Comments Thread For: Fury: Going To Stamp My Claim, It's Going To Be Same Deontay Wilder We've Already Seen

[Monty Fisto]

Wilder is either the second best or third best heavyweight in the world. He’s an Olympic bronze medalist. He’s a world champion that reigned for 5 years with what, 10 title defences? He has the highest knockout ratio of any heavyweight champion in history of the Marquis of Queensbury era of boxing. The comments above make it sound like the man should never have been able to accomplish any of this. You lads are just too emotional concerning wilder. Win or lose, the man had accomplished far more than you lot will ever give him credit for. Fury is just the better fighter. Wilder isn’t some terrible accident, he’s gotten to where he is on talent, athleticism, and a quick adapting to the sport of boxing.

There's definitely an element of people trying to paint Wilder as some kind of zero, just because he lost. Wilder is limited but very dangerous even within those limits. If compare the first fight with the second fight, you have to conclude that the difference is that Fury was better and more offensive in the second fight. In other words, credit goes to Fury, rather than saying Wilder was a chump (Wilder han't helped matters with his excuses rather than just saying he lost to a better man on the night).

I think you are leaning a little too much in the direction of the other way with the weight you give to his number of title defences. Yes, bronze medal at the Olympics is something decent. Winning the title from Stiverne was a big accomplishment. Defending against Ortiz the first time was an exciting and good defence. But the likes of Szpilka, Molina and Breazeale are little more than padding his record.

He's athletic and he's dangerous, but if you look at how he did against Ortiz and Fury, it tells a story. Two talented boxers that he has fought twice. He was in real trouble in all four fights and I'd say fortunate to a degree to come away with two wins and only one loss from those fights.

[Get em up]

Wilder is either the second best or third best heavyweight in the world. He’s an Olympic bronze medalist. He’s a world champion that reigned for 5 years with what, 10 title defences? He has the highest knockout ratio of any heavyweight champion in history of the Marquis of Queensbury era of boxing. The comments above make it sound like the man should never have been able to accomplish any of this. You lads are just too emotional concerning wilder. Win or lose, the man had accomplished far more than you lot will ever give him credit for. Fury is just the better fighter. Wilder isn’t some terrible accident, he’s gotten to where he is on talent, athleticism, and a quick adapting to the sport of boxing.

Somehow people seem to miss all Wilders accomplishments that you mentioned. It's not like he bought his bronze medal or world title out of vending machine GREAT POST!

[Oldskoolg]

There's definitely an element of people trying to paint Wilder as some kind of zero, just because he lost. Wilder is limited but very dangerous even within those limits. If compare the first fight with the second fight, you have to conclude that the difference is that Fury was better and more offensive in the second fight. In other words, credit goes to Fury, rather than saying Wilder was a chump (Wilder han't helped matters with his excuses rather than just saying he lost to a better man on the night).

I think you are leaning a little too much in the direction of the other way with the weight you give to his number of title defences. Yes, bronze medal at the Olympics is something decent. Winning the title from Stiverne was a big accomplishment. Defending against Ortiz the first time was an exciting and good defence. But the likes of Szpilka, Molina and Breazeale are little more than padding his record.

He's athletic and he's dangerous, but if you look at how he did against Ortiz and Fury, it tells a story. Two talented boxers that he has fought twice. He was in real trouble in all four fights and I'd say fortunate to a degree to come away with two wins and only one loss from those fights.

His defences are definitely not on the level of who lets say a Holyfield or an Ali or a Lewis defended against. But then we can say the same about the klitschko era. You can only defend against the contenders you have and voluntary defences are what, top 10 or top 15 depending on the sanctioning body. He didn’t force povetkin to take peds nor did he want to have to sign his career away to Hearn and his app. Wilder is just as loyal to his camp as hearn’s fighters are to his. And let’s not forget that wilder fought the beat heavyweight in the world and then fight him again because he didn’t like his performance and got washed in the rematch…..and then pushed for a third fight.
the difference is I don’t feel some type of way about wilder either way. I’m not a fan of his style, it’s far too frustrating for me, I’m American and British, born in GM, live in and served in the military of usa, I don’t have a nationalist push for either of these guys because of it….hell Tyson is literally from my home metroplex. Tyson is the better fighter, period. That doesn’t make wilder crap though. The problem with most posters on here is they are SOOOOO emotionally set off by wilder that it clearly makes them biased. And there really isn’t much attractive about interacting with emotional males.

[Boro]

Wilder is either the second best or third best heavyweight in the world. He’s an Olympic bronze medalist. He’s a world champion that reigned for 5 years with what, 10 title defences? He has the highest knockout ratio of any heavyweight champion in history of the Marquis of Queensbury era of boxing. The comments above make it sound like the man should never have been able to accomplish any of this. You lads are just too emotional concerning wilder. Win or lose, the man had accomplished far more than you lot will ever give him credit for. Fury is just the better fighter. Wilder isn’t some terrible accident, he’s gotten to where he is on talent, athleticism, and a quick adapting to the sport of boxing.

His knockout Ratio is against absolute puddings, he won a bronze in arguably the worst heavyweight cycle in history, he started at a similar age as AJ but look at the difference in skill and achievements.
He didn't "adapt quickly" he was facing mediocre opposition which allowed him to stay mediocre as soon as he faced someone with a modicum of skill he lost.

[Oldskoolg]

His knockout Ratio is against absolute puddings, he won a bronze in arguably the worst heavyweight cycle in history, he started at a similar age as AJ but look at the difference in skill and achievements.
He didn't "adapt quickly" he was facing mediocre opposition which allowed him to stay mediocre as soon as he faced someone with a modicum of skill he lost.

Oh….ok. Thanks.

[Monty Fisto]

His defences are definitely not on the level of who lets say a Holyfield or an Ali or a Lewis defended against. But then we can say the same about the klitschko era. You can only defend against the contenders you have and voluntary defences are what, top 10 or top 15 depending on the sanctioning body. He didn’t force povetkin to take peds nor did he want to have to sign his career away to Hearn and his app. Wilder is just as loyal to his camp as hearn’s fighters are to his. And let’s not forget that wilder fought the beat heavyweight in the world and then fight him again because he didn’t like his performance and got washed in the rematch…..and then pushed for a third fight.
the difference is I don’t feel some type of way about wilder either way. I’m not a fan of his style, it’s far too frustrating for me, I’m American and British, born in GM, live in and served in the military of usa, I don’t have a nationalist push for either of these guys because of it….hell Tyson is literally from my home metroplex. Tyson is the better fighter, period. That doesn’t make wilder crap though. The problem with most posters on here is they are SOOOOO emotionally set off by wilder that it clearly makes them biased. And there really isn’t much attractive about interacting with emotional males.

Yeah, I know, it does get a bit tribal.

Regarding the defences: you're right in saying you can only defend against the contenders you have, but the argument doesn't wash when Dillian Whyte could not get a shot. I don't think Whyte is great -- and might well have lost to Wilder -- but he's definitely a step above some of the guys Wilder was opting to give shots to. I think it's a little disingenuous therefore to say Wilder was fighting poor fighters as a consquence of a dearth of talent to match up against. I don't want to make it a Joshua vs Wilder thing, but I would say as a whole, the defences that Joshua has made have tended to be of a higher quality than Wilder. I only say that to point out that a better level of opposition was there if he wanted it.

Of course, yes, as you say, Wilder has taken on Fury twice, who is at or very near the top of the tree, and he does deserve some credit for that. It is offset by no wins to show for it though.

[Boro]

Oh….ok. Thanks.

Feel free to deny anything I said even the two mandatories he faced where puddings Stiverne was way out of shape and Brezeale we all knew what was going to happen he's slow as molasses and lest we forget the only reason Brezeale got the shot was to avoid court for him and brothers assaulting him otherwise this oh so great champion would've faced ONE mandatory in 5 years and let's not pretend there'd be a valid excuse for that he never really tried to unify or anything.

[Oldskoolg]

Feel free to deny anything I said even the two mandatories he faced where puddings Stiverne was way out of shape and Brezeale we all knew what was going to happen he's slow as molasses and lest we forget the only reason Brezeale got the shot was to avoid court for him and brothers assaulting him otherwise this oh so great champion would've faced ONE mandatory in 5 years and let's not pretend there'd be a valid excuse for that he never really tried to unify or anything.

Gotcha. Thanks again.

[OldTerry]

His knockout Ratio is against absolute puddings, he won a bronze in arguably the worst heavyweight cycle in history, he started at a similar age as AJ but look at the difference in skill and achievements.
He didn't "adapt quickly" he was facing mediocre opposition which allowed him to stay mediocre as soon as he faced someone with a modicum of skill he lost.

Win or lose (probably lose) against Fury I'll still pick Wilder by KO over AJ.

[Szef]

Wilder is either the second best or third best heavyweight in the world. He’s an Olympic bronze medalist. He’s a world champion that reigned for 5 years with what, 10 title defences? He has the highest knockout ratio of any heavyweight champion in history of the Marquis of Queensbury era of boxing. The comments above make it sound like the man should never have been able to accomplish any of this. You lads are just too emotional concerning wilder. Win or lose, the man had accomplished far more than you lot will ever give him credit for. Fury is just the better fighter. Wilder isn’t some terrible accident, he’s gotten to where he is on talent, athleticism, and a quick adapting to the sport of boxing.

It's highly doubtful that he would've achieved that if he wasn't carefully matched.

Though Wilder is definitely an overachiever, he would not be where he is today/was before Fury fights if he fought the same opponents as say, Joshua. Not a chance. And you know it.

You calling other posters too emotional concerning Wilder is hilariously ironic. You are in every thread about him defending him.

I'm not even gonna mention your obsession with Hearn and his 'fans' because I'm not qualified enough to properly diagnose you, but if we had a psychiatrist on here, I'm sure he'd professionally assess you and prescribe proper therapy & medications.

You are living in a glass house, have shytload of rocks in it and hands that do nothing but throw them when you're not masturbating 15 days a day.

Find yourself another hobby.