Wilder working on his jab

Revisionist history and just a pitiful excuse. Blame Wilder for Povetkin doping, that’s rich.

 

Uh, it is exactly what happened.

No, I don't have a link to the fact that the WBC acknowledged Povetkin, because it's not all that improtant to me, but it is what happened. As for the finances, with a 30 second google search...

https://www.rt.com/sport/424706-deontay-wilders-alexander-povetkin-court-case/

 

So being suspended for a year and fined 250k is exonerated in your mind?

 

Exactly.

Wilder's purse for the Povetkin fight was put in an account that was frozen when the fight was called off, and the promoter who put the money in a fund went to court to get it back ... and a judge said he could have it back because the fight never took place.

But some Povetkin "apologists" see that as a WIN for Povetkin for some reason ... when all it was about was a judge said the promoter could have his money back since it wasn't the promoter's fault Povetkin was taking banned drugs.

The money was just in an account sitting there until a judge decided what to do with it.

Povetkin failed multiple drug tests that year and went from being the WBC #1 contender to being removed from the WBC rankings, fined and was unable to compete in a WBC sanctioned event for a year.

Probably should've got two years, since he didn't pass a drug test for any fight that year ... but it is what it is.

Povetkin was one of those rare moronic drug cheats who failed drug tests in back-to-back fights. I believe, among the top heavyweights, only Povetkin and "Big Baby" Miller (for Joshua and Jerry Forrest) managed to be that incredibly stupid.

Most who get busted repeatedly (like Briggs and Toney and Whyte) manage to spread it out a little. Of course, both Miller and Povetkin (and all of them) insisted they were innocent the first time, only to be proven to be liars again the very next time they signed for another fight ... and, instead of apologizing, just thumbed their noses at getting caught again.

 

that is the worst technique for a left hook ive seen in a pro. his elbow is too high and palm should be facing him, not the ground at contact. how hard is it to find a proper trainer with his money, ffs.

 

Maybe they're specifically training to land when Usyk does this?

When Usyk covered and put his head inside, Joshua couldn't hit him with the hooks you're describing.

Wilder is practicing to punch down with his hook and right when someone is close. Those punches Deontay is throwing would land on Usyk's head if he took this posture, where Joshua's punches didn't.

This content is protected

 

but look at aj's hook. elbow is aligned with fist and shoulder, not above it, and thrown with thumb facing up, not towards yourself. your elbow should stop when your knuckles stop, not keep going cause of the angle your connecting at.

 

I'm saying, the punches Wilder is throwing there - that do look awkward - would land on Usyk's head if he took that posture. Usyk takes this posture because it works against traditional boxers.

But traditional boxers don't punch like Wilder is doing there. Hooking down like that would land on Usyk's head on the inside, if he takes that posture.

I hope it comes off. Because this fight will be awesome.

 

Povetkin successfully sued, and the WBC admitted that he was right.

He was not suspended, the fight was postponed, and the WBC eventually exonerated him, but Wilder refused to go forward. You are conflating the second charge. They did suspend him "for life," but reversed the decision after less than a year, which is about as obvious a confession by the WBC as can be. Here was another 30 second google search.

https://www.badlefthook.com/2017/11...red-by-wbc-will-return-to-rankings-in-january

Povetkin vs. Wilder, cancellation[edit]
It was announced that Povetkin would fight WBC World Champion Deontay Wilder (36-0, 35 KOs) in Moscow, Russia, on a date set to yet be announced at the Megasport Arena. It was originally set for May 21, 2016 until Povetkin failed a drug test.[109] On May 14, it was reported that Povetkin had failed a drugs test.[110] The fight has been put in jeopardy after he tested positive for the banned substance meldonium. Promotor Andrei Ryabinsky added that Povetkin did take meldonium last year, but stopped before it was banned, and only "leftover traces of meldonium at a very low concentration" were found in a blood sample given by the 36-year-old last month. It was reported on May 15, that the assertion from Povetkin's promoter that it was in his system only because he took it late last year, before it was banned, appeared untrue.[111] The WBC announced on May 15, a week before the fight that it would be postponed.[112] On May 31, it was announced on Sky Sports by Povetkin's promoters that new drug test results prove the Povetkin is a clean athlete. The new doping test, taken May 17, showed no traces of meldonium. This was reported by VADA.[113]

 

I would go with the opposite conclusion - I think it speaks to the to the extremely low-quality level of his opponents, as opposed to any quality possessed by Wilder.

If Deontay had his own right + a Holmes type jab, it would be a huge benefit to him vs today's fighters, but he would still be nowhere near great and it wouldn't help him much in almost any other era.

 

When anyone beats everyone they fight, the opponents are almost always considered low level.

I can post articles from Larry Holmes' reign where all writers did was bash the quality of his opponents and complain he wasn't fighting guys like Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Gerrie Coetzee and wondering why on earth he's fighting guys with barely 10 fights like Marvis Frazier, or defending against complete mopes like Lucien Rodrigues, or Tex Cobb, or Scott Frank, or Scott Ledoux, or Ossie Ocasio, or Alfredo Evangelista, or Lorenzo Zanon, or David Bey, or Carl Williams and on and on.

If Wilder had lost his first fight with Luis Ortiz when he was hurt in whatever round that was, and then Wilder wasted Ortiz with one punch in the return ... Wilder's second win over Ortiz would've been a "major" deal.

Just the same as if the referee had waived off the first Fury fight with Tyson on his back in the 12th round ... and Wilder never fought him again, Fury would've been just another "low-quality" opponent.

It's always the same. If you beat everyone, they question EVERYONE. You lose to some guys, or you don't dominate them and barely get by, all of a sudden they all must be REALLY good, too.

The fighters don't change, only the perception does.

Andy Ruiz was a joke "late sub" for Joshua. Top Rank had just dumped Ruiz because they thought he had no future. Joshua floored him in the third. If Ruiz had stayed down, and Joshua won by a third round stoppage, Andy Ruiz is NOTHING today.

Now, Andy Ruiz is another "champ" Joshua beat.

Dominating your opponents, to some fans, especially to those who don't particularly like a fighter, means they must all be terrible opponents.

Hell, even guys like Floyd Mayweather get the same barbs. He could beat as many champs from as many divisions as there were at the time, and since he beat nearly all of them pretty handily ... there are still some fans who still insist they must've sucked and there must be some fighters out there who "had to have been better" who he ducked.

I'm sure Wilder will be remembered much more favorably after he retires. Longtime champs always are.

And as far as any other era is concerned, if Wilder didn't have to give up 20, 30, 40 pounds and got to be the heavier fighter for 10 years - instead of giving up weight to everyone for 10 years - he would've been more dominant than he has been in this era.

Wilder bouncing right hands off the skulls of 190 and 200 pounders - as opposed to 250, 260, 270 pounders -- would've been sheer brutality.

Or, hell, 170 pounders. They'd still be looking for Billy Conn's head after it flew off.

 

A lot of this is true and I agree - but it ultimately has no bearing on my posted opinion, because I am not commenting on how fighters are perceived in a general, historical sense. I am, rather, giving my opinion on what I see.

Regardless of how Holmes or Lewis or whoever is viewed historically, all I know is when I watch them, I can see how great they were and I can also see the relative abilities of their opponents. Just because there is a pattern in public perception, it does not mean the ones being perceived are all on the same skill level.

So no, they wouldn't be looking for Conn's head if he fought Wilder - Deontay would be the one looking for Conn's head all fight - and he'd never find it.

 

Wilder then fought Stiverne a second time, directly after he failed a ped test.

 

Stiverne also failed a drug test in the lead up to the cancelled fight with Povetkin. This didn't deter Wilder from immediately granting him a second fight.

 

No boxer combines absolute superiority in all aspects - if he would any fight would be boring and the winner clear .

Wilder compensates inferior footwork with brutal punching power , usyk compensates weak punching power with superior footwork.

I,m a big fan of wilder since he brings the thrill into the ring . He can look bad all the fight and out of nothing KO his oponent with one punch .