seek basic biology lessons, if you're trying to convince us of any of those things.

 

Your subjective opinions are irrelevant here. Wladimir Klitschko not only cleaned up the division, but did so and remained on top for a DECADE. Yes, that's right, a decade! When Wilder does something similar and actually beats top 10 opponents after top 10 opponents for a decade, then we'll talk.

But Wilder is too scared to even face non-murderous row opposition in their primes that are in the top 10 in his own era. So I guess such a thing will never happen!

 

Top 10 opponents after top 10 opponents? (LOL) He defended against Tony Thompson (TWICE), Alex Leapai, a one-eyed Lamon Brewster (fill in for a mandatory), Ray Anis, Jean Marc Mormeck, Calvin Brock, Mariusz Wach, etc.

I give him credit for not losing to one of them. His longevity will earn him a Hall of Fame spot. Not who he beat. Because he lost to the best fighters he faced.

 

Wladimir Klitschko was the undisputed number 1 heavyweight for a decade without any ifs and buts. Your criticism over his level of opposition is your opinion, not fact and is therefore irrelevant and moot.

If someone can remain on top as the number 1 guy for a decade, then it has nothing to do with their opponents being bad but due to them being that great. A decade is a huge amount of time and a huge sample size. One can't get away with facing poor level of opposition for a decade. Out of billions of people on the planet, Wladimir Klitschko managed to remain on top as the number 1 guy for a full decade in a global heavyweight scene. This simply can't be argued against in any way shape or form.

Those guys you've just mentioned, were stopped by Wladimir Klitschko from ever being greater because Wlad dominated them. They could've been much greater, but Wlad stopped them from being greater because of his dominance. Which is why they look like nobodies now in retrospect.

 

That guy smells like Dino's twin brother.

 

A simple example being Povetkin at 39 who was clobbering Joshua for much of their fight. And Povetkin is much slower than he ever was.