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

[OldTerry]

How the hell is Wilder ranked #1 after being smoked in his last two fights?

The guy that "smoked" him was number one and if Fury retires then it is a fair opinion to say Wilder is now number one I emphasize the word "opinion" because that is all it is.

[LA_2_Vegas]

Dang, Whyte's effort was that bad huh. they're out there asking Suliaman when Wilder is coming back. LOL

[DaNeutral.]

Why not? Not sure he has much left. But he lost 2x to the best of this era, and in the most exciting HW title fight this era. Meanwhile Joshua is humiliated by a fat tub of goo, then is dominated by a cruiserweight.

Meanwhile Anthony Joshua is mentioned again. The landlord owns your thoughts.

[Marchegiano]

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.

Says some 2018 sign up who I've never witnessed post anything of any historical significance. Basically, you're projecting your opinion. Losing efforts have always gotten ****ers respect. Who is Vitali? Alright, sit down.

[Toffee]

Says some 2018 sign up who I've never witnessed post anything of any historical significance. Basically, you're projecting your opinion. Losing efforts have always gotten ****ers respect. Who is Vitali? Alright, sit down.

I said it gets you respect.

I also said you don't move up the rankings with a losing effort.

And you don't.

As to whether I have posted something of historical significance, I don't have those kind of tickets on myself. I know my sport, I don't need to blab on about its history when we're talking about the current day.

[Toffee]

True but not absolutely. Wilder's last fight against the best heavyweight of this era (Fury) showed than he is much better than Whyte.

Better at losing to Fury. That's all it showed. He can lose to Fury with a more creditworthy effort than Whyte.

Did Chisora put up a more credible losing effort against Usyk than Joshua did? So did it show Chisora is better than Joshua?

Whyte couldn't get in range against Fury. That's a mesh of styles that is unique to them.

[Earl-Hickey]

I've never seen a fighter get as much credit for losing as Wilder has, it's insane.

He doesn't need to beat anyone, because he lost to fury in good fashion

Wot.

[kafkod]

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.

Without going back to Ancient Greece or bare knuckle prize fighting, just sticking to the sport of legally sanctioned professional boxing as we know it today: Has there ever been a case of a world title belt holder, who was not and never had been a unified or lineal champ, who retained his title with a draw, went straight into an immediate rematch with the same opponent and lost his title by KO, then went straight into another immediate rematch with the same opponent for the same belt and lost by KO again, yet still retained his No1 ranking with the sanctioning body and was in position to fight for the same belt again, immediately, without any interim qualifying fights, if the reigning champ retired?

Because that is the kind of privilege Wilder fans are saying Deontay deserves, citing triangle theory and fantasy fights as justification.

That's an interesting history lesson there, btw.

[kafkod]

Better at losing to Fury. That's all it showed. He can lose to Fury with a more creditworthy effort than Whyte.

Did Chisora put up a more credible losing effort against Usyk than Joshua did? So did it show Chisora is better than Joshua?

Whyte couldn't get in range against Fury. That's a mesh of styles that is unique to them.

And I'm going to claim credit for predicting this in advance. I stated many times that if Fury used his footwork and jab to maintain range he would beat Whyte easily, but if he tried bulldozing and bullying him like he did Wilder, it would be a tough, unpredictable fight that could go either way.

Have to admit though, I never thought Tyson was capable of knocking Dillian out with one punch.

[Marchegiano]

Without going back to Ancient Greece or bare knuckle prize fighting, just sticking to the sport of legally sanctioned professional boxing as we know it today: Has there ever been a case of a world title belt holder, who was not and never had been a unified or lineal champ, who retained his title with a draw, went straight into an immediate rematch with the same opponent and lost his title by KO, then went straight into another immediate rematch with the same opponent for the same belt and lost by KO again, yet still retained his No1 ranking with the sanctioning body and was in position to fight for the same belt again, immediately, without any interim qualifying fights, if the reigning champ retired?

Because that is the kind of privilege Wilder fans are saying Deontay deserves, citing triangle theory and fantasy fights as justification.

That's an interesting history lesson there, btw.

Ratings are not that old, and you're being an ultra specific **** on purpose. You could have said, nah, just keep trolling.