Wilder's last 3 v Povetkin's last 3

Protecting the champions resume (or three last fights) with the argument that it is arguably almost equal to one of the contenders is just wrong from the start.

With the belt comes responsibility to all boxing fans to fight deserving opponents.

 

And team Wilder actively choose to fight Mr French instead of Povetkin which kinda crumbles the "atlesst he's staying active" argument. Because by doing that he prolongs the time before the real title fight. Very deliberate of course.

 

Exactly.

The nuthuggers are delusionl.

 

I'm a fan of Andrew who just kept it real!!!:good

 

How many of those guys were actually good and how many were shot?

 

Wilder's career before the title didn't bother me, lots of fighter started out the same way. Wlad for instance. You really can't say his first 30 something fights were that much better than Wilders.

The problem is he's making absolutely dreadful defenses. This is not some paper title, it's the WBC belt, the original and most important one, he should be defending it against top 10 guys. If his next defense isn't Povetkin or at least someone in the top 10 he's lost all credibility as a fighter, IMO.

 

Hm. No, you're quite right.

 

So it goes something like this:

1) Wilder's last 3 opponents (for which he's been crucified by keyboard kowboys) are on par with Povetkin's (for which he's been praised and showered with gifts in a manner not seen since Baby Jesus was born)

2) Sasha's Athletic Supporters club and Povetkin Pumpers counter by saying, 'Well, Wilder has a championship belt so his opponents in the last 9 months should be better than the three Sasha has fought in the last 18 months, not just relatively equal.'

3) Point out who Povetkin defended against when he was WBA champ -- 41-year-old Boswell, cruiser Huck (who went life and death with King Pov lol), fossilized Rahman and Wawrjzk) ... and the Sasha Athletic Supporters argue that the rules for who a champion should face are different depending on what belt they are holding -- because Wilder's belt is GREEN, so Sasha should be allowed to fight ancient mariners and little cruisers and Polish sausages without scrutiny.

4) Whatever. Wouldn't it be simpler to just say, 'I hate Wilder and love Povetkin' and stop dreaming up reasons that don't make sense?

 

I think the ****ysis here has been solid. Noone is "nuthugging". One problem we have in boxing today is how everyone takes one far, far side of an issue and wont budge and resorts to name calling.

Either Mayweather is "TBE" or "Not even an all time great"

Wilder is either the unbeateable guy who will go 50-0 or hes a complete fraud and bum.

Tyson is either the best ever in his prime or super duper overrated.

RJJ is either the best fighter ever or a weak chinned scrub.

The truth lies somewhere between in these arguments, but people take one crazy positiion and wont budge, so we cant really have an intelligent discussion.

I think the OP is trying to have a rational one here, and yelling nuthugger and bum squad doesnt do that.

 

Who here has justified Povs defenses?

The tread is quite clearly about thier last three fights. Praising them or not doesn't mean you're justifying their whole career.

Your post is also just as biased and stupid as the ones you're trying to mock.

 

Also, if you don't agree to your second point I don't see much use of belts and champions at all.

 

But to try to answer the main question:
I think that much of the negativity towards Wilder comes from that he is marketed as a world champion (which he is) but never fought at world champion level. Even though Molina & co would be at Perez & co level (which I do t believe, but that irrelevant) none of them are world class. Therefore every fight against someone not world class just adds to the impression that he might not be worthy.

Povetkin on the other side has proven himself against the best, a few gold medals in the ams and a loss to Klitschko but also wins against several highly ranked boxers. Therefore his potential is quite known and his performances can be seen for what they really are instead of what they could be (in loss of better ways of putting it, but I hope you get the point).