Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by catchwtboxing, May 1, 2020.
I'm obviously biased but I'd like to hear the arguments for picking Wilder over Johansson.
Johansson became European Champion during a time when that title actually meant something and defended it against the then top ranked British boxers. After that he beat Machen and got a shot at the only world title in boxing, wich he took by beating Patterson (a two time the Ring fighter of the year, just as Johansson himself).
Wilder has has won one of four world titles and never beaten a top ranked boxer, not to mention an ATG. His title defenses means nothing considering the level of the opponents and the fact that he only held one of four belts.
Even by olympian accomplishments Johanson surpasses him with a silver medal.
Not a fan and in H2H’s I don’t see Wilder winning many of these at all but I’ve voted purely on accomplishments and status. In which case, as a world heavyweight champion for 5 years with 10 successful defences, his KO percentage and arguably being the all time hardest puncher he stands above them all. Worth remembering that his career isn’t over yet either..
None of them. Wilder only surpassed the likes of Bruce Seldon, Charles Martin and Michael Bentt, so the absolute worst heavyweight champions.
Not sure I am familiar with them.
What does that stand for?
Well I am talking about the Scott fight. Not only is it generally considered to be dodgy, but Scott posted a picture on social media with him on a diving board asking everyone if they saw his "dive." Wilder fans bizarrely interpreted this as evidence that he did NOT take a dive.
But again, not dissing Wilder here.
I've come around to Wilder, and his unorthodox style is pretty exciting when it works, and the second Fury fight confirmed that he doesn't give up when he's down. But ... I've always got a WWF vibe off him. And if Scott threw that fight that's worse than Povetkin's very minor technical breach which stopped his Wilder fight. And who else may have left themselves open or eased off. So for Wilder to surpass the historical standing of the likes above IMO he has to fight against fighters who are in no way 'in house' and in no way have no leverage before taking the fight..
The only thing Wilder has over these guys is his long title reign. As much as I hate John Ruiz, his win over Kirk Johnson, Rahman and going 1-1-1 with Holyfield is way above anything Wilder accomplished.
As many knowledgeable posters have already pointed out, the duration of your title reign means far less if the opposition is of questionable quality. Wilder is missing something from his legacy which many of the listed fighters managed to do which is beating the consensus number 1 heavyweight of their time.
Wilder had the opportunity to fight WK, Joshua and the fights with Fury were a cherry pick gone wrong. Instead, were supposed to elevate Wilder on the basis of beating the Molinas, Washingtons, Arreolas, Shpilkas, Duhaupas, ancient Ortizn't and 2 years inactive, medically unfit and shot to **** Stivernes of the world.
GTFOH! Not on my watch. If Wilder kept his pie hole shut about beating every ATG that ever lived with ease, dissing his peers even though he seems loath to fight any of them and hadn't crowned himself the undisputed king of excuses, I might have warmed to him a lot more......
- "To be the man you got to beat the man"
Voted for Haye but meant to vote for Ruiz and Witherspoon as well. Byrd has a better resume and the rest have at least 1 win over a close-to-prime ATGs.
"You've got to walk...THAT ISLE! Wooooooo!"
Speaking purely as a HW, he's above Haye for me. Possibly Ruiz too
Deontay wasn't the lineal or undisputed HW champion nor did he unify or hold any of the other main HW belts, he was WBC champion for five years, so for me, he's behind Schmeling, Johansson and Moorer in historical terms.
I don't rate him higher than Ken Norton.
Chris Byrd has better wins.
Imo, Wilder right now is roughly on the same level as Haye and Ruiz.