Okay, so, one month ago Deontay Wilder fights a fat, slow, shot 38-year-old in Luis Ortiz, whose best career win came against Malik Scott. Not only does he get outboxed for the majority of the fight, but he very nearly get's stopped midway through the fight. However in fairness to him he manages to KO Ortiz and get the win, and people on this forum call him "the baddest man on the planet". Anthony Joshua, on the other hand, fights a young, hungry, legitimate world champion yet to taste defeat, who possesses a resume superior to Wilders. Ok there weren't fireworks, but he won (quite convincingly), answered questions perviously posed to him (gas tank, ring craft), and prevented an actual world champion landing any significant shot on him. After the fight people on this forum call him "awful" and tip Wilder to walk through him. Forgive me but I faill to see this as rational analysis...
You could say who has Parker beat? Let's be fair he's not exactly lit up the sport since he fought Ruiz jnr.
Fair play he doesn't have any elite HW's on his resume but his is still better than Wilder's and Ortiz's. Takam, Hughie & Ruiz are better than anyone Ortiz and Wilder have faced. Even Dimitrenko is better than most of their opponents.
Ortiz is lacking that I'll agree with outside of Jennings, Scott and an old Thompson who if younger would have been the stand out win. Wilder and Parkers I personally think it'd be tit for tat.
Yeah, said this in another thread. Guys in AJ’s position like a Wlad or Floyd before him aren’t going to fight to entertain fans anymore. I wish the fight last night was better and thought it was trash from an entertaining stand point as well but it’s obvious when you’re the top dog you can’t go in and take the same risks you use to when you were climbing the risks.
Since the Ortiz and Parker fights, the odds on Joshua beating Wilder have drifted significantly, meaning that the oddsmakers think that Wilder's chances of beating Joshua after their March fights went up significantly. Think what that means. It isn't necessarily something that is easily understood.
I haven't been on these boards for a long time, but man, reading all these threads, I've come to realize that I haven't missed much. There is hardly any rational analysis. It's turned into a forum of who can troll the hardest. Wilder in every fight seems to get out-boxed, even when he's fighting boxers not even ranked in the top 20. But he has a lot of fans, which seem to be Americans so desperate of him winning since they haven't had a proper heavyweight champion since Evander Holyfield in the 1990s. Which is fair enough. But that's where this hype is coming from. Nothing more, nothing else.
In their hearts, I bet not many really believe Wilder’s win was more impressive. The manner of it was, as we all like a KO/TKO Some of these are the same people that think Fury’s win over Wlad was more impressive than Joshua’s, which it was. However, Joshua’s had the drama and the TKO. Double standards really. Wilder’s was “life and death” drama, while Joshua’s was a boring “shutdown” job, but suddenly the life and death fight is now also the better performance.
Wilder v Ortiz was a back and forth fight, swinging momentum, and an unpredictable result. Most fight fans not sold on Wilder or just plain haters, expected him to get KTFO. Whereas most fans, including many who dislike AJ considered him the strong favorite, even expecting a KO over Parker. Joshua earned the better W but in a far less exciting fight