Why hasn't Deontay Wilder faced the following boxers in his pro career so far?

If you're objective than why are you not criticizing any other fighters for their resumes? You sound like a child saying you take Wilders words seriously. Or do you mean to tell me that you think it's objective to demean a fighter over a self promoted opinion of himself? Wouldn't it be more prudent to argue the merits of fighters fought, or not fought in this case? Personally I think you're avoiding this because you know you will no longer be able to paint the same picture. Fact is, Wilder doesn't have a good resume. But he's still young enough, improving and has shown he wants to make fights. That's more than I can say for many other fighters. I've already answered why I'm not criticizing other boxers for their resumes. It's because, other boxers aren't / weren't claiming they are / were better than other past heavyweight champions or they were great heavyweights, when they didn't even first prove to be the best of their own era. I've answered this question multiple times now. How does it make me non-objective, if I am critical of the resume of every heavyweight boxer that claims to be an all time great or better than other past greats, when they have yet to even prove to be the best of their own era? Yes, it is objective of me to criticize a boxer over their resume, if they are claiming to be better than other past greats or dissing past greats, when they haven't even proven to be the best of their own era. Provided, I apply this standard for every other boxer too. Do you even know what the word 'objective' means? Explain the definition please!

Speak for yourself! You're not in a position to say if everyone else takes Wilder's words seriously. I take Wilder's words seriously, because I have no reason not to. And based on that, I criticize his poor level of opposition. I don't criticize Vitali Klitschko's resume, for the same reason why I don't criticize Hughie Fury's resume or Andy Ruiz Jr's resume. Because none of those guys are / were disrespecting past heavyweight greats and calling themselves greats, without even first proving to be the best of their own era. The question is, why should I criticize Vitali Klitschko's resume? The word objective means, holding everyone to the same standard and judging them by the same standard / rule. How is anything I've done so far, not objective? You haven't answered this question yet! If you're objective than why are you not criticizing any other fighters for their resumes? You sound like a child saying you take Wilders words seriously. Or do you mean to tell me that you think it's objective to demean a fighter over a self promoted opinion of himself? Wouldn't it be more prudent to argue the merits of fighters fought, or not fought in this case? Personally I think you're avoiding this because you know you will no longer be able to paint the same picture. Fact is, Wilder doesn't have a good resume. But he's still young enough, improving and has shown he wants to make fights. That's more than I can say for many other fighters.

Wow. He probably amazed you with his performance then? So a prime Ortiz would be better than prime Wilder? I knew what to expect from Luis Ortiz. he showed some of the skills that he possesses, but couldn't sustain it or apply it for long enough due to his age and his poor physical condition. Yes, Luis Ortiz at his best, such as when he fought Bryant Jennings, would've defeated Deontay Wilder in my opinion.

So you're arguing your opinion of his opposition is valid because of words he said that NO ONE in their right mind takes seriously, but you have a problem with an actual comparison of resumes with Klitschko , which is entirely valid, because he never ran his mouth? WOW......yeah, that makes a ton of sense!! Speak for yourself! You're not in a position to say if everyone else takes Wilder's words seriously. I take Wilder's words seriously, because I have no reason not to. And based on that, I criticize his poor level of opposition. I don't criticize Vitali Klitschko's resume, for the same reason why I don't criticize Hughie Fury's resume or Andy Ruiz Jr's resume. Because none of those guys are / were disrespecting past heavyweight greats and calling themselves greats, without even first proving to be the best of their own era. The question is, why should I criticize Vitali Klitschko's resume? The word objective means, holding everyone to the same standard and judging them by the same standard / rule. How is anything I've done so far, not objective? You haven't answered this question yet!

Yes, I'm criticizing him for making extraordinary claims about himself before he himself has even finished his own career. That wouldn't have been the case, had he not been making those extraordinary claims about himself and just continued boxing. Had he done that, then I would only be evaluating him after he finished his career. How does it make me not objective, if I criticize someone according to their own words, relative to their actions? You haven't answered that question yet! If you're a professional athlete and famous, and if you say something in public, then be prepared to be scrutinized accordingly. Claiming "it's just words and it's only done for promotional purposes" is your opinion. For all I know, Wilder could very well be serious with his claims. And more importantly, Wilder himself hasn't in anyway, hinted that his words are a joke and not serious. Until then, the default position is to assume that he is serious. Bringing Vitali Klitschko into this discussion is a false equivalence fallacy. Because the reason behind why I'm criticizing Deontay Wilder, doesn't apply to Vitali Klitschko as Vitali isn't guilty of doing the same things that Wilder has (claiming to be a great and disrespecting past heavyweight champions). So you're arguing your opinion of his opposition is valid because of words he said that NO ONE in their right mind takes seriously, but you have a problem with an actual comparison of resumes with Klitschko , which is entirely valid, because he never ran his mouth? WOW......yeah, that makes a ton of sense!!

why didn't AJ fight Ortiz? the majority of the fighters on that list would have been called bums if he fought them

- Had high blood pressure! - Was inactive against top opponents for over a year. - Wasn't allowed to take his blood pressure medication / PED. - Was nearing age 40. - His best performance against a top opponent was over 2 years ago. Based on those info, you could make your own mind up as to whether he was past it or not. Wow. He probably amazed you with his performance then? So a prime Ortiz would be better than prime Wilder?

In no PARTICULAR order: 1) Kubrat Pulev 2) Bryant Jennings 3) Wladimir Klitschko 4) Vitali Klitschko 5) Mariusz Wach 6) Jarrell Miller 7) Carlos Takam 8) Dillian Whyte 9) Dominic Brezeale 10) Andy Ruiz Jr 11) Tyson Fury 12) Hughie Fury 13) David Haye 14) Dereck Chisora These are ALL the BEST heavyweight boxers available that were in the top 10 at some point during their careers. They are also the best available heavyweight boxers based on them having the best win/loss ratios out of their career records. Their resume is also the best with all of their opponent's win/loss ratio being the best. So the excuse that no quality heavyweight exists for Deontay Wilder except 3 or 4 heavyweights to fight against is only that, an excuse, a myth and is totally false! Even if we exclude the following 3 'drug cheats' who failed drug tests: 1) Alexander Povetkin 2) Luis Ortiz 3) Andrzej Wawrzyk There are AT LEAST 14 other top quality opponents available for Deontay Wilder to face. What excuse does Wilder have of not facing them? That's right, NOTHING! If the ABSOLUTE BEST POSSIBLE OPPONENTS like Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury are unavailable. Then he could face the next best available / possible opponents such as the boxers out of the list I mentioned. Instead, Wilder chooses to fight lower ranked opponents with inferior win/loss ratios out of their career records and with inferior resumes. The only other decent opponents he has faced are: 1) Bermane Stiverne 2) Johan Duhapas 3) Chris Arreola 4) Gerald Washington Out of the number of bouts he has had, that's a horrible resume / level of opposition he has faced for one of the TOP heavyweights in the world and for a heavyweight champion. Deontay Wilder has been PROVEN to be a relatively UNPROVEN FRAUD! Because Wilder is a fraud and a duck. He will be protected till the end of his career. Look at all Wilder nuthuggers making excuses for him to run away from good fights. It's pathetic.

Ortiz was past it? - Had high blood pressure! - Was inactive against top opponents for over a year. - Wasn't allowed to take his blood pressure medication / PED. - Was nearing age 40. - His best performance against a top opponent was over 2 years ago. Based on those info, you could make your own mind up as to whether he was past it or not.

He's a good 'name', in the sense that he was one of the top 10 heavyweight boxers and contenders. Even though the version that Wilder faced was the worst version of Arreola. But that's a common theme with Wilder because nearly every quality opponent he has faced, have been past their best and not in their primes. Ortiz was past it?

wilder is another manufactured titlist. he wont face any good because it was never part of the plan 4 him. his one world class opponent was a man on the slide already, stiverne. his next best win is ortiz, who would at 38 be a gatekeeper at best in another era. that said, piovetkin would be an ok win, and he tried to fight him. still, look at the comp - joshua? not much done, but if he unifies again it will be a different story. Parker? same again. When/if someone steps it up, the new elite begins at hw that we not seen since lewis's time.

So you're judging him in this thread, yet saying "let's see how his career plays out" in another thread? That makes no sense. No objective person cares what Wilder says now, we all know it's just words and self promotion. But when you choose to challenge resumes, be prepared to have it countered by the FACTS of others resumes. Yes, I'm criticizing him for making extraordinary claims about himself before he himself has even finished his own career. That wouldn't have been the case, had he not been making those extraordinary claims about himself and just continued boxing. Had he done that, then I would only be evaluating him after he finished his career. How does it make me not objective, if I criticize someone according to their own words, relative to their actions? You haven't answered that question yet! If you're a professional athlete and famous, and if you say something in public, then be prepared to be scrutinized accordingly. Claiming "it's just words and it's only done for promotional purposes" is your opinion. For all I know, Wilder could very well be serious with his claims. And more importantly, Wilder himself hasn't in anyway, hinted that his words are a joke and not serious. Until then, the default position is to assume that he is serious. Bringing Vitali Klitschko into this discussion is a false equivalence fallacy. Because the reason behind why I'm criticizing Deontay Wilder, doesn't apply to Vitali Klitschko as Vitali isn't guilty of doing the same things that Wilder has (claiming to be a great and disrespecting past heavyweight champions).

Arreola wasnt decent when he faced him. He's a good 'name', in the sense that he was one of the top 10 heavyweight boxers and contenders. Even though the version that Wilder faced was the worst version of Arreola. But that's a common theme with Wilder because nearly every quality opponent he has faced, have been past their best and not in their primes.

In no PARTICULAR order: 1) Kubrat Pulev 2) Bryant Jennings 3) Wladimir Klitschko 4) Vitali Klitschko 5) Mariusz Wach 6) Jarrell Miller 7) Carlos Takam 8) Dillian Whyte 9) Dominic Brezeale 10) Andy Ruiz Jr 11) Tyson Fury 12) Hughie Fury 13) David Haye 14) Dereck Chisora These are ALL the BEST heavyweight boxers available that were in the top 10 at some point during their careers. They are also the best available heavyweight boxers based on them having the best win/loss ratios out of their career records. Their resume is also the best with all of their opponent's win/loss ratio being the best. So the excuse that no quality heavyweight exists for Deontay Wilder except 3 or 4 heavyweights to fight against is only that, an excuse, a myth and is totally false! Even if we exclude the following 3 'drug cheats' who failed drug tests: 1) Alexander Povetkin 2) Luis Ortiz 3) Andrzej Wawrzyk There are AT LEAST 14 other top quality opponents available for Deontay Wilder to face. What excuse does Wilder have of not facing them? That's right, NOTHING! If the ABSOLUTE BEST POSSIBLE OPPONENTS like Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury are unavailable. Then he could face the next best available / possible opponents such as the boxers out of the list I mentioned. Instead, Wilder chooses to fight lower ranked opponents with inferior win/loss ratios out of their career records and with inferior resumes. The only other decent opponents he has faced are: 1) Bermane Stiverne 2) Johan Duhapas 3) Chris Arreola 4) Gerald Washington Out of the number of bouts he has had, that's a horrible resume / level of opposition he has faced for one of the TOP heavyweights in the world and for a heavyweight champion. Deontay Wilder has been PROVEN to be a relatively UNPROVEN FRAUD! Arreola wasnt decent when he faced him.

And if Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson were boxing today, I would also hold them to the same standard as I'm currently holding Deontay Wilder in. I'm not sure why you're redirecting this topic and making this about them. This is strictly about Wilder! Deontay Wilder has disrespected past heavyweight champions and has made claims that implied he was a heavyweight 'great'. Yet, he hasn't even proven to be the best heavyweight of his own era. So how is it not objective of me to criticize Wilder's poor level of opposition, relative to how great or good he calls himself to be? Vitali Klitschko never called himself an all time great, nor did he disrespect past heavyweight all time great champions like Wilder has done. So why should I apply the same criticism to Vitali Klitschko as I am to Deontay Wilder, when the circumstances are vastly different? So you're judging him in this thread, yet saying "let's see how his career plays out" in another thread? That makes no sense. No objective person cares what Wilder says now, we all know it's just words and self promotion. But when you choose to challenge resumes, be prepared to have it countered by the FACTS of others resumes.

I've already answered it by telling you boxers say all kinds of crazy things. Ali said he was the greatest nearly two decades before he hung up the gloves. Tyson said something to the effect "these mere mortals can't beat me with their primitive skills". The list goes on and on. I've already pointed out all the fighters Vitally missed yet you want to ignore that like Wilder is the first to take the road he's taken. You ignoring all this is far from being objective. :dunno: And if Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson were boxing today, I would also hold them to the same standard as I'm currently holding Deontay Wilder in. I'm not sure why you're redirecting this topic and making this about them. This is strictly about Wilder! Deontay Wilder has disrespected past heavyweight champions and has made claims that implied he was a heavyweight 'great'. Yet, he hasn't even proven to be the best heavyweight of his own era. So how is it not objective of me to criticize Wilder's poor level of opposition, relative to how great or good he calls himself to be? Vitali Klitschko never called himself an all time great, nor did he disrespect past heavyweight all time great champions like Wilder has done. So why should I apply the same criticism to Vitali Klitschko as I am to Deontay Wilder, when the circumstances are vastly different?

Good post. Very objective. Thanks, bro! Too much delusional discussions by many folks on here -making it difficult to have practical and logical discussions on boxing for real.

Wilder has never claimed to be the greatest. He just said he is confident he can beat any of the past greats. There is nothing wrong with that. Compare Serena Williams to Graf, Margaret Court, etc. Serena at her prime would beat them - but is she greater than Margaret Court? No, she isn't. Margaret court has 24 slams - Serena 23. Greatness is about what you accomplish over time. But that does not mean you cannot be defeated. Good post. Very objective.

So you're not going to answer the question then? Okay! I've already answered it by telling you boxers say all kinds of crazy things. Ali said he was the greatest nearly two decades before he hung up the gloves. Tyson said something to the effect "these mere mortals can't beat me with their primitive skills". The list goes on and on. I've already pointed out all the fighters Vitally missed yet you want to ignore that like Wilder is the first to take the road he's taken. You ignoring all this is far from being objective. :dunno:

Should I quote you in another thread discussing AJ and Wilder where you said "let's see how this careers turn out before judging them" or something to that effect? Can't have it both ways. Either you're objective or your not. But you can't have it both ways. So you're not going to answer the question then? Okay!