Can someone explain to me how a guy like Wilder hasn't lost yet?

To me Wilder is similar to a younger Pacquiao in that he is essentially a one trick pony for the most part. Manny had a dynamite left hand and Wilder has a dynamite right hand. He understands that he's not going to outbox guys in clear UD victories because that's not his game and he would likely end up losing. So he looks to end it with one shot and if he thinks he has someone stunned he goes for the finish because he's fully aware that his best opportunity to win is to not let get to to scorecards. That all said Wilder is clearly a very beatable boxer as he can be caught clean and he does leave himself open meaning it is likely that he will wind up being on the receiving end of a ko someday or wide decision loss. That doesn't mean he isn't any good it just means that his style didn't mesh well with his opponents. When and if that time comes he will have to learn to adapt. You're not going Manny his due. Look at the Bradley and Marquez fights he clearly showed great ring iq. But I like the analogy.

Hearns had a better jab, footwork, balance, and more accurate with the right hand. He also was pretty underrated when it came to fighting on the inside which is something Wilder hasn't shown yet. Fight tall, use reach, throw the straight right hand, hurt your opponent, get the knockout...I'm sure Emmanuel Steward would say the same thing

Because he'a a Heavyweight. In addition, it's largely due to that equalizer of his. He has that game changing power. No matter how badly he's being out boxed or how many rounds he has lost, all it takes is just one punch and then it is a wrap. Power is something that you cannot teach. You either have it or you don't.

To me Wilder is similar to a younger Pacquiao in that he is essentially a one trick pony for the most part. Manny had a dynamite left hand and Wilder has a dynamite right hand. He understands that he's not going to outbox guys in clear UD victories because that's not his game and he would likely end up losing. So he looks to end it with one shot and if he thinks he has someone stunned he goes for the finish because he's fully aware that his best opportunity to win is to not let get to to scorecards. That all said Wilder is clearly a very beatable boxer as he can be caught clean and he does leave himself open meaning it is likely that he will wind up being on the receiving end of a ko someday or wide decision loss. That doesn't mean he isn't any good it just means that his style didn't mesh well with his opponents. When and if that time comes he will have to learn to adapt.

fighting old overweight opponent helps.

His toughest fight thus far was against a 38 year old fighter. Just imagine Ortiz is in his prime and in his mid 20's.

He got protected in most of his career and he managed to learn something on the way, that's why he's undefeated. Elaborate?

He is a great athlete but his fundamentals, balance, and technique is very subpart. Spilka, Stiverne, and Ortiz we're all better but yet they lost. Is Wilder changing our perspective on what it takes to be a champion and elite boxer? Or is this all based on luck? He got protected in most of his career and he managed to learn something on the way, that's why he's undefeated.

That's really a stretch Is it though?

I didn't say anything about who you like or think is better, I said compare and contrast there styles and if you can't see a similarity between the offensive style of Hearns and Wilder then you dont know **** about boxing Hearns had a better jab, footwork, balance, and more accurate with the right hand. He also was pretty underrated when it came to fighting on the inside which is something Wilder hasn't shown yet.

HW boxing has shifted significantly since the 1990s. Sport science has developed to the point where if you find the right physical specimen, train it to box, apply the highest quality scientific support, market it, match it very carefully to build an undefeated record...you create a World Champion. Wilder and Joshua are prime examples of the practice. Wilder is loud, obnoxious and arrogant. Joshua is humble, reflective and unassuming. Apart from the above, they are exactly alike. So, is it fair to say that this new generation of HW's would beat the HW's from the past?

Dont tell them that. Let them keep seeing the right hand. Those who are in the ring with Wilder see otherwise. No need to explain to folks who sit at home. Wilder's awkwardness in everything is a problem in itself in the ring. Well said, thanks bro

I thought HW didn't start to age until they hit 40 and even then there are exceptions (George Foreman for example) Where are you drawing that info from? HW's peak earlier than other weights. Big power does big damage. Crunch the numbers of the greats and you'll see 14-16 years from 18 is the mark (remember that HW's usually peak earlier than that). If you don't take much damage, good defense, not a lot of wars, etc will extend your shelf life, but peak's are peaks. Lennox Lewis Started Career in 89' Pro Start Age: 24 (not 18!) Pro End Age: 38 Peak Age (end): 32 (Golota 97') 14 year mark: 2003 16 year mark: N/A Case in point: Vitali Summary: I think Lewis peaked at 32. His physical prime was extended due to his career starting 6 years late. If he would have been 18 when he turned pro in 89' his prime would have ended in 97' against Golota. In Lewis' case, I think that was when he was last at his best. If you look at the Mavrovic fight (2 fights after Golota), that's not a prime Lennox, it's just not. Muhammed Ali Started Career in 60' Pro Start Age: 18 Pro End Age: 39 Peak Age (end): 29-30 (Ellis 71') 14 year mark: 74' 16 year mark: 76' Case in point: Foreman (74') / Norton 3 (76') Summary: Ali took a lot of damage in his time (gloves and general ring safety was different then e.g. horse hair, 15 rounders, etc) and visible changes to his style were happening. Ali vs Norton 1 in 73', Ali was a former shell of himself already. The damage modifier aged his peak early and Ali was visibly a different fighter against Ellis in 71'. Ali should have retired after the Foreman fight. He would probably still be alive today. Evander Holyfield Started Career in 84' Pro Start Age: 22 Pro End Age: 49 Peak Age (end): 30 (Bowe 92') 14 year mark: 98' 16 year mark: 00' Case in point: Butterbean (98') / Ruiz 1 (00') Summary: Evander not only took a lot of damage in his time, but also started 4 years late. Look at his record last 98', horrible. Fighting a trilogy with Ruiz lol? I think his peak was Bowe 1 in 92'. He looked and performed visibly old afterwards.

Should have been stopped in the 7th against Ortiz. Wasnt defending himself, had his head knocked back several times and was being bounced around the ring. He's lucky old man Ortiz gassed

Because many are so focused on his offensive technique, that they ignore he knows how to avoid being hit very well. Whatever you want to credit his defense for, he has an effective one. Exactly. Holyfield mentioned this yesterday that Wilder does not blink or keeps his eyes open to see what the opponent usually wants to do, so he can combat it. However, people ignore that and say he is terrible on defense.

HW boxing has shifted significantly since the 1990s. Sport science has developed to the point where if you find the right physical specimen, train it to box, apply the highest quality scientific support, market it, match it very carefully to build an undefeated record...you create a World Champion. Wilder and Joshua are prime examples of the practice. Wilder is loud, obnoxious and arrogant. Joshua is humble, reflective and unassuming. Apart from the above, they are exactly alike. Both seem soulless to me, robotic, can't get myself to enjoy their fights. They are big names and stars though.

Because he has more skills than people think, but they aren't textbook so they can't see it Dont tell them that. Let them keep seeing the right hand. Those who are in the ring with Wilder see otherwise. No need to explain to folks who sit at home. Wilder's awkwardness in everything is a problem in itself in the ring.

The Fury that beat Klitschko would be Wilder's worst nightmare because Wilder would likely get into a hole on the scorecards and then it becomes a race against time to try to catch him. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Might be a coin flip. But that's the type of fighter I could definitely see going the distance and getting the decision. I disagree. I think Fury's awkwardness will trouble Wilder but he does not have power, and does not counterpunch well. Wilder will get to him eventually and knock him out. I think too much hype is being put into the Fury-Wlad fight. Wlad had difficulty pulling the trigger even the fight before against Jennings. Fury is not that much taller than Wilder and does not have power. Not sure what to make of Fury's chin yet.

He has a good chin and insane power. Eventually someone will survive long enough and beat him by decision. It just hasn't happened yet. He always manages to catch them somehow. Add in speed, athleticism, pivots really well to avoid most of the heavy punches. His frame makes him look like he is receiving damage but he is just plain clumsy and awkward. You also need to have enough power to earn Wilder's respect - which Ortiz did have. Lastly, Wilder's skills are not as bad as people make it out to be. He is tactically more aware of his opponents than people give him credit for.

He is a great athlete but his fundamentals, balance, and technique is very subpart. Spilka, Stiverne, and Ortiz we're all better but yet they lost. Is Wilder changing our perspective on what it takes to be a champion and elite boxer? Or is this all based on luck? None of them were better than Wilder. If you can't see that, you have no credibility with your question or opinions.