I think I am right in saying, that his only win over somebody currently ranked, was his somewhat controversial win over Rahman. We don't know that. What we know is that Marciano dominated an era, while Tua basically lost every time he stepped up. Even if we a assume Tua's era to be a lot better, that is quite a big gulf in attainment. Tua didn't just loose to the best of his era, he also lost to the tier below them!
Wrong thread, brah. We're talking about the tall guy who would destroy Marciano, not the thick Poly who would do so.
My apologies! Two men with very different builds, but similar flaws to their resumes! Wilders wins over ranked opposition are Stiverne I, Ortiz I, and Ortiz II. That is weak compared to Marciano, but strong compared to Tua.
I am dumbfounded that people are actually criticizing Marciano's opposition here. You criticize Marciano's opposition if you are comparing him to somebody who beat some of the best of a better era. You don't criticize it if you are comparing him to somebody who beat next to nobody in their own era!
We are talking heavyweights. I'll give you Calzaghe, but which heavyweight at age 35 or older moved like that?
That happens after hard body shots and pressuring to move around. Walcott was Ko'd because he wasn't sound not he rope and got caught. That punch would have KO'd Wilder too.
His last 6 opponents were in the upper echelon of the Top Ten. Before that, an undefeated Gerald Washington. And before that, the champ, Stiverne. And again, it's not about how well he did against his own (which has been perfect) but how well he would do against Marciano.
Marciano would not make it to the 13th against WIlder. And Wilder would never be at that range against Marciano. And again, you are bucking what the contemporaries said about Walcott's legs. And you are swimming upstream against the facts that Walcott was old, the fact that he had had a long career and the fact he chose to hang it up after Marciano. He was done. He knew it. His contemporaries knew it. Only the crop of Marcianistas seem ignorant, and willfully so, of this fact.
We don't.. Anybody who flops top raters via an uppercut has an inside game. Might not be great , might be bad ..but its there.
His last six opponents were: Washington, unranked Stiverne, unranked Ortiz, ranked mid table Fury, ranked mid table, beat him in all but name Breazeale, unranked Ortiz, ranked mid table Not exactly inspiring stuff on the Classic Forum! Just consider this for one second! Perhaps if a fighter is not beating the top ten of his era, for whatever reason, you should have reservations over picking him over one, who invited them all to choose their own road to hell!
Wilder is a not a good in-fighter. You have limed film examples and really don't understand what an inside game is. It's short punches, a hook or an uppercut. Or any punch where you make the guy miss and counter. He likes to pull the tigger from a distance for a reason, it keeps him out of harms way. If Wilder went at his opponents a bit more, I'd like him better. He fights they way he does for a reason. Not to get hit, and not to gas are the reasons why. Since his opponents are non punchers, and limited on defense, the cherry picking work for him. Wilder has zero wins over a top 5 opponent in his prime. I pulled ring magazine annual rankings of top 5 fighters from 2015-2018. Wilder beat none of them. More like avoided them, and should have lost to Fury. Joshua Fury Whyte Ruiz Jr Parker Povektin Pulev Wlad
You’re right Wilders stamina and defense would never allow him the chance to make it to the 13. Marciano in 6 or 7.
I'm adding more. Wilder did not want a fight with a prime Ortiz, he waited until he aged. If Ortiz was 2-3 year younger, he likely wins the first fight. In the 2nd fight he was getting outboxed by a 40 year old man until landing the bomb, and remind me who Ortiz beat? No one in the top 15 as far as I can recall.
