Wilder v Povetkin resume

That's a fair post. Although I'd put an asterisk next to Rahman who was not in great shape by any means.

 

Please don't insult Povetkin... by even putting Wilders name next to his, Wilder is the 4th or 5th best heavy in the world

 

Let's see:

1) Povetkin > Larry Donald > Evander Holyfield.

2) Povetkin > Chris Byrd > Evander Holyfield.

3) Povetkin > Mariusz Wach > Kevin McBride > Mike Tyson

4) Povetkin > Christian Hammer > Danny Williams > Mike Tyson


Now let's look at Deontay Wilder's best opponents he beat:

1) Deontay Wilder > Luis Ortiz = who did he ever beat that had achieved anything at the highest level?

2) Deontay Wilder > Bermane Stiverne = other than holding a paper title, who did he ever beat that had achieved anything at the highest level?


We're going to ignore age and stage of careers of boxers in here to be objective, because it seems like most here (particularly AJ fans, fan boys and fanatics) seem to ignore the fact that Povetkin himself is at the same age when all past heavyweight champions were either retired, or were losing to far inferior opponents than Joshua and don't accept this match up between Povetkin and Joshua a non-credible match up. But have no problems calling past heavyweight champions at the same age as Povetkin is right now, as being past their best and making excuses for their losses. But don't want to apply this same rule / standard to Povetkin = proves Povetkin is greater than all past heavyweight champions.

So a 39 year old Povetkin = a credible opponent for Joshua which adds to Joshua's greatness.

But 38 year old Mike Tyson = past his best and beating him means nothing.

35+ year old Evander Holyfield = past his best and beating him means nothing.

35+ year old Muhammad = past his best and beating him means nothing.

And so forth so on!

So this means, Povetkin > all these past heavyweight champs since he is being judged by a higher and a totally different standard.

 

Byrd isn't an ATG, but he's a very, very good HOF level fighter who'd always give problems to heavyweights that can't physically overwhelm him, and even then he gives plenty of bigger fighters problems. He was a little faded when Povetkin fought him, but that has to be balanced out against the fact that Povetkin was relatively green when he fought him as well. It was a very good, early learning fight for Povetkin, and worthy of inclusion on a list of his best wins.

He also had a very dominant win over Tony Thompson, who, while old and past his best, was still a tricky customer to stop. And Bryant may have been coming off a loss, but it was a close and competitive loss to the then number one heavyweight in the world, not really something to shake a man's confidence, and in fact perhaps something to inspire it. Jennings certainly didn't fight like a cowed fighter.

I'd also argue that Ortiz's win over Scott was a respectable performance against a man who spent the whole fight trying to survive. There was no stage in the contest in which Scott was able to outbox Ortiz, and numerous times when he was dropped and wanting to quit. That he lasted the distance against him shouldn't be held against Ortiz, in my opinion, any more than Haye lasting the distance against Wlad, or any other negative survival-first opponent. His wins over Allen and Martz were what they were, knockouts of sub-par opponents.

It's possible future performances will put Ortiz in a different light, but for my money his wins against Thompson and Jennings and the manner he achieved them put him on a certain level that the Scott, Allen and Martz fights didn't diminish prior to the Wilder fight. For that reason, I have to conclude that the Ortiz that fought Wilder was still at or near his best, and I'm saying this as a man who's been and will continue to be very critical of Wilder's career.