No, when Wilder defended his WBC title for the SECOND time against Tyson Fury in a fight to crown the LINEAL WORLD CHAMPION, he lost to Tyson Fury. And they're fighting for the third time, for the WORLD title again, next month. Joshua has never fought for the World Title, and spit out his mouthpiece and quit against a late sub who dropped him four times. That's getting exposed. Losing a rematch against the best in the World, who you've already floored twice before, isn't getting exposed. You just lost that night.
That video is blocked in my country. But yes, I have been watching boxing for 45 years. You have to BEAT the 10 count. BEATING the 10 count doesn't mean getting up AT 10. If the referee says nine, and you're still bent over with your gloves on the floor, and at 10 he waves it off, and that's when you stand upright, and then you need help standing, and you need help back to your corner ... YOU LOSE. And Ortiz lost. Your argument that KO somehow isn't legit is the height of comedy. I've heard every argument against Wilder, but I never argued with someone who didn't know you had to beat the 10 count before. You just assume people on a boxing board know these things. Can't assume anything, as they say. You have to get up before they reach the count of 10. I'm not going to argue with you about that. It's been that way for more than a century.
I still don't think you are understanding. The WBC, IBF, WBA, and WBO are not seen by most educated observers as accurate gauges of any divisional scene. Therefore whoever the alphabet soups had inside their top-10 at any given time, or gave eliminator bouts to, or sanctioned secondary title bouts against, has little to do with a fighter's actual worth.
Is this a troll? Has to be with the "Best fighter in the whole sport" nonsense.. Wilder faced a guy after a 3 year lay off with a couple soft touches in between. And DREW (should have lost really). He doesn't get any credit. In fact, people generally when rating resumes don't rate draws anyway... It doesn't help that he got demolished in the next fight by the same fighter, so that draw is tainted now, it doesn't make Wilder look good.
Duhaupas fought Povetkin on less than a day's notice and it was post-Wilder so it's a weak comparison. The Povetkin who fought AJ was 39 and well past it, the Povetkin who failed a drug test (suspicious though that was) was 36 and at the end of his prime, so again it's a weak comparison. Apparently virtually no one is capable of being honest about Wilder.
I posted links to the WBC ratings back then right before Wilder fought those guys. All verified. Post links from 2009 showing Joseph Rabotte was rated 393rd when Wilder fought him. Where is the link from 2009 showing Joseph Rabotte was rated 393rd? Where was Wilder rated when he fought him in 2009? Let's see the link showing Rabotte 393rd and Wilder wherever he was rated after 3 fights. Where is the link showing Audley Harrison was rated 136th in 2013? Where is Wilder rated in the same ratings that month? Where is the link showing Breazeale was 4th when Wilder fought him? Where was Wilder rated in those ratings when he faced him? You posted those ratings and expected everyone to treat them as fact. Whose ratings are they? PROVE IT. Otherwise, quit passing of lies as fact. There's too much of that here.
If Ortiz was older than his official age suggests that means he is an even more impressive fighter, beating Jennings better than anyone else, shutting out Hammer at 43, cleaning out journeymen better than his rival contenders who were much younger. Povetkin didn't beat Hughie by much in my opinion, though Hughie's style is boring and counts against him, we don't know how good Hunter is beyond being above Bakole and Kuzmin after being battered by Usyk in America and drawing with an ancient Povetkin, Whyte (no great shakes himself) was battering shot Povetkin before he pulled it out of the bag with one punch. Povetkin was winning and drawing fights he almost lost towards the end, fighters who he would have beaten easily in his prime. Parker-Takam is a back and forth war in NZ, one judge gave Takam 5 rounds and the punch stats were every close. I had Chisora winning clearly but whatever. Whatever way you look at it prime Parker is slightly better than prime Takam and at best on the same level as Chisora. "Decent" is pretty ambiguous and subjective but Wlad was an ATG and possibly the biggest punching HW champ of all time (two handed power, greater punch selection than Wilder) so the fact that he didn't KO Jennings, unlike the vast majority of contenders, is good evidence that Jennings was very tough and tricky. Even Joyce couldn't break down a defensive-minded older and more worn version and he is a very heavy handed and relentless elite fighter. So I maintain that Ortiz's KO of Jennings within 7 was more impressive than any win by Whyte, Chisora or Parker, who all laboured with their best opponents. Chisora's best win (old, worn Takam in Britain coming from behind) isn't better than outpointing prime Perez but Chisora easily has the worst loss (Kabayel) and many more of them. Chisora and Jennings are of similar ability but have totally different styles. Hammer is much more comparable to Chisora, slightly less ability and ancient Ortiz shut him out.
Wilder has only boxed and moved against opponents who he knew he could box and move effectively against. It's not going to work well against a master like Fury or a tricky southpaw with good amateur pedigree or speed. Against a plodder like Ruiz, Wilder would revert to the Stiverne/Duhaupas/Arreola gameplan but it would work even better because Ruiz is shorter, subbier, slower footed and less powerful with a single punch than all of them, especially Stiverne and even Arreola. The bookies have Ruiz as a 4/1 underdog against Wilder even post-Fury: an implied 20% chance. This is taking into consideration the possibility that Wilder is badly mentally or physically damaged so at his best the bookies would probably be giving Ruiz closer to a 10% chance. Ruiz having a granite chin was always speculative; he'd not fought a skilled puncher before AJ and even then he got knocked down early. Wilder's one-shot power is levels above AJ's, he's longer and faster. Wilder would be a nightmare matchup for Ruiz, which is surely why Wilder was so happy when Ruiz beat AJ. He was thinking that he had the easiest undisputed fight in the history of boxing. Ruiz doesn't even have the chance that Wilder gets careless because of what he did against AJ, who probably isn't as tough as Wilder and definitely doesn't have Wilder's engine or tenacity. Beating a fringe top 20 guy like Ruiz in a rematch is a very different proposition from beating Fury. Losing to Fury two or three times is less of a blemish on the resume than losing once to Ruiz. Parker was an undefeated world champ but so was Stiverne de-facto (the stoppage against King was one of the worst I've ever seen) Stiverne had outclassed a near-prime Arreola twice, Parker had gone life and death with Takam and Ruiz at home and outpointed just turned 23 year old Hughie in Britain. Retired Wlad lost the fight more than 27.5 year old AJ won it and AJ underperformed the odds in that fight. Usyk is a 30-70 underdog and deservingly so: he's a cruiser, a relative non-puncher, almost 35 after a very long career and fighting in Britain against the golden boy with undisputed potentially around the corner. AJ can win by legit stoppage, British stoppage, legit decision or British decision, Usyk can only win by KO/multiple KD's and this means he will have to go for it, which increases the chances of AJ landing a counter or outboxing him. AJ was able to call his own time out against Parker, the ref never let Parker work inside and they scored it something like 11-1 AJ, even Wlad was behind on the cards after 10 rounds! AJ has never been in a 50-50 in his life, his closest fights (Wlad, Ruiz 2 and now Usyk) have been 70-30's with the deck firmly stacked in his favour. AJ's opposition was no better than Wilder's pre-Wlad (green Whyte, Martin, Breazeale, Molina) and some of it has been no better post-Wlad (old Takam, Ruiz, old Pulev). Parker was less dangerous than Ortiz, Povetkin at that point was on a par. AJ could have fought Ortiz in late 2016 instead of Molina and Allen fighting Ortiz on the undercard, it would have been vastly more competitive but Hearn (who promoted Ortiz!) wasn't having that. He could have fought Usyk as a mandatory in mid-2019 instead of Miller's replacement Ruiz or 39.5 year old Pulev but 32.5 year old undisputed Usyk was still seen as too dangerous and ideally Hearn would have aged him out further. Neither Wilder or Fury materialised on top of all of this, so they fought each other instead but AJ still gets a pass. In the Wilder case there was blame on both sides, neither wanted to travel and in Fury's case he's still tied up contractually with Wilder. The bookies (who generally get things right, have the longest history of making predictions and the most information) have Wilder-AJ as a 40-60 despite AJ's popularity and Wlad (who sparred both extensively, fought AJ and is an AJ fanboy) says that he couldn't pick a winner because Wilder has a number of important advantages over AJ. Again it's a case of "Ruiz got up and KO'd AJ, so he must have an iron chin" and "Fury destroyed Wilder so AJ would almost certainly do so as well". We will have to see how everything plays out because if AJ loses to Usyk or badly to Fury, the narratives are going to have to change.
The Szpilka who lost to Wilder was a C fighter, the Szpilka who beat Radchenko had no chin and was a D/E fighter.
Wilder will never beat Fury, but I think he and AJ is a more even match-up. AJ would have to come in and fight like he did up to the first Ruiz fight. Mid range is not a good place to be against Wilder, it's where he likes throwing his right hand. Whoever can land first wins.
Ortiz shut out a much younger tough mauler in Hammer at an official 40 years old and went 10 rounds with Wilder at 39, up on points in my view at the time so the idea that Parker of all people would wear him out with pressure and hard punches is absurd to me. Chisora at 37.5 doesn't have a great gas tank, doesn't have as much length, doesn't hit as hard, isn't a skilled southpaw and is much more aggressive than Ortiz, yet he went the 12 rounds and in my view clearly won the fight.
It's convenient for you because they are never likely to fight and Ortiz is at least 42.5. But their pedigree and performance against common opponents suggests that Ortiz was significantly better than anyone on that list.
This thread is brilliant. Apparently Joyce is an elite fighter and Washington and Ortiz are good movers.