Mike Tyson: Wilder is the weakest among HW champions!

TBH I give Wilder credit for the likes of Duhaupas and Szpilka who have proven since their losses to actually be pretty decent guys in the 20-30 level. I just don't think Stiverne was ever a legite number 2, even if it may have looked like it at the time. Based on Fury beating Klitschko, I think it's fair to say that Fury would have beat Stiverne back then. Hindsight is always 20/20. But when you look at the top 10 back then, Stiverne was deserving of a #2 or #3 ranking. His first win over Arreola was a better win than most of those behind him. You do bring up a good point that Wilder doesn't get enough credit for Duhaupas. But the reason the Stiverne fight is important is that Wilder didn't wait to go cherry pick a vacant title or target a champion perceived as weak. Stiverne was considered one of the best in the world. It shows Wilder's team was confident in his abilities. Just as it showed they were confident when they agreed to go to Russia instead of vacating and targeting another title (like Mike Tyson did).

TBH I give Wilder credit for the likes of Duhaupas and Szpilka who have proven since their losses to actually be pretty decent guys in the 20-30 level. I just don't think Stiverne was ever a legite number 2, even if it may have looked like it at the time.

The consensus is always ever in need of revision which is why upsets happen, is because the consensus opinion was skewed or inaccurate. There is hindsight bias in play here. For example, Luis Ortiz is considered a top 5 contender but if he gets demolished then fans will say, in hindsight, that he probably wasn't really top 5. Or maybe Ortiz wins and we'll be forced to acknowledge that Tyson was possibly right.

Mike off his psych meds again or what? How do you diss wilder and demand he fight a PED cheat? His nose is clearly out of joint from what Wilder has been saying and he's now just saying things back I think. Pretty sure he's only mentioned Povetkin because he was out in Eastern Europe and thus bigged up the local lad for brownie points.

You're not understanding what is being discussed at all. I don't know why you involved yourself in a discussion without reading it. Nobody is saying Arreola is better than those guys. What was stated was he was a better win than the best wins of those fighters before facing Parker. Sorry I meant stiverne...and that's exactly what's being discussed. i don't even care about any of this either way but, you're the one that brought me into it by quoting my post so...

Takam beat Tony Thompson. Yes, that is what I listed as Takam's best win, so we're in agreement. But it was a four loss, 42 year old Tony Thompson, and at the time, I don't think the boxing world considered it a bigger win than Stiverne's shocking upset of Arreola. After all, Stiverne's win catapulted him to a title shot. Takam's win resulted in, not much. So at the time, I don't think Thompson was considered the better win than Arreola. I will grant you this though, in retrospect, politics aside, a 42 year old Thompson may have beat Arreola. So I've got no problem with your position that Thompson was the better win. Kudos for discussing in good faith and actually naming a name.

Objectively state why arreola is better than any of those guys. What wins does arreola have that are better than wins they have. Of all the better opposition any of them fought, it was all against past prime guys with recent losses. They are all the same as far as I'm concerned...you were arguing that stiverne is some how better, so it should be up to you to provide an answer, not the other way around. You're not understanding what is being discussed at all. I don't know why you involved yourself in a discussion without reading it. Nobody is saying Arreola is better than those guys. What was stated was he was a better win than the best wins of those fighters before facing Parker.

Name one. Name a win Hughie, Ruiz or Takam had before losing to Parker that is better than Stiverne's first win over Arreola. You can't. That's why this has been going on for pages. Everybody trying to distract from the fact that they can't name anybody. Objectively state why arreola is better than any of those guys. What wins does arreola have that are better than wins they have. Of all the better opposition any of them fought, it was all against past prime guys with recent losses. They are all the same as far as I'm concerned...you were arguing that stiverne is some how better, so it should be up to you to provide an answer, not the other way around.

Mike off his psych meds again or what? How do you diss wilder and demand he fight a PED cheat?

Lol...ok. from rankings to this. Arreola is not a better win than any of those. Name one. Name a win Hughie, Ruiz or Takam had before losing to Parker that is better than Stiverne's first win over Arreola. You can't. That's why this has been going on for pages. Everybody trying to distract from the fact that they can't name anybody.

another post and you're still not naming a better win. if arreola sucks so much, you should have a giant list for me of all of the great wins from hughie, takam and ruiz. but you can't name even one. so weird. on and on about how much arreola sucks, but can't name a better win from any of those three. Lol...ok. from rankings to this. Arreola is not a better win than any of those.

another post and you're still not naming a better win. if arreola sucks so much, you should have a giant list for me of all of the great wins from hughie, takam and ruiz. but you can't name even one. so weird. on and on about how much arreola sucks, but can't name a better win from any of those three. Takam beat Tony Thompson. Hughie beat Rudenko and Fred Kassi - these guys probably on par with Arreola IMO, who lost to the likes of Adamek.

I'm asking what exactly makes arreola a good win? Who did he beat. Like I said, none of those guys were proven against any elite fighters. another post and you're still not naming a better win. if arreola sucks so much, you should have a giant list for me of all of the great wins from hughie, takam and ruiz. but you can't name even one. so weird. on and on about how much arreola sucks, but can't name a better win from any of those three.

another post, but still no name. everybody trying to discredit stiverne, but still nobody can name a better win. i listed the best wins for parker's opponents. nobody disputed them. they're clearly weaker than stiverne's win. since nobody can counter my point, they just change the subject. I'm asking what exactly makes arreola a good win? Who did he beat. Like I said, none of those guys were proven against any elite fighters.

Takam in 2016 was a much better fighter than Stiverne in 2015. Takam had wins over Tony Thompson, A draw with Mike Perez (which he won), and had been even with Povetkin until the KO. That's better than anything Stiverne had done.

Who had arreola beat? Jameel mcline? Most of these guys haven't beaten any top proven fighters. another post, but still no name. everybody trying to discredit stiverne, but still nobody can name a better win. i listed the best wins for parker's opponents. nobody disputed them. they're clearly weaker than stiverne's win. since nobody can counter my point, they just change the subject.

And he was a 4 to 1 underdog in that Arreola fight. That win over Arreola is clearly a better win than any win Hughie, Takam or Ruiz had before fighting Parker. Nobody can tell me what win those guys had before facing Parker that is a better win than Stiverne's first Arreola win. Who had arreola beat? Jameel mcline? Most of these guys haven't beaten any top proven fighters.

Stiverne had a bit of hype back then, but let's be real...it was all off the back of beating areola. And he was a 4 to 1 underdog in that Arreola fight. That win over Arreola is clearly a better win than any win Hughie, Takam or Ruiz had before fighting Parker. Nobody can tell me what win those guys had before facing Parker that is a better win than Stiverne's first Arreola win.

Mike Tyson would knock Wilder clear out of the ring. By the time Wilder wakes up his clothes would be out of style (oh wait they already are).

And what I'm saying is that Stiverne, when he was WBC champion (and therefore not even ranked by any alphabet group), was a consensus #2 or #3 heavyweight in all the major independent rankings (ESPN, Ring, TBRB, etc). No idea what he was in boxrec then, but I know for a fact he was ESPN #2, Ring #2 and TBRB #3. Which is a higher ranking win than anything on AJ's resume. Obviously the Klitschko win is much more impressive COMMERCIALLY, and anybody would rather beat Klitschko than Stiverne, but considering Klitschko was coming off a humiliating defeat, and a year and a half of inactivity, he was understandably not ranked anymore by many of the most respected independent ranking systems. So we shouldn't rewrite history and act like Wilder has never fought a top fighter. He fought the #2 heavyweight in the world and shut him out. Parker has never done anything close to that. Neither has AJ. That's not a slight on AJ. Great fighter. All respect. But the lying about Wilder is ridiculous. Stiverne had a bit of hype back then, but let's be real...it was all off the back of beating areola. The division was even more piss poor then than it is now...in proper context, stivern was never much. I think that's the point, more so than where he was ranked.