Worse 6 defenses and a title won in a row, is there any worse than Wilder?

You are not very good at this. Oritz had several positive tests. Wilder simply waited for Ortiz to age, then eventually took the fight. Barely defeating a 40+ year old man who had him in some trouble.

Wilder used Povetkin's positive test as an excuse not to fight him. IMO, Povetkin would have beaten Wilder back then and is more accomplished than Wilder now.

Povetkin by the way was 34 years old for Wlad,. Chagaev was 30 for Wlad. Correct your numbers, okay?

Chagaev has beaten higher Ring Magazine ranked opponents that Wilder has. Valuev, and Ruiz for example are more accomplished than anyone Wilder beat, and neither 36 years or older when Chagaev defeated them.

Just admit, you're a biased Wilder fan and can't defend his lousy record and look credible doing it.

 

You hate Wilder.

But then again you think John Ruiz is some kind of ATG, is that right?

I’m just saying that you are very selective in your data: why age 36? Because, of course, you’d have to include Ortiz (twice) if you didn’t make up some age out of the blue sky. So you decide to for no discernible reason (other than to discredit Wilder) pick that age as an imaginary cutoff.

And the topic of this thread is likewise arbitrary — why not title-winning effort plus 8 or 10 defenses? Because, again, Ortiz would be included.

You cite Sonny Liston and Muhammad Ali to bolster Floyd’s opponent sheet (even though none of those fights were in his first six, which is the topic of the thread) but curiously never mention two fights with Tyson Fury and feel the compulsive need to try to discredit the Ortiz fights for Wilder (which you wouldn’t do if you didn’t know they reflect positively on Wilder).

Just keep moving the targets until you find something that suits you.

Then you bring in ridiculous data like records of opponents in first 15 fights, which has zero to do with anything. What were the records of Rademacher’s opponents before Patterson? Hah, there weren’t any.

Your hatred of Wilder is borderline concerning. But yet you don’t have the minerals to take the entire topic to the World forum, which is where it belongs as it concerns a currently active boxer.

 

Yep, I have a bias against the WBC and all the organizations at the present time. I've collected a lot of heavyweight ratings over the past 15 years in a document that currently stands at 527 pages. They all, yes, including the NBA and Ring magazine (even under Nat Fleischer), have shown bias from time to time.

Things with the boxing organizations, the WBA and WBC, really went south starting in early 1978 when Leon Spinks was stripped by the WBC for not fighting Ken Norton. That's when they stopped ranking each other's champions and the top 10 became less about who was thought to be better than whom at the moment. It became more about who was in line based on promotional pull and who knows what else. It just got more silly over time, with more organizations and crazier ratings.

So I don't collect WBC or WBA rankings after 1977, much less IBF or WBO rankings. They might be relevant in the sense of showing who a Deontay Wilder might fight in the future, but they definitely don't show how the best in the world stack up. As a result I'm compelled to use ratings from other sources. Before 1978 the WBA (and previously the NBA) and WBC rankings were pretty solid, save for a weird ruling from time to time, so I use them.

If one of the organizations steps up and decides to run things logically and fairly, I'll honor them, their rankings, and their champions.

 

The NBA ratings were the same thing. In fact, the NBA became the WBA ... and if you think corruption started with the alphabets coming on the scene.

Being ranked by the NBA in 1950- or 1960-whatever is no different IMO than being ranked by the WBC today. Or the WBA or any of the others. Wilder has taken on contenders ranked by the organization that recognized him same as the NBA champs took on contenders ranked by that organization. (Except Floyd and Ezzard actually took on opponents who weren’t even ranked by their organizations, including one who had zero professional fights. Wilder hasn’t done that.)

 

I hate belt milkers. I'm no fan or Ruiz, but he is far more accompanied than Wilder is.

Why age 36? Because Wilder never has beaten a Ring Magazine ranked opponent younger than that. You are not well researched, and as we saw your ages were way off.

I need no moving targets, Saintpat; I have facts. You have none to counter. I find Wilder highly protected, and that started early by his manager, picking 10 of 15 soft touches .500 or below for his first 15 fights. As champion Wilder's management choose easy non-top 10 opponents, most of who were past their best, out of shape, old, and in most cases could not punch. Yet I find Wilder exposed in victory from quite a few of them.

Enough on Rademacher. I agree with you he didn't deserve a title shot; however, Patterson had a much better title reign than Wilder did, and fought better opponents. Just ask around, you'll see.

This content is protected

If you cannot are at least five other men, than perhaps Wilder's title opponents were a very weak lot, just like the title of the thread says.

Looking forward to your reply. As we know ducking out of the title of thread and an asked question really means you probably agree, you just can't say it.

 

@Saintpat Who else in your opinion with 6 title defense or more fought softer competition in title matches?

I think we are close to common ground here, can you reply? In addition to the low level of his title opponents, Wilder didn't exactly breeze through them. At times he struggled to separate until landing his bomb.

 

was machen and folley not involved in some kinda legal dispute, hence the Harris defense (no 3)? i think when he had the jackson fight in 57, jackson either was, or had been number 1. When valdes was no2, i think johansson was no1 then their trilogy run over listons no1 in 60 when floyd wasnt even champ for half that year. Then he has the 'gimme' against Mc Neeley (which thay ALL do) before facing liston, both of which are past the 6 defenses of the question asked

 

Perhaps you could discuss this and tell us which of these facts you dispute?

I know you’re still butthurt over being told that your threads on current fighters belong on the world forum but do try to get over it.

 

You apparently don’t understand how banned substances work: “a notable amount” is having it in your system.

Go to the World forum where Povetkin worship is only politely laughed at.

 

Thing with the Povetkin situation vs Wilder that really bothered me, is the sanctioning body is supposed to make the call, and Wilder's team forced the cancellation by flying home from England before even going to Russia. Clear sign they never wanted any part of Povetkin. The sanctioning body makes the determination if the fight goes on, is rescheduled or flat out canceled and the situation with Povetkin was extremely murky at best as the substance was recently banned and widely used in Europe, and the levels that were present ended up being within a legal amount. Wilder's team didn't want the fight.

 

You realize that PED abusers also flush the illegal substances out of their system (or attempt to), often leaving only trace amounts.

After getting popped before he was supposed to fight Wilder, he tested positive for a different substance, ostarine, before his scheduled fight with Stiverne. Ostarine isn’t even approved for use in humans in any country in the entire world: https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/substance-profile-ostarine/

Trace amounts lol. What’s it doing in his body at all?

Your boy is a drug cheat. Look at the composition of his body up to the Klitschko fight, where he was exposed as a pretender (his own choices of who to fight as WBA ‘regular’ champ did that but Wlad punctuated it) and after. Doesn’t even look like the same species as before.

 

The WBC did make the call. You can go back on their Twitter and see the announcement.

Here’s further proof: https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_...s-deontay-wilder-alexander-povetkin-fight-fai

Wilder was training in England. His team had flights to Russia. Povetkin tested positive. They skipped the flights waiting for the WBC ruling. The WBC ruled the fight was off. They don’t have to go to Russia until the WBC decides if the fight is on and the WBC decided it was not.

Go back and research the history of the fight being signed in the first place. The WBC had to force Povetkin to agree to real drug testing — his promoter said he would have it done by an unnamed European lab and not have any random testing. The WBC had to basically tell Povetkin ‘either you’re going to agree to real random testing by a real drug testing agency or you can forget about fighting for our title.’

So what happened when he did? He tested positive for a banned substance. And then he came back and was to fight Stiverne for an interim title or whatever they were calling it (basically a qualifier) and ... he tested positive again. For a different substance.

If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know, I don’t know what to tell you.

 

I know what happened Wilder Shat his pants lol. He flew home before wbc made any twitter announcement. I know i remember the sequence of events. Yes, shame on Povetkin for testing for a substance in the stiverne match. No excuses there.