Wilder's resume

A video of Wilder knocking out Breazeale is blocked in your country, but the video of Wilder v Ortiz 2 is not? That is quite convenient wouldn't you say. Try this one:

This content is protected

Wilder v Breazeale is a perfect example of a ten count being administered as a fighter tries to get to get to his feet. The referee waving off the fight off ONCE the fighter cannot beat his ten count.

Again if you try really, really hard, you might just notice that you can both see AND hear the referee articulate the count of TEN.
Contrast this with Ortiz 2. We neither see nor hear the count of ten. He stops at 9 then waves it off.
Now I know things start to break down as we approach 50, but I'm sure your faculties are intact enough to tell the difference, unless of course your cognitive dissonance has also blocked this video too.

Thought experiment time: Ask a random boxing fan to demonstrate a ten count. Do you think they will count to nine or count to ten?

TLDR:
Wilder v Breazeale used a TEN count.
But in Ortiz 2, The "crab in a bucket referee" administered a NINE count...

 

wilder struggled with duhapas

 

Oh, so you are mad that the referee didn't YELL ten while he was waving his arms. The fact that Ortiz was down for 13 seconds, needed help to remain standing, didn't complain (like you said he did) and needed help walking back to the corner ... doesn't constitute a knockout.

The fact that the referee didn't say "TEN" WHILE he was waving his arms is your problem?

Like I said, that's on you.

Listen for the referee to yell TEN when Foreman got knocked out by Ali or when Douglas knocked out Tyson. You won't hear it, either.

Are those knockouts no longer valid, too?

If that's your GRIPE about that fight, keep shouting "TEN" when the referee waves his arms over Ortiz. It will give you peace of mind. (LOL)

 

... before stopping him. (Finish the sentence.)


Joshua struggled with Andy Ruiz ... and then spit out his mouthpiece and quit.

See how I finished the sentence?

 

Not mad, but you seem to be tieing yourself in nots on this one

Let's recap. Your initial defense:
It was 13 seconds. Well the only thing you'll find in the rules is the referee administers the count once Wilder is in a neutral corner. Not a stop watch from when Ortiz ass hits the canvas.

Ortiz needed help to stand: Lol no he didn't

Ortiz didn't complain: Both him and his team complained


So, now your new argument upon seeing an actually ten count is the Referee doesn't need to count to ten.

But the problem with that argument, is it is a controversial one. (see Tyson v Douglas)

So you ask me to give the benefit of doubt to a referee Wilder himself refers to as "a crab in a bucket referee"
But, let's give the benefit of the doubt to the referee....
The problem is still there as the "crab in the bucket referee" breaks his own rhythm as he rushing to wave it off prematurely seeing that Ortiz will best the ten. lol

Hence he gave a nine count not a ten.

Try again pudding

 

ref stopped it but he was struggling if duhapas was a little better he probably could have ended wilder.

 

I haven't changed anything. He didn't beat the count of ten.

If you want to hear the referee shout "TEN" while he's waving his arms, that's on you. Most referees don't feel the need to scream 10. Waiving their arms that it's over works, too.

Everyone knows what comes after nine. If you are still down at nine, which Ortiz was, TEN IS NEXT and you didn't beat the count.

 

Just a side note since counting to 10 seems to be a problem with you if no one actually says the word TEN ...

The knockdown count DOES begin when the guy goes down. An official at ringside keeps the count. The referee doesn't start counting until the other boxer goes to the neutral corner. Then the referee "picks up the count" from the timekeeper, who has been counting the whole time.

That's what "picking up the count" means.

That's why you'll often here a referee start his count at "three" or "four" ... after telling the other boxer to go to the neutral corner. Because once he turns his attention back to the fallen fighter, he picks up the count that has already begun.

(I can't believe people are so HATEFUL of Wilder on this board that they will ARGUE a TEN COUNT isn't legit unless the referee actually says "TEN" ... just to take a one-punch knockout away from him and dismiss the win.)

 

Hard to say how he'd perform since Wilder hasn't really fought any short stocky heavyweights like Ruiz since Stiverne, certainly not ones with Ruiz's attributes. The closest he's come has been Ortiz, and he hardly put on a masterclass in either fight. If there was one time Wilder should have shown the ability to emulate the first Stiverne performance it was against the plodding Ortiz, or failing that the equally plodding and far less talented Duhaupas, or the tentative and mediocre Washington. He struggled in all those fights. One has to wonder why, or why he thought he couldn't outbox such lower level guys like Duhaupas in the first place. That doesn't give me the greatest confidence that he'd suddenly pull off a boxing masterclass against a man who, while plodding as well, possesses far more effective handspeed than anyone he's fought (and beaten) before. Why do you think otherwise?

I'd say it was pretty obvious Ruiz had a decent chin from some of the shots he took prior to Joshua. And the fact he took a flush right hand from him without flinching, and absorbed a number of heavy punches in the rematch is enough to convince me that he can take a shot. The Arreola fight? Yeah, that's concerning, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Lots of fighters have off nights where they look more vulnerable than normal. Sam Peter took hellacious right hands off a prime Wlad but got dropped and rocked by an ancient McCline in his next fight. Wilder himself got badly rocked by complete nobody Molina in his next fight after Stiverne. Anyway, you're arguing in favour of Ortiz's quality on a similarly scant level of evidence, so I'm not certain why Ruiz shouldn't get similar treatment. Why do you think he shouldn't?

Wilder's one shot power isn't 'levels above' Joshua's. That's fantasy talk that's veering your argument into cartoonish territory. Can an argument be made he hits harder with his right than Joshua? Yes sure. Can an argument also be made that Joshua hits harder with every other punch, and has way better delivery mechanism. Yes again. Is Wilder faster? Hmm, not really, and he doesn't have the control in combination to make any speed advantage he might have count since he's constantly having to reset after going all out on every shot.

Wilder is springier than Joshua and more willing to sell out on a KO punch, which might cause Ruiz issues, but he's also going to be hot garbage on the inside, where his inability to throw anything but wild slapping haymakers will see him constantly beaten to the punch by the far more compact punching Ruiz. Is he tougher than Joshua? Hard to say. He's been in more situations where he's needed his power to bail him out, but he's also been badly rocked by lesser punchers than those who rocked Joshua. He could catch Ruiz sleeping or he could take an almighty battering the first time Ruiz closes distance and never fully recover. A lot of scenarios can play out, favouring either man.

Hold on. Fringe top twenty guy? Where do Parker and Ortiz rank in that case? Which nineteen or so fighters are categorically above him?

Why are you disregarding Stiverne's loss to King? Are you then willing to disregard other official results if people bring them up in opposition to your argument? In which case I'll raise you that Wilder should have lost by TKO to Ortiz and Fury's win over him was over a man who'd already been beaten by a geriatric dude. And Fury should have lost by KTFO in the first fight to Wilder, and by TKO to Wallin.

Aj's opposition was no better than Wilder's pre-Wlad if you're comparing Wilder's resume now. But then Wilder's resume was can city before he fought Stiverne and he had far more fights under his belt at that stage. Since Wlad AJ's competition has been clearly leaps and bounds better. And if he beats Usyk uncontroversially then it ceases to become even disputable.

Yes, of course, a poor loss to Usyk or Wilder gaining revenge on Fury would alter the narrative. But that's speculation at this stage. Right now it's pretty clear both who has the superior resume, and who would be more favoured to win in a H2H.

 

Lol you are pretending that the Tyson v Douglas counts weren't controversial now?

Comedy gold

Let's recap the problem:
"A crab in the bucket referee" Wilder's own words
Doesn't count ten.
Instead counts to nine, then breaking the rhythm of his count Rushes to wave a fight off where Wilder was way behind on the cards, with the round already ended and Ortiz getting to his feet.

And you don't think that is controversial...

Keep kissing that ass

 

I've come to realize in this thread that anything involving counting confuses you. (LOL)

The controversy in Tyson-Douglas was the referee didn't pick up the count. He made his own count.

I brought up Tyson-Douglas because you insisted a referee had to say "TEN" at the end or it's just a NINE count. And I said you don't hear the referee say "TEN" when Douglas knocked out Tyson or Ali knocked out Foreman. He just waived his arms.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone ever say Wilder didn't stop Ortiz before today. And, again, you seem to be bent out of shape over it SIMPLY because the word TEN wasn't shouted when the referee waived his arms to call off the bout.

Ortiz got a full count, and had to be supported by the ref when the fight was over, and didn't complain when the fight was stopped. He was out of it when it was stopped. It's on the film.

If you need to hear 10 while the referee is waiving his arms, go ahead and yell it yourself.

 

My argument is that the count is controversial. And I'm most definitely not the first to say it looked a bit "premature" on this board.

Given how quick you are to defend all things Wilder I find it hard to believe that slipped by you. But you are not exactly known for your good faith arguements...

The amount of times you have twisted on a dime to keep your version of events intact. Is HILARIOUS