Comments Thread For: WBC Prez: Wilder is Weighing Up Plans For Future, I'm Sure He'll Be Back!

[REDEEMER]

"You" may rank them that way but most people use common sense and a bit of extrapolation to come to the conclusion that Wilder is in fact better than Whyte despite getting beaten up. Whyte barely landed a punch before getting 1 punch KO'd, you gonna rate him above Wilder and actually think he would survive Wilder's punches when he doesn't even move his head? I seriously doubt Wilder gets KO'd by 40 year old Povetkin either.

Wilder fought Fury three times ,and at no point did Whyte look as bad as Wilder did in the second fight that he had with Fury and that’s the only fight they had in the trilogy where Fury was in the best preparation . Your assuming Wilder is better then Whyte who has better wins then Wilder all around . You guys are just giving consolation prizes off a guy who had 3 opportunities to defeat fury .

Whyte isn’t the topic here because you have Joyce who’s next in line that’s the guy and my moneys definitely on him to defeat Wilder if it happened .

[P to the J]

Mauricio is a shameless Wilder fanboy lol. He doesn't even pretend to be neutral.

His fandom is directly proportional to the amount of coin he can make from a fighter.

Unless, ofc, he actually loves Wilder for his sterling and incisive wit.

[P to the J]

Wilder fought Fury three times ,and at no point did Whyte look as bad as Wilder did in the second fight that he had with Fury and that’s the only fight they had in the trilogy where Fury was in the best preparation . Your assuming Wilder is better then Whyte who has better wins then Wilder all around . You guys are just giving consolation prizes off a guy who had 3 opportunities to defeat fury .

Whyte isn’t the topic here because you have Joyce who’s next in line that’s the guy and my moneys definitely on him to defeat Wilder if it happened .

Thing is mate, as bad as Wilder is, Fury fought an entirely different fight for Whyte than he did in the final 2 trilogy contests.

When he boxed at range in the first Wilder fight, the latter almost knocked Fury into the next dimension, and that performance was far better than anything Whyte offered.

By way of contrast, maybe Fury could have taken Whyte out earlier had he got in his face like he did for the 2nd and 3rd wilder fights.

[Marchegiano]

Apparently, back in the days before the internet was invented, when fans couldn't rank fighters for themselves by talking shit and posting triangle theories, they used to get guys to actually fight each other and see who won.

Where should I begin to tear down this often repeated but totally untrue myth?

I don't mean that rhetorically, I mean where in history is your interest? Can I make this an authentically interesting post or should I keep just trolling?

Y'all want to know the history of lists and ducks maybe?

I'll do a short one, overview type deal.

Ducking in the ancient world was as simple as forfeiting your prize money. It happened pretty often because they drew lots. So you actually had a chance of being the champion and never fighting the few guys you're scared to fight, but, when the tourney worked its way so dude had no choice but to fight or drop out, dudes did drop out. It's a common practice.

Lists also start with ancient boxing. Some ancient boxers we only know about because fans made dated lists of their favorites. There's a papyrus that was discovered in an ancient landfill, a trash heap, that gave us a good portion of names to look for in more substantial forms, plaques and what not.

As BK takes off lists become a newspaper deal and a self publish venture, both from writers and from fans writing in.

As BK takes off ducking is the first feature of the first international fight in 1718. Figg ducks some Venato but it's okay because his student will fight in his stead.

By mid BK, lists are commonplace both with fans and writers and there starts to form something of a push to validate one list above them all.

By mid BK ducking has become so common they actually call it champion's prerogative. You may have read me use that term before, I didn't choose those words. I get you could restate that as the man's choice and such but that exact word choice was the label. Champion's Prerogative does literally mean the only man qualified to say who the champion defends against is the champion.

Those two things, the push for valid ratings and the champion defending by his own choice, are what made American boxing. Like, period. The Brits got frustrated with the Brits and did what Brits do, ****ed off to some other dude's backyard and convinced them to do it like how them Brits thought it ought to be done. This is like 1820's-30's-40's.

Late 19th century and early 20th century is the birth of the sanctioning bodies. Their whole point, among just a ton of other things, was to have official lists that actually matter and to take the champion's choice out of defenses; mandos.

Whole point of Ring/TBRB is to kind of mimic what used to be Police Gazette territory. Newspaper lists and newspaper champions.

And that's kinda it in a nutshell.





Personally, I believe this myth comes from the generations of historians prior to my own. They were either lazy or seriously out matched by the technology and availability of materials in their own time.

If you stay on BoxRec forever and never cross into source material, newspapers, fliers, journals, etc. It will look like the past was a lovely time of tough guys who always fought one another. That's not really the truth though. The truth is stacked decks are easier to find than individual efforts. I mean, for example, it's way easier to get the low-down on the Ward gang because they were a gang. The Ward gang, the Dead Rabbits, they were cabals, so, of course one leads to the other and they all prop one another up to make then next young man in line look good, but in reality that's just WWE ****. It's much harder to find info on their main rivals, Burke and Sullivan respectively. Because Burke and Sully are just one dude so you have to get started right there with him. There's little to no chance of finding Sully or Burke through their friends and cohorts. Boxrec, CBZ, IBRO, etc. all seem to be just plainly behind in their information.

I mean, they site books now. If it's a book that means someone else got their ass on the papers and journals and ****, wrote a ****ing book, and all the BoxRec/CBZ/IBRO boys did was read a book and then fill out their datasheets. Their research is lazy and out of date which give fans who don't know any better the wrong impression of the past. Lazy research in boxing is as old as the papers so it's kind of instep with the guys who came before them.

[REDEEMER]

Thing is mate, as bad as Wilder is, Fury fought an entirely different fight for Whyte than he did in the final 2 trilogy contests.

When he boxed at range in the first Wilder fight, the latter almost knocked Fury into the next dimension, and that performance was far better than anything Whyte offered.

By way of contrast, maybe Fury could have taken Whyte out earlier had he got in his face like he did for the 2nd and 3rd wilder fights.

Well I think that would’ve been a mistake had Fury did that ,he waited until Whyte lost composure,Whyte had control of the first round in southpaw stance after that not so much . By Furys own admittance this was him at his best .

[P to the J]

Well I think that would’ve been a mistake had Fury did that ,he waited until Whyte lost composure,Whyte had control of the first round in southpaw stance after that not so much . By Furys own admittance this was him at his best .

That’s what he said, but boxers often say they’re in the shape of their life, so I never take that too seriously.

Put it this way, if Fury decided to give Whyte another 2 cracks, you think he’d sit back? Or would he try and steam roller him out of there a la Wilder after contest 1?

Remember in that contest, Fury stayed at range too.

[daggum]

"You" may rank them that way but most people use common sense and a bit of extrapolation to come to the conclusion that Wilder is in fact better than Whyte despite getting beaten up. Whyte barely landed a punch before getting 1 punch KO'd, you gonna rate him above Wilder and actually think he would survive Wilder's punches when he doesn't even move his head? I seriously doubt Wilder gets KO'd by 40 year old Povetkin either.

by that "logic" otto wallin should be ranked above wilder since he did much better than wilder. wilders resume is much better than wallin's therefore he should be ranked above him. whyte's is better than wilders, joshuas is better etc...so they should be ranked above wilder. that doesnt mean they would beat him head to head but wilder was dominated twice by the fury whyte fought, and the only close fight was when fury was in shambles and in terrible shape(wilders words) the in shape fury blasted both wilder and whyte out of there. the bad fury almost lost to wilder and wallin. that drastic change in quality and performance should tell us a lot even though its a small sample size.

also wilder almost got ko'd by old man ortiz who was about 40 and povetkin was a much better fighter than ortiz. ortiz has no resume and was nearly battered to death by charles martin(joshuas 7th best win and wilders best) before he got that hail mary ko. anything can happen but not sure why we are making wilder out to be some indestructible man since he has looked quite shaky many times

[mawoodhouse]

To be honest, I don’t wanna see Wilder right for no WBC vacant belt, because they will protect him again in the Haymon stable and keep him from unifying it with other belt holders. He held that belt for years and never once did anything serious to try and unify. I want to see him fight again, but I wanna see him fight someone legitimate, a UNIFIED belt holder.

[Toffee]

TF is this? Says who?

So Wilder the second best of his era based on landing on Fury. Presumably Ortiz ranks top 5 in his era based on outboxing Wilder?

No, good losing efforts get you fights and respect. Not rated like that.

Jeez, Chisora would be top 10 in his era of we took this kind of approach.

[OldTerry]

You don't rank boxers based on putting up a good fight but getting battered.

You rank them based on the guys they beat. Or in Wilder's case, the guy he beat.

True but not absolutely. Wilder's last fight against the best heavyweight of this era (Fury) showed than he is much better than Whyte. The question to ask is how would he fare against Joshua, Ruiz or Usyk I think he beats Ruiz and Joshua for sure, maybe even Usyk