Who accomplished more? Wilder or Kell Brook

That's actually a pretty tough question. In terms of resume, I would maybe lean toward Wilder. Porter is the better win out of the two for sure but it's the 'next best wins' that I think slightly put him ahead for him.

 

Brook by a good margin for me. He has:

1) The best win by far.
2) Won a real title from a champion instead of a vacated one between two "ok" fighters.
3) Was not fighting career cans like Jason Gavern and Nicolai Firtha after already having 30 pro fights without a loss.

The only argument Wilder really has is his KO%. It is very impressive but he has not fought the top guys like Klitschko, Fury, Povetkin, etc. I'm not turning this into a thread about Povetkin either, just stating it's skewed.

 

2) is a good point, I didn't consider that.

Though is Alvaro Robles much better as a post 30 fight marker?

 

Many fighters could accumulate impressive KO records fighting the stiffs Wilder has faced.

 

Porter is easily better than anything on Wilder's resume.

 

Porter would K.O pretty much everything on Wilder's record. :deal :dance:dance

 

Both of their resumes are garbage but Brook has properly defended his title and he's fought Porter. Brook has accomplished slightly more but he's moving at a slower pace than Wilder.

 

Both have garbage resumes so it's about even.

 

Porter's game in a heavyweight-sized body could easily hold a major title in today's heavyweight landscape.

 

Way higher than Szpilka. Look at the guys Porter has fought: Diaz, Paulie, Brook, Thurman, Broner, Gomez, and Alexander. Lost a toss-up decision to the #1 WW and another close fight with Brook.

Szpilka has fought Wilder, Adamek, and Jennings. Was stopped twice in those bouts. Not saying Szpilka is poor but he is no where near Porter in terms of levels.

 

Deontay. Deontay is a highly accomplished man with lots of $. He will be ppv soon.

 

At heavyweight?

Brook.