Re-writing the history of boxing: WBO belt

Yeah this is all fine. So would you object to 50ish or go higher or lower?

 

Huge underplay of the fact many felt Wilder was robbed of the KO at that time.

 

Riddick gave up his WBO belt because it was ******ing his career.
His words.
That was after he tried claiming he was the people's champ after winning it..lol

 

When you divorce it from Wilders early title defenses this is actually a reasonable message.

 

First fight was close in my opinion but Fury won it by a point or 2. But yeah Wilder was like a half second away from victory and that would have changed a lot. To me that shows Fury's underrated mettle he was coming back from 400 pounds in weight gain and drug addiction and was able to produce that. When people bash Fury on here they forget that.

 

Michael Carbajal would've been 3-time light flyweight champion,and his resume would shine even lesser.

His notable wins would only be: Will Grigsby, Humberto Gonzalez, Jorge Arce and Melchor Cob Castro,plus Arce would've been downgraded further for being green and didn't even hold a notable belt yet.

 

He was 38 when he first fought Wilder. Shufford and McCline never beat a top 5 contender. Jennings beats 2000 Brewster. Stop spreading misinformation.

 

Not really. The Ring gave him favorable rankings for having their unsanctioned belt, but no he wasn't at Wilder's level when he was beating Schwarz and Wilder was beating Ortiz.

 

They're better than top 50.

 

I was going pretty rough of head he could well be a lot higher than that.

I definitely rate the modern crop of heavyweights a lot higher than most people.

 

There was indeed a lot of disinformation around his age at the time, so They got me ). Thanks for the correction. 38 years old then, spring chicken.
The ranking at the time of the fight is often circumstantial. Fighters are not necessarily worse when They are not ranked (Ortiz was not ranked when He fought Jennings, so if Jennings beat him - would it have been meaningless?). You're too caught up on it, like the Duran vs Mayweather thread showed, where You put more value to Mayweather beating "Number 1" Baldomir than Duran beating "not ranked" Ernest Marcel.
The issue with Ortiz is - Jennings is all He got, so it's hard to judge him accurately. With McCline in particular, had a good run on solid level, fighting plenty of former champions and contender.

As for Jennings beating 2000 Brewster. Good question. I liked Jennings, maybe He'd get it done - but big chance He'd get chinned as well. Brewster was always erratic. Right after beating Klitschko He arguably lost to Kali Meehan who was no better than Etienne or Shufford. He certainly wasn't a whole different fighter in 2004-2005 comparing to year 2000 when He suffered two early career losses.

 

Their ratings treat it as if he never tested positive for steroids and retired. Wilder was the champion to people in the U.S. at that time.