wilder and chisora were always the same level of fighter

I can see what many might disagree with PRINCEKOOL, but I agree with 90% of what he wrote.

Yawn.

so you think wilder vs unranked washington, wilder vs unranked duhapaus, wilder vs unranked spilzka, etc...etc...are more important than his fights against top 5 ranked opponents like parker and zhang because the unranked guys were title defenses? doesnt that prove my point about how title defenses dont matter if they are against bums? he was a winning fighter because he was matched soft. if thats your criteria then theres a huge incentive not to fight good fighters or take risks. what kind of argument is that? what matters is quality not quantity or longevity. wilder never won a top level fight either unless you count ortiz but like i said chisora probably should have gotten the decision aganist whyte and parker or at least 1 and both guys are far superious than ortiz so thats just politics downgrading chisora more than anything, just like it was soft matchmaking pumping wilder up. i have no problem with someone saying wilder is slightly better than chisora or something to that affect especially given a head to head win but lots of easy title defenses shouldnt be the reason, it should be quality of wins and he doesnt have much of an edge there if at all(depending on how you see some of chisoras debatable losses) Deontay Wilder has just beaten Derek Chisora, on his home turf 'after his worst run of fights ever'. Note: Deontay Wilder goes down in the history books, as a WBC World Heavyweight Champion forever 'with 10 defenses of his titles'. What is Derek Chisora's legacy? Nearly winning fights, being involved in some entertaining and action packed fights 'losing his most important fights, while being a courageous fighter'. Deontay Wilder is clearly the better fighter at top level 'when the pressure is on. Even in his losing efforts at the highest level vs. Tyson Fury twice 'not three times, because in reality? Deontay Wilder won the first fight vs. Tyson Fury. Wilder it has been universally accepted, has played in major role in accelerating the retirement of Tyson Fury. Due to the damage he inflicted on Fury while embroiled in battle'. To conclude: Overall like I stated before skill for skill Derek Chisora may be the slightly better fighter than Deontay Wilder 'but as a competitor and big time performer. Deontay Wilder has won more of his most important and historical significant fights. That is why he is a former WBC Heavyweight Champion of the World' etc.

Deontay Wilder's fights vs. Zhilei Zhang and Joseph Parker were not World title fights, or title defenses 'therefore they were not his most important and historically significant fights'. Note: Deontay Wilder's most important fights, were his World title fights and? When titles were involved in the match up, he has only lost to Tyson Fury 'in what is regarded as the greatest heavyweight trilogy since Evander Holyfield vs. Rid**** Bowe'. But I understand the angle, and how you are rating Deontay Wilder 'fight per fight, man per man? His resume is not the greatest; the fighters he beat are not super talented. If Anthony Joshua would have been matched against all of the fighters on his resume, he still may be undefeated'. Anthony Joshua definitively beats and knocks out the version of Tyson Fury 'who Deontay Wilder fought in their first fight. In fact? I have always believed that Wilder won the first fight vs. Fury. There is no way a challenger for a title, can win a title fight by? Being backed up all night, and decked twice once badly in the 12th round. In reality that is what Tyson Fury did vs. Deontay Wilder in the first fight, in my opinion he did not deserve the win. If any fighter deserves the win, it was Deontay Wilder'. To conclude: Overall the main reason why I rate Deontay Wilder higher than Derek Chisora is because 'once upon a time at top level, Deontay Wilder was a winning fighter. Derek Chisora can push all the fighters he wants, he can be involved in many fights were he has shown masses of courage. This does not alter the fact that, he has never won a top level fight. And when the titles were on the line, he was also beaten'. Derek Chisora's most historical significant fights were against Tyson Fury, David Haye, Vitali Kiltschko and actually Deontay Wilder 'he has lost them all' etc. so you think wilder vs unranked washington, wilder vs unranked duhapaus, wilder vs unranked spilzka, etc...etc...are more important than his fights against top 5 ranked opponents like parker and zhang because the unranked guys were title defenses? doesnt that prove my point about how title defenses dont matter if they are against bums? he was a winning fighter because he was matched soft. if thats your criteria then theres a huge incentive not to fight good fighters or take risks. what kind of argument is that? what matters is quality not quantity or longevity. wilder never won a top level fight either unless you count ortiz but like i said chisora probably should have gotten the decision aganist whyte and parker or at least 1 and both guys are far superious than ortiz so thats just politics downgrading chisora more than anything, just like it was soft matchmaking pumping wilder up. i have no problem with someone saying wilder is slightly better than chisora or something to that affect especially given a head to head win but lots of easy title defenses shouldnt be the reason, it should be quality of wins and he doesnt have much of an edge there if at all(depending on how you see some of chisoras debatable losses)

wilder lost all his biggest fights too lol. you think wilder-stiverne was an important fight? get real. wilder lost all 3 to fury, zhang, and parker. those are the 3 best fighters he ever fougth without a doubt. stiverne beat arreola to win a vacant belt. fu-cking pathetic. ortiz was a good solid win but chisora was very unlucky not to get decisions over whyte and parker who are far superior to ortiz. there is no difference between them. you keep going back to winning title defenses against bums and thats somethnig that does not matter. at all. it actually makes wilder look bad that he was scared to fight legit contenders but you try to twist it into a positive where chisora went up against vitali, haye, etc...all guys who would have ko'd wilder easily, just look at wilder sparring haye, wilder was rocked all over the ring like the bum he is. theres a reason wilder turned down klitschko, joshua, etc...his handlers knew he was not the real deal and thats exactly what happened when he stepped up. chisora just took tougher fights which is where the difference in perception comes from Deontay Wilder's fights vs. Zhilei Zhang and Joseph Parker were not World title fights, or title defenses 'therefore they were not his most important and historically significant fights'. Note: Deontay Wilder's most important fights, were his World title fights and? When titles were involved in the match up, he has only lost to Tyson Fury 'in what is regarded as the greatest heavyweight trilogy since Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe'. But I understand the angle, and how you are rating Deontay Wilder 'fight per fight, man per man? His resume is not the greatest; the fighters he beat are not super talented. If Anthony Joshua would have been matched against all of the fighters on his resume, he still may be undefeated'. Anthony Joshua definitively beats and knocks out the version of Tyson Fury 'who Deontay Wilder fought in their first fight. In fact? I have always believed that Wilder won the first fight vs. Fury. There is no way a challenger for a title, can win a title fight by? Being backed up all night, and decked twice once badly in the 12th round. In reality that is what Tyson Fury did vs. Deontay Wilder in the first fight, in my opinion he did not deserve the win. If any fighter deserves the win, it was Deontay Wilder'. To conclude: Overall the main reason why I rate Deontay Wilder higher than Derek Chisora is because 'once upon a time at top level, Deontay Wilder was a winning fighter. Derek Chisora can push all the fighters he wants, he can be involved in many fights were he has shown masses of courage. This does not alter the fact that, he has never won a top level fight. And when the titles were on the line, he was also beaten'. Derek Chisora's most historical significant fights were against Tyson Fury, David Haye, Vitali Kiltschko and actually Deontay Wilder 'he has lost them all' etc.

Both made a lot of money doing something other than being great boxers. With Wilder it was marketing the great American knock out artist. With Chisora it was the gutsy British battler. People bought into that. I still have no idea where to rank Wilder. I can't rate the Ortiz wins at all and credible losing efforts aren't worth anything. I can rate him above the lines of Breazeale, Szpilka... so lower top 10 but never top 5. It's the best he ever evidenced. This also continues to throw the same doubt on Fury for me. Once he was good enough to beat Klitschko. But comeback Fury? He was well marketed and well matched until he lost. And he looked terrible at times against some pretty average fighters. I'm not sure that comeback Fury was ever that good.

A clown vs a career journeyman.......Hysterics ensue.

Glad Wider and Chisora got resolve things in the ring.

what run? the run of bums until ortiz? that was garbage. literally 6 straight unranked guys in a row. yeah ortiz might have beaten chisora but its not a sure thing, especially looking how ortiz faded against wilder in both fights and wilder is not a good pressure fighter like chisora. those ortiz wins are doing a lot of heavy lifting, in fact almost all the lifting for wilders resume and they arent bad wins but they arent great wins at all. i could see chisora winning an easy belt agaisnt stiverne then having 20 defenses against bums calzaghe style. well chisora probably has more pride and respect than that even though hes a clown tory supporter Yes I looked over the list of challengers and aside from Ortiz it was a list of guys that Chisora in theory could beat. I will say this Chisora made much more money than a contender with his resume ever earned.

People need to understand? That Derek Chisora's absolute peak fights, where actually at the back end of the Kiltschko era vs. Vitali Kiltschko and David Haye. This was when Derek Chisora was perceived at his most dangerous, and he was still a contender to be a potential heavyweight champion'. Note: After David Haye became the first fighter, to meet force vs. force and cancel out Derek Chisora's moment 'knocking him out inside 5 rounds. The entire boxing world has known what Chisora was about'. Derek Chisora at top level has never ever been a winning fighter '95% of the time he has lost all of his biggest fights, and? This last weekend, he has done it again. In his 50th fights, he lost against Deontay Wilder, who has been struggling and enduring through some really testing times himself'. From a pure technical perspective, Derek Chisora may actually have been a better fighter than Deontay Wilder 'but as a competitor, Deontay Wilder was a better fighter. Quite simply because he has won many of his most important fights'. To conclude: Deontay Wilder was the WBC World Heavyweight Champion 'and defended his title 10 times. Derek Chisora throughout his career, has shown zero evidence that he could have successfully went on heavyweight run at that level'. Did Derek Chisroa even win the British Lonsdale title outright? No 'Chisora was a great British fighter, has shown masses of courage and determination during his career. But he is not a Champion, and he is not a winning fighter at top level'. That is the difference between him and Deontay Wilder 'in terms of historical significance they are definitively not on the same level' etc. wilder lost all his biggest fights too lol. you think wilder-stiverne was an important fight? get real. wilder lost all 3 to fury, zhang, and parker. those are the 3 best fighters he ever fougth without a doubt. stiverne beat arreola to win a vacant belt. fu-cking pathetic. ortiz was a good solid win but chisora was very unlucky not to get decisions over whyte and parker who are far superior to ortiz. there is no difference between them. you keep going back to winning title defenses against bums and thats somethnig that does not matter. at all. it actually makes wilder look bad that he was scared to fight legit contenders but you try to twist it into a positive where chisora went up against vitali, haye, etc...all guys who would have ko'd wilder easily, just look at wilder sparring haye, wilder was rocked all over the ring like the bum he is. theres a reason wilder turned down klitschko, joshua, etc...his handlers knew he was not the real deal and thats exactly what happened when he stepped up. chisora just took tougher fights which is where the difference in perception comes from

]I don't think he could have that run as he was too easily out boxed and didn't have the eraser of Wilder that instantly ended fights. That said look at the weak paper champions since the Klitschko dynasty ended in 12' and 15' and he easily could have been a champion as Stiverne isn't better than Chisora, neither is Charles Martin. Chisora was in the wrong time in the wrong place to win a championship. But this could be argued about many perennial contenders who fought during dominant championship eras. what run? the run of bums until ortiz? that was garbage. literally 6 straight unranked guys in a row. yeah ortiz might have beaten chisora but its not a sure thing, especially looking how ortiz faded against wilder in both fights and wilder is not a good pressure fighter like chisora. those ortiz wins are doing a lot of heavy lifting, in fact almost all the lifting for wilders resume and they arent bad wins but they arent great wins at all. i could see chisora winning an easy belt agaisnt stiverne then having 20 defenses against bums calzaghe style. well chisora probably has more pride and respect than that even though hes a clown tory supporter

I don't think he could have that run as he was too easily out boxed and didn't have the eraser of Wilder that instantly ended fights. That said look at the weak paper champions since the Klitschko dynasty ended in 12' and 15' and he easily could have been a champion as Stiverne isn't better than Chisora, neither is Charles Martin. Chisora was in the wrong time in the wrong place to win a championship. But this could be argued about many perennial contenders who fought during dominant championship eras.

People need to understand? That Derek Chisora's absolute peak fights, where actually at the back end of the Kiltschko era vs. Vitali Kiltschko and David Haye. This was when Derek Chisora was perceived at his most dangerous, and he was still a contender to be a potential heavyweight champion'. Note: After David Haye became the first fighter, to meet force vs. force and cancel out Derek Chisora's moment 'knocking him out inside 5 rounds. The entire boxing world has known what Chisora was about'. Derek Chisora at top level has never ever been a winning fighter '95% of the time he has lost all of his biggest fights, and? This last weekend, he has done it again. In his 50th fights, he lost against Deontay Wilder, who has been struggling and enduring through some really testing times himself'. From a pure technical perspective, Derek Chisora may actually have been a better fighter than Deontay Wilder 'but as a competitor, Deontay Wilder was a better fighter. Quite simply because he has won many of his most important fights'. To conclude: Deontay Wilder was the WBC World Heavyweight Champion 'and defended his title 10 times. Derek Chisora throughout his career, has shown zero evidence that he could have successfully went on heavyweight run at that level'. Did Derek Chisroa even win the British Lonsdale title outright? No 'Chisora was a great British fighter, has shown masses of courage and determination during his career. But he is not a Champion, and he is not a winning fighter at top level'. That is the difference between him and Deontay Wilder 'in terms of historical significance they are definitively not on the same level' etc.

yeah but during wilders prime he was figthing duhapaus, spzilka, washington, etc...while chisora was fighting whyte, parker, vitali, etc... true wilder fans might counter and say king kong ortiz was a good win would chisora beat him? i have no idea i always thought king kong was bigged up a bit by wilder fans as some sort of monster that only wilder would fight but could be wrong about that lol the only way to know these things was to see fights that never happened shame oh well

chisora as far as i remember was pretty much always competitive, he was very good in his hay day so maybe its not a bad comparison, wilder fans will of course say wilder was a bit ahead of that level in his hay day yeah but during wilders prime he was figthing duhapaus, spzilka, washington, etc...while chisora was fighting whyte, parker, vitali, etc...

chisora as far as i remember was pretty much always competitive, he was very good in his hay day so maybe its not a bad comparison, wilder fans will of course say wilder was a bit ahead of that level in his hay day

Chisora could have had the same run with an alphabet title if he was so carefully managed like Wilder then would have lost to Fury like he normally did. they did fight a lot of the same guys: spilzka, scott, helenius(chisora robbed) im sure chisora would have loved to figth bums like washington, arreola, duhapas, stiverne, molina etc...