Wilder's resume

Most people had the Perez vs Jennings fight a draw. Official made a bad call,, if he didn't deduct the point the Judges would of scored it a draw on their cards. Everyone thought Takam was the deserved winner against Perez. That's why Takam should of had Jennings ring ranking at the time and in my opinion is just as good as Jennings if not better of a fighter.

Joyce would easily beat Whyte, Ruiz and Parker? Disagree with that comment. Joyce is a handful for anyone but his weaknesses have been shown ( lack of defence and slow). I had Takam a point ahead against Joyce going into their final round which resulted in a very premature stoppage.

How the hell can you say Ortiz win over Jennings ( whose best win apart from controversial Win over Perez is Spzilka or Dimitrenko lol) is a better win than Whytes wins over:

Povetkin - old yes but had only recently proven how good he still was by beating Whyte. You never mention Ortiz's age as negative when validating Wilders win on Ortiz, why is that? Does Wilder win over Ortiz not count then considering he hadn't done anything of note for 3 years prior or since for that matter.

Parker - superior resume to jennings

chisora - Better resume than Jennings

Rivas - beat Jennings

I can't see your logic in this debate.

 

You obviously don’t know how betting works.

 

[QUOTEstrategy against movers like Szpilka, Washington and Ortiz[/QUOTE]]

Never heard of Washington and the slow footed Ortiz been called movers before lol. Washington average jab is what caused Wilder problems and Ortiz counter punching is what caused him problems.

 

Another way to look at this is that Povetkin absolutely blew away the same Duhaupas that Wilder struggled to put away all night. Povetkin didn't look like he was in a car crash after beating Duhaupas ... Wilder did. And I give AJ credit for beating Povetkin - old, but still dangerous - while Wilder ran like a chicken from him.

Wilder's a manufactured champion.

 

Ortiz official age - key word there as his official age has been disputed. Appears v visibly much older, Yoel Romero who trained with Ortiz at the Olympic Centre and known him for years stated on a Joe rogan podcast that Ortiz is at least 2 years older than he claims. Povetkin post AJ showed just how good he still was by beating Whyte and Hughie and giving Hunter a good fight.

Parker went life and death with Takam? No he didn't. Judges called it right and I agreed with their scoring of 8-4 Parker. I thought Parker deserved to win against Chisora but opinion on that is divided.

Ortiz beat a never koed Jennings because he never fought anyone decent apart from Wlad at that point.

Chisora was getting beat by Takam but he still Koed him and it's far more impressive win then any of Jennings wins.

 

Washington is athletic and Ortiz was moving around a lot on the front foot. Wilder knew he would slow down in the rematch being 40 and not having a good engine.[/QUOTE]

Ortiz slowly plodding forward like chisora does not make him a mover. Washington being an ex footballer doesn't mean he has good boxing footwork.

 

I don't pick fighters in a H2H in order to make other fighters look better. I always take them on a case by case basis. My feelings for picking Ruiz were based on stylistic considerations; I saw Wilder having a hard time keeping Ruiz at arm's length, and Ruiz having the chin and defensive nous to weather any shots that Wilder landed on him to a degree that would allow him to close distance and go to work with his own shorter and much faster combinations that would gradually break Wilder down. This was with the caveat that Ruiz didn't show up grotesquely out of shape, and that Wilder fought the way he'd been fighting of late (i.e. neglecting his jab and making poor use of his other tools at the expense of landing one big right hand).

My feelings on the bout have changed following Ruiz's poor showing against Nips. I still think it's a competitive fight, but it's not one you can really make a firm prediction on anymore since both fighters are in such fluctuating states at the moment. Wilder might be a mentally shot fighter for all we know, and Ruiz might have lost one of his key assets in his chin with his sudden drastic weight loss. I'd lean slightly towards Wilder right now, since Ruiz seems so up and down, and there's no guarantee what sort of shape he'll turn up to a fight in or how that will affect him physically. Propose this fight a year or so ago and I'd go with Ruiz, since I feel he would be able to close Wilder down and bust him up on the inside. Peak vs peak I'd go with Wilder to emulate his Stiverne 1 performance.

But if Wilder's confidence has been shattered then forget Ruiz, any scrub with a punch would be able to take him out. I actually feel that's the case, but I need hard proof in in-ring performances to bear it out.

The Ruiz win was terrible for Joshua but to his credit he went straight back in and rectified it, which is something Wilder is yet to do with Fury. Bad losses are never entirely erased, but they can be softened if you show you're willing and able to get revenge. As for Joshua's other wins, it's par for the course for opponents to go on and underperform or lose in embarrassing fashion themselves, but that's on them. What matters in a historical sense is what sort of threat they posed at the time, and in what standing they were held by the public at large. Parker was an undefeated world champion, Wlad was an ex world champion and bonafide ATG who'd only lost to Fury in a lacklustre points fight (i.e. not totally destroyed but out-thought and out-worked). Neither win needs to be blown out of proportion, but they shouldn't be diminished either by hindsight, certainly not the Parker win. On the contrary Whyte's win over Joshua shouldn't be seen in the same light as any of his other top wins, since Whyte was pretty green and untested at the time, and clearly not the fighter he's since matured into. I think a win over him now would eclipse that.

I agree that Joshua is generally in a position to be seen as a bookmaker's favourite, but that's a lot of the case down to his popularity as well as the fact that his backers have genuine faith in his superiority over his opposition. If you're one of the top two fighters in the world then it's rare that you'll be in a position to fight as an underdog. I think even the Ruiz rematch had Joshua as favourite, which was borne out in his victory even after many of here thought he'd be destroyed again. He'll likely be bookies' favourite over Usyk as well, and that's a genuine 50-50. So were the Wlad and Parker fights in my opinion (Parker was at least a very live pick).

Anyway, I don't think it's something to really dwell on when assessing the strength of one's resume, unless there's clear evidence of ducking or record padding. The most you can accuse Joshua of in that respect is fighting a lot of past-prime big name fighters (not his fault) and failing to secure a fight with either Fury or Wilder (again, not really his fault unless you buy either of those two's line of blarney).

Eh, not really. Wilder and Ruiz two different fighters who present different challenges and different solutions. Wilder always had (and has) the chance to KO Joshua, but the question has to revolve around if he can land it. I don't think Joshua will give him the opportunity to, and what's more I think he doesn't allow him to try for more than a few rounds before taking him out himself. He certainly isn't going to be in a position to land a short counter shot to a Joshua going in for the kill after eating a huge right hand with no ill effect, all things which started the chain of knockdowns that led to Joshua's loss to Ruiz.

I mean stranger things have happened, but you have to deal with probabilities here, not exceptions. Wilder still gets smashed IMO.

 

Not true. That's why I posted the ratings of Joshua's opponents by his orgs, too.

Molina and Breazeale were also rated by the IBF when Joshua faced them. Szpilka was rated by the WBC before Wilder was. Stiverne had TWO losses in his career (one to Wilder) when their rematch occurred.

Those ratings are no different than rating Pulev #1 when Joshua faced him (I don't believe he was rated at all by anyone else.) And Joshua's next mandatory is against the WBO #1 Usyk, who is rated #10 by Ring. Ring has Oscar Rivas ahead of Usyk.

Hell, Duhaupas was rated as high as #5 after losing to Wilder when Duhaupas knocked out Helenius.

And Washington and Arreola were still rated until Covid struck - Washington had knocked off Helenius (too) and fought Martin in an IBF eliminator on the Fury-Wilder 2 card. Hell, Arreola is fighting Whyte for the WBC 'Interim" Title next month. (LOL)

When Wilder fought them, they were all ranked and all at their peaks. You guys just focus on losses they suffered after facing Wilder.

Saying they aren't "genuine" contenders is false becauseWashington fought in an IBF eliminator last year, Stiverne who fought in a WBA title fight this year and Arreola who floored Ruiz last time out and is fighting Dillian Whyte for his WBC Interim title next month.

You can't say they weren't contenders when they were at their peaks when Wilder faced them because they ARE STILL fighting in eliminators and title fights NOW.

Hell, more of Wilder's challengers are still around and still fighting main events than Joshua's are.

Wlad retired immediately after Joshua. Pulev vanished from the WBO ratings the moment he lost. Povetkin retired. Parker is struggled with Fa, got floored by the unranked Chisora this year and is now a sparring partner for the WORLD champ Fury - who Wilder is fighting next.

Hell, the guy Joshua fought who is rated the highest today is freaking Charles Martin. He's rated #2 by the IBF.

Wilder's challengers are still challenging for titles. One is the World Champ.

 

No offense, but nobody heard of the "Transnational Boxing Ratings" five or 10 years ago. And no champion is asking the "Transnational" Ratings Board who he should fight next.

Wilder won the WBC title. He fought the WBC contenders. Just like Joshua holds the IBF and WBO titles, and he defends against their contenders, like his IBF #1 Pulev (when nobody rated Pulev anywhere like #1 and he vanished into thin air right after that) and his WBO #1 Usyk next (who isn't rated by anyone else and is rated #10 by Ring).

I posted the links to where those guys were rated during those years. The Transnational Board isn't a sanctioning bodies. It's a bunch of guys who post on message boards who get mentioned in articles (usually they write) once in a while.

I know the guy who started it. I used to argue with him about Roy Jones and Dariusz on another board. Again, no offense. But where they rate guys matters as much as any top 10 list posted by a poster here.

 

Nah. Wilder ducked a $100M chance to fight AJ and hasn't beaten any former or current champions outside of Stiverne! That's why his résumé is pap and he is rightfully regarded as somewhat of a paper champion.
I like his chin, power, conditioning and will to win, he's fun to watch, but he needs to get in the ring and actually win against AJ, Whyte, Parker, Fury, Ruiz, Joyce etc etc to be the proper champion many fan boys already regard him as.

 

Contenders linger on forever at HW, even when they aren't particularly good anymore. You grasp at straws with virtually every post you make about Wilder. I think when he's out of boxing, you'll finally have some peace of mind. The constant mental gymnastics that you perform in doing this must get extremely tiring.

 

So you claim that Usyk is ranked only by WBO and The Ring.

I actually suspect that you are Wilder.
You really are blind and are lying here.
Lads here will see where Usyk is ranked or rated or isn't.



Boxing Rankings - View The Latest Top 15 In Every Division



List of current boxing rankings - Wikipedia



Anoyne might easliy google up 30-50 links and get where Usyk is ranked or isn't ranked.


I will tell you: Wilder is WORST pro boxing champion in ANY weight class and in ANY time and era US EVER HAD.
This is what this is here.