This Era has a solid No. 2 Heavyweight - And it Ain't Anthony Joshua!

[Willow The Wisp]

I know that Wilder is the biggest scam in boxing history. 38 bums in a row cannot be refuted. On a scale of 1-10 (One is a terrible fighter/Ten Is Hall of fame-prime of career level Champion) is a subjective scale and can easily be manipulated which is exactly what you did. Wilder sucks, he couldn't even knock out Charlie Zelenoff!

That's all nonsense and you don't know what your talking about and confessed the reason for that, but I do like your Gifs. Those a funny! Lol.

[Willow The Wisp]

The idea is to examine both resumes very carefully. And to look at all the fighters both guys fought, not simply one slice of time where one guy fought a better fighter that day.

Undefeated, titles. top ten are all relative... Undefeated compared to what competition? titles when there were multiple titles? Top ten of what? All of these are unanchored measures with nothing of any substance to ground them objectively. There should be some emphatic way to compare a fighter like Pulov, his age, etc to a fighter like Stiverne.

Its not a matter of what one person thinks, its a matter of having a sense of objectivity concerning the quality of opposition for all the top heavyweight guys. Its not an attack on AJ lol. If people think it is unwarranted then make a better way but the problem will always be excuses people make and other recriminations. Again, not even picking sides here.

If i say, "Ortiz should be considered better because Wilder got lucky on that punch the second fight" You see a problem with that? How does that help establish a meaningful way to distinguish the relative quality of opposition compared to other such comments?

Thanks for getting it. It shouldn't be this hard to grasp the concept of objective examination of evidence, but the bigger picture matters much more than a debate and if it weren't for simple folks we'd have nobody to perform the simple tasks that help keep the world humming. Discussions however, are usually pretty fruitless.
Not trying to sound arrogant, though I do; just telling it like it actually is.

[REDEEMER]

The idea is to examine both resumes very carefully. And to look at all the fighters both guys fought, not simply one slice of time where one guy fought a better fighter that day.

Undefeated, titles. top ten are all relative... Undefeated compared to what competition? titles when there were multiple titles? Top ten of what? All of these are unanchored measures with nothing of any substance to ground them objectively. There should be some emphatic way to compare a fighter like Pulov, his age, etc to a fighter like Stiverne.

Its not a matter of what one person thinks, its a matter of having a sense of objectivity concerning the quality of opposition for all the top heavyweight guys. Its not an attack on AJ lol. If people think it is unwarranted then make a better way but the problem will always be excuses people make and other recriminations. Again, not even picking sides here.

If i say, "Ortiz should be considered better because Wilder got lucky on that punch the second fight" You see a problem with that? How does that help establish a meaningful way to distinguish the relative quality of opposition compared to other such comments?

Well that’s trying to misconstrue the other fighter then you know that.

Breazeale was one of Wilders best wins it was his first power puncher he fought with one shot knockout power . A.J defeated the same guy in only a his 17th fight . That was a mandatory for Wilder that shows he’s way behind on the actual opponents,if Fury had not given Wilder the fight you know Wilder would have been eventual forced into a Joshua fight he declined twice .

Ortiz is not a proven top fighter with wins over Martin because he is not a top 10 in fact he was closer to that in 2016 because there’s far more better fighters now . Ortiz is not even near his prime and Wilder never fought him in it either so that’s his best win that’s just a fact .

If Ortiz manages a win over Ruiz then can you only say anything positive about an opponent Wilder defeated .these are just facts . Let’s use the year 2018 , who was Ortiz best win actually ? Well it’s still probably Jennings ? He really needs that Ruiz win that’s just another fact and Wilder needs him to win that fight if we’re using the same gages others use to determine how good a fighter was it can’t always be a separate thing for A.J .


Wilders resume isn’t close to Joshua’s you know and see how many times Wilders resume was ripped apart on here it’s almost like a chore on here when crazy ppl make crazy posts ,sorry but it is crazy saying Wilders resume is better which shows he’s the second best heavyweight ? Are we not including wins over yrs now ,it’s been 3 that alone makes it nonsense .


A.J haters and Fury and Wilder supporters on here actually need A.J to lose his next fight to have any grounds of more trolling ,if A. J wins he’ll have the best resume and it won’t even be hard to dispute at all . It’s not that hard now the guy has been in 12 title fights and has unified the title twice vs a self proclaimed best ever Fury and a guy who hand picked fights up until Fury .

When a fighter declines a fight that’s also a strike against them and both Wilder and Fury did that with A.J multiple times so the conversations should end there until one of them actually fights him they were offered the fight when available anything else is just not believable .

My last thing here is why haven’t you addressed the OP why he included an extra fighter to give Wilder more points in this zany thread point system he created ,isn’t that the guy who’s not being objective ? No it’s a guy with an agenda there’s little objective about him he uses numbers and says that explains everything ?

[billeau2]

Well that’s trying to misconstrue the other fighter then you know that.

Breazeale was one of Wilders best wins it was his first power puncher he fought with one shot knockout power . A.J defeated the same guy in only a his 17th fight . That was a mandatory for Wilder that shows he’s way behind on the actual opponents,if Fury had not given Wilder the fight you know Wilder would have been eventual forced into a Joshua fight he declined twice .

Ortiz is not a proven top fighter with wins over Martin because he is not a top 10 in fact he was closer to that in 2016 because there’s far more better fighters now . Ortiz is not even near his prime and Wilder never fought him in it either so that’s his best win that’s just a fact . If Ortiz manages a win over .Ruiz then you can only say anything positive about an opponent Wilder defeated .these are just facts . Let’s use the year 2018 , who was Ortiz best win actually ? Well it’s still probably Jennings ? He really needs that Ruiz win that’s just another fact .


Wilders resume isn’t close to Joshua’s you know and see how many times Wilders resume was ripped apart on here it’s almost like a chore on here when crazy ppl make crazy posts ,sorry but it is crazy saying Wilders resume is better which shows he’s the second best heavyweights ? Are we not including wins over yrs now ,it’s been 3 that alone makes it nonsense .

?
Best wins? Worse wins? Triangle type justifications about why an opponent is "better" or "worse." It just tells us nothing. Like when saying Joshua beat a better, worse version of Klitsko... There is no way to know that.
Assuming Wilder declined such a fight, what does it matter? They did not fight... that is all that matters.

You feel like all these observations like how good Martin was, ortiz's prime versus when he fought Wilder, stand as objective facts... Don't get me wrong, it is information but, what about when we look at and deconstruct Joshua's wins? Let me guess, Joshua fought everyone at prime? Like a 39 Pulev? No... it does not work that way. If you say "Joshua fought a better version of Klitsko than Fury" and I say "Fury handled Klitsko better" What does that tell us?

I don't find anything of substance doing this... Picking things apart that are subjective. But you know what? If you find this enlightening, be my guest.

[billeau2]

Thanks for getting it. It shouldn't be this hard to grasp the concept of objective examination of evidence, but the bigger picture matters much more than a debate and if it weren't for simple folks we'd have nobody to perform the simple tasks that help keep the world humming. Discussions however, are usually pretty fruitless.
Not trying to sound arrogant, though I do; just telling it like it actually is.

I have no problem with "fans" lol. But we have to have the capacity and willingness to look at things objectively.

[REDEEMER]

?
Best wins? Worse wins? Triangle type justifications about why an opponent is "better" or "worse." It just tells us nothing. Like when saying Joshua beat a better, worse version of Klitsko... There is no way to know that.
Assuming Wilder declined such a fight, what does it matter? They did not fight... that is all that matters.

You feel like all these observations like how good Martin was, ortiz's prime versus when he fought Wilder, stand as objective facts... Don't get me wrong, it is information but, what about when we look at and deconstruct Joshua's wins? Let me guess, Joshua fought everyone at prime? Like a 39 Pulev? No... it does not work that way. If you say "Joshua fought a better version of Klitsko than Fury" and I say "Fury handled Klitsko better" What does that tell us?

I don't find anything of substance doing this... Picking things apart that are subjective. But you know what? If you find this enlightening, be my guest.

Best wins would determine where one ranks . You know this you use it in the history section all the time that’s just foolishness now you guys are doing ,I get he’s your buddy but you guys are just talking in circles now . You keep saying enlighten you when you haven’t addressed one legit point I made about his ranking system which again is nonsense, imagine if I used Holmes win over Ali in an argument placing him in some type of order as the greatest heavyweight ? So when you say it doesn’t matter when someone defeats a fighter you know that’s a lie I’m not sure why your doing it now .


When has Klitschko lost a second fight back to back or lost against the same guy are you also ignoring Peter Fury said Tyson needs to be better in the rematch he never took ? No you’ll ignore that as well because it shows it’s very important when you fight a fighter at his best or more prepare the next time . It wouldn’t actually matter Klitschko is both Fury and A.J best win the different is one fought the worst title fight in history and the other got the stoppage . One was also suspected of ped use but that’s swept under the rug as well .


You are also circling around A.J opponents . His best wins are Klitschko, Povetkin, Parker ,Whyte Pulev , Ruiz …all,of who, would be considered Wilders best wins and he hasn’t fought any of them and 3 of them haven’t lost a fight since Joshua ,it would probably be 4 if Klitschko was still boxing so mixing up prime opponents doesn’t work either in Joshua’s case his best win isn’t Ortiz .

My last response here is can you tell me how that is not better then Wilders resume ?

[Willow The Wisp]

Well that’s trying to misconstrue the other fighter then you know that.

Breazeale was one of Wilders best wins it was his first power puncher he fought with one shot knockout power . A.J defeated the same guy in only a his 17th fight . That was a mandatory for Wilder that shows he’s way behind on the actual opponents,if Fury had not given Wilder the fight you know Wilder would have been eventual forced into a Joshua fight he declined twice .

Ortiz is not a proven top fighter with wins over Martin because he is not a top 10 in fact he was closer to that in 2016 because there’s far more better fighters now . Ortiz is not even near his prime and Wilder never fought him in it either so that’s his best win that’s just a fact .

If Ortiz manages a win over Ruiz then can you only say anything positive about an opponent Wilder defeated .these are just facts . Let’s use the year 2018 , who was Ortiz best win actually ? Well it’s still probably Jennings ? He really needs that Ruiz win that’s just another fact and Wilder needs him to win that fight if we’re using the same gages others use to determine how good a fighter was it can’t always be a separate thing for A.J .


Wilders resume isn’t close to Joshua’s you know and see how many times Wilders resume was ripped apart on here it’s almost like a chore on here when crazy ppl make crazy posts ,sorry but it is crazy saying Wilders resume is better which shows he’s the second best heavyweight ? Are we not including wins over yrs now ,it’s been 3 that alone makes it nonsense .


A.J haters and Fury and Wilder supporters on here actually need A.J to lose his next fight to have any grounds of more trolling ,if A. J wins he’ll have the best resume and it won’t even be hard to dispute at all . It’s not that hard now the guy has been in 12 title fights and has unified the title twice vs a self proclaimed best ever Fury and a guy who hand picked fights up until Fury .

When a fighter declines a fight that’s also a strike against them and both Wilder and Fury did that with A.J multiple times so the conversations should end there until one of them actually fights him they were offered the fight when available anything else is just not believable .

My last thing here is why haven’t you addressed the OP why he included an extra fighter to give Wilder more points in this zany thread point system he created ,isn’t that the guy who’s not being objective ? No it’s a guy with an agenda there’s little objective about him he uses numbers and says that explains everything ?

Thats allot of writing. You are committed to your ideas and I respect that. All fighers below a certain level are lumped togeter, and modest points are given refecting their sheer number (as you can read). Wilder ends up with one more qualified opponent than AJ does, which stands to reason given that Deontay Wildet has so many more total fights. The quality of each respective opponent is reflected and the scores are totaled. Yours is purely an argument cobbled together with emotions and impressions, and ignores the facts. If you want to make any headway using a solid foundation, tell me an example where I've ranked a Wilder opponent too highly and a Joshua opponent too low. Just find one. Careful though...don't use Joshua's Charles Martin being better than Wilder's Ortiz. That one's been settled in the ring! And you can see that in spite of his being middle aged, I gave Klitschko a top ranking, as I saw him confident, ready and committed to the win dispite his advanced age in his honorable war with Joshua. I like Joshua. I think he's a future hall of famer. But I think the same of Fury and Wilder as well. Three class A heavyweights sharing the same era. It occasionally happens. People who say Wilder sucks are....not knowledgeable.

[-DSG-]

1.Fury
2.Usyk
3.Joshua
4.Wilder
5.Ruiz/Ortiz

[War Room]

That's all nonsense and you don't know what your talking about and confessed the reason for that, but I do like your Gifs. Those a funny! Lol.

I got respect for a man that has Pep as an avatar, but this Wilder nonsense, come on brother =---> you're better than that. I don't like AJ either, but Wilder is a scam, you of all people should be on board with me on this. Fight with me, not against me!

[PRINCEKOOL]

Moments after Fury vs Wilder III, I did rank Wilder as the second best Heavyweight in the division.

But now the landscape has changed, and nobody knows the form Wilder is in.

Tyson Fury may never be pushed that hard again by a opponent. Wilder pushed Fury to the brink.

Over a duration of 3 fights, Wilder pushed Tyson Fury inside and outside of the ring.

I have no idea, zero idea why people try to claim that it was easy for Fury.

The Wilder fights are the reason why Tyson Fury retired in my opinion 'The strain of the challenge'.

Wilder was like one of those zombies, that would not go away. He was defiant inside and outside the ring.