OK, so you're just going on the eye test then? Well here's Solis against common opponent Monte Barret. Look at that sharp jab, those fast hands, excellent punch variety and effective counterpunching. Drops Monte in two with a crisp left hook that should have ended the fight if it weren't for the mother of all slow counts, but finishes the job soon after. This content is protected Now here's plodding one two merchant Ortiz against a four years older version. This content is protected More skilled? This fight sure doesn't show it. Luckily Ortiz has all those devastating knockouts against Daniel Martz, Razvan Cojanu and Alexander Flores or this might be quite cut and dry. "Do you want me to name all the fighters that I thought would make it far based on boxing skills?" Yeah, go on then. I want to see your benchmark for evaluation.
The fat **** Solis weighed 270 lbs and he was moving like a hippo in that fight. I have no clue how you watched those fights and came to the conclusion that Ortiz was the plodder. What sharp jab and what punch variety? You should re-watch the fight and count the number of jabs Solis landed in the entire fight. I counted 4. Ortiz landed a lot more jabs against Barrett and he also had more success counter-punching. You call Ortiz a 1-2 merchant as if Solis didn't spend the whole fight alternating between right and left hook. Excellent punch variety. Its almost impossible to compare their performances because Barrett was better when Solis fought him, but Ortiz was more dominant against him. Can we compare their performances against Tony Thompson now? Taylor, Bivol, Ugas, Gassiev, Pedraza, Castano, Smith, Fulton. These are some of the less obvious ones I could think of from recent years. Solis had the skills to make it far but what he didn't have was the discipline and the work ethic. AB was a mentally fragile hypejob who would've never made it to the top. Scott was a good boxer but he was also a mental midget. In the end, not only did Ortiz have a better resume than Solis but his performances against Wilder and Jennings **** on anything Solis ever did. You guys act like he never stepped in the ring with a decent fighter. He has one win over a top 5 contender in Jennings who had just given Wlad one of his hardest fights, and two decent wins over Scott and Thompson. None of these fights were even remotely close. Whatever skills he showed against guys like Martz, Cojanu, Vidondo, he also showed those skills when he stepped up in class and faced Wilder. I highly doubt he would've gone down as a hypejob had he faced a few more contenders.
Funny how the same people nitpicking Wilders resume are fine with Furys 3rd best opponent being Otto wallin
Fury's resume is weak but he is younger and has time to go. He also beat Wilder three times and is currently undefeated.
there aren't 2 threads a weak nit picking Fury's resume to death is exactly my point. Hes in his 30s and his resume is just marginally better than Wilders. Literally his second best opponent was Wilder and still there's a large group here that refuse to give Wilder an ounce of credit for what he was able to do in his career despite hardly even knowing how to box. Fury is far better, there is no denying that. Wilder is a good fighter though and there's no reason both can't be true
I'm not denying that. I'm saying there's a new thread every day trashing Wilders as if he wasn't fighting legitimate professional heavyweights
True but he also goes out in public and bleats out ridiculous statements like wanting a bodybag on his record, and saying he'd easily spark out Kid Dynamite and what have you. He kind of draws that sort of heat and scrutiny onto himself, with his mouth. (and with holding the WBC title hostage for so long with only a very small amount of quality to be scraped together from all his defenses)
I mean that's a whole different topic and a fair point if your talking about who's a better role model or who's the better man but when your on a boxing forum and speaking on the subject of resumes I don't see how it factors in so heavily.
