Lets examine the momentum of Wilder's last 2 opponents

[N/A]

Are you seriousoy saying that Stiverne was top 5 or even top 10 when he held the WBC?

He was #2 ESPN, #2 Ring Magazine, #3 TBRB, etc. He was a top 3 fighter in the world in all the major independent rankings. How is this news to you? Did you start watching boxing yesterday?

[Madison Boxing]

people are overestimating wilder though. a shot old man in ortiz still might be too good for him.

[yankees7448]

Kings don't chase peasants. Peasants need to earn their shot at the king. Whyte hasn't done that yet.

Sorry, TL;DR[/QUOTE]

I just googled what TL;DR meant and here is what it came up with:

TL;DR : when someone knows they have been schooled on each and every point of the argument but don't want to admit they have been schooled so they just whine about how much you forced them to read. So here is a brief summary.

1. You can't dismiss Luis Ortiz as a PEDs cheater and then hype up Whyte's fight with a guy who lost his belt because he was caught cheating with PEDs.

2. You can't dismiss Luis Ortiz's win over Malik Scott and then hype up Derek Chisora when one of Derek Chisora's 2 biggest wins was over Malik Scott.

3. You don't get to hype up a win over Chisora when he gets destroyed every time he steps up. Especially when Whyte barely sc****d by him on the thinnest of margins.

4. You can't hype up getting destroyed in 7 rounds as if it were an accomplishment.

[juggernaut666]

All your info is from Ortiz fights that are over 2 years ago, you can't compare Parker and ortiz fairly, you are just speculating.....

just admit you don't know what Ortiz has as he hasn't fought a decent opponent in over 2 years.

I DID compare them and even included stats that reinforced actual facts as why Ortiz should be over Parker unlike SOMEONE basing his point on age and avoiding everyones questioning with no practical reasoning behind your points .

Parker isnt even ELIGABLE to fight Ortiz ,you use strawman points and havent figured out that THINKING Ortiz MIGHT be too old is ..... SPECULATION !

You know what we dont have to SPECULATE ? Parkers own abilites bc we have ACTUAL video of him struggling with guys Ortiz never would . We KNOW where hes at theres NOTHING to SPECULATE .

Ortiz had a YEAR in between fights from 2016 to 2017 .

Ortiz JUST fought in March , so no . My info is not from OVER 2 years ago its based STILL on all his performances which again show little fault in any fight hes EVER been in.

At NO time was he out of the ring for 2 years or inactive ,his best fights were in 2015 (Dec. ) / 2016 and theres STILL no evidence he is DONE by knocking some journeyman out easy in 2 rnds ? lol

And the FACT remains ,many ppl including myself consider Jennings a better fighter than most if not everyone on Wilders resume . Which was just a little over 2 years ago , two years and 3 months approximately .

It doesn't matter what i know or don't know about what Ortiz will bring .....at the PRESENT time Ortiz brings the greater threat than the other ranked fighters ,age doesnt dictate abilities .

If it did Klitchko at 41 would not have even got a title shot . Wasnt his best win in years against Jennings , TWO years before facing Joshua ( remember that straw man thing ? Its failed you again ) He didnt even have a better performance than Ortiz did against Jennings .



You know who hasn't fought in ACTUAL years since 2015 ? Yep your favorite fighter ...,WHEN he comes back and a fight is signed then you can do all the SPECULATING you want ! lol

Just admit this thread is a FLOP in trying to convince posters Ortiz is NOT the best possible fight in the WBC for Wilder ....HA HA !

[KillaMane26]

Team AJ. Don't seem too confident regardless

[daggum]

stirverne was freaking amazing. he beat arreola not once but twice! if thats not good enough to be ranked at the top of the division then nothing is

[Mr Objecitivity]

Ortiz is too big for Povetkin . Povetkin is better than Parker . I dont believe Povetkin defeats Wilder or Ortiz based on the size factor . Nobody actually knows if Povetkin can sustain a high level he doesnt have physical attributes to fall back on . His performance against Rudenko and Hammer leave major questions .

Ortiz has made all his fights look easy and has not taken alot of punishment . Overall list that i made that would favor Ortiz over Parker still applies to Povetkin but in a more competitive fight .

All of that is speculation. Here are some facts:

1) Alexander Povetkin's opponent's sum win:loss ratio (combined win:loss ratio of all of his opponents): 913 wins: 255 losses

2) Deontay Wilder's opponent's sum win:loss ratio (combined win loss:ratio of all of his opponents): Total: 687 wins: 406 losses.

In other words, Povetkin (with fewer bouts) has faced opponents OVERALL who have better winning records and who have less losses in their careers than Wilder's opponent's (despite having more bouts).

And I am fairly confident that Ortiz's opponents OVERALL are also inferior to Povetkin's.

Alexander Povetkin is the second most proven heavyweight of the last 5+ years after Wladimir Klitschko with the second best resume. He has actually PROVEN himself against various different opponents of various different styles and only has one loss to possibly the greatest heavyweight of all time during when he was close to his best.

On the other hand, Wilder, nor Ortiz have proven themselves anywhere near as much as Povetkin has based on their quality of opposition OVERALL. The only case you can make for either of them being superior (especially Ortiz) is the 'eye test'. Outside that, Povetkin has proven himself more in the ring than either of them two.

So it really doesn't come as a surprise that Ortiz has made his bouts look 'easier' than Povetkin has because of fighting against inferior level of opposition. Now I'm not claiming Ortiz couldn't be the favorite to beat Povetkin or have the stylistic advantage over him. I'm claiming that Ortiz merely hasn't yet proven himself as much as Povetkin has yet. Until then, I make Povetkin the clear favorite to win if they fought!

At this point, I would only favor Anthony Joshua to beat Alexander Povetkin (based on recent performances). Unless of course Povetkin deteriorates even more this year where he can no longer perform at the high level and intensity that you mentioned. Only then would I also make Ortiz and Wilder the favorite over Povetkin too. However, I would favor a younger Povetkin over them all.

And Ortiz didn't look any better against the likes of Malik Scott than Povetkin did against Andriy Rudenko. So if Povetkin's performance leaves question marks against Rudenko, then so shoud Ortiz's against Malik Scott.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Stiverne was 38 years old, was never any good to begin with, and had one poor performance vs Rossy after the Wilder loss.....and was somehow the WBC mandatory!??? Why has Wilder got praise for beating this BUM again?

Ortiz looked good, 3 years ago! he hasn't had a "fight" since Jennings (a B level opponent any way), beat up TT, then fought Allen and Scott (looking terrible), takes a year off and comes back and fights for 200 seconds against some guy that was 2-3 in his last 5 fights and never threw a punch, and somehow this guy is STILL the boogeyman of the division??!!!

How can any one justify these opponents for a world title? why are the WBC sanctioning these fights? it's a disgrace to boxing, the HW division and the WBC belt!

Old, inactive bums and people are praising this as some step-up for Wilder......I can't.....

This is a green K thread that I totally agree with!

Here are some facts supported by numbers / stats to put some context in to the whole thing so as to gain a better understanding:

1) Alexander Povetkin's opponent's sum win:loss ratio (combined win:loss ratio of all of his opponents): 913 wins: 255 losses

2) Deontay Wilder's opponent's sum win:loss ratio (combined win loss:ratio of all of his opponents): Total: 687 wins: 406 losses

In other words, Povetkin (with fewer bouts) has faced opponents OVERALL who have better winning records and who have less losses in their careers than Wilder's opponent's (despite having more bouts).

And I am fairly confident that Ortiz's opponents OVERALL are also inferior to Povetkin's.

I thought I'd point these particular facts / stats out to prove a point.

[juggernaut666]

All of that is speculation. Here are some facts:

1) Alexander Povetkin's opponent's sum win:loss ratio (combined win:loss ratio of all of his opponents): 913 wins: 255 losses

2) Deontay Wilder's opponent's sum win:loss ratio (combined win loss:ratio of all of his opponents): Total: 687 wins: 406 losses.

In other words, Povetkin (with fewer bouts) has faced opponents OVERALL who have better winning records and who have less losses in their careers than Wilder's opponent's (despite having more bouts).

And I am fairly confident that Ortiz's opponents OVERALL are also inferior to Povetkin's.

Alexander Povetkin is the second most proven heavyweight of the last 5+ years after Wladimir Klitschko with the second best resume. He has actually PROVEN himself against various different opponents of various different styles and only has one loss to possibly the greatest heavyweight of all time during when he was close to his best.

On the other hand, Wilder, nor Ortiz have proven themselves anywhere near as much as Povetkin has based on their quality of opposition OVERALL. The only case you can make for either of them being superior (especially Ortiz) is the 'eye test'. Outside that, Povetkin has proven himself more in the ring than either of them two.

So it really doesn't come as a surprise that Ortiz has made his bouts look 'easier' than Povetkin has because of fighting against inferior level of opposition. Now I'm not claiming Ortiz couldn't be the favorite to beat Povetkin or have the stylistic advantage over him. I'm claiming that Ortiz merely hasn't yet proven himself as much as Povetkin has yet. Until then, I make Povetkin the clear favorite to win if they fought!

At this point, I would only favor Anthony Joshua to beat Alexander Povetkin (based on recent performances). Unless of course Povetkin deteriorates even more this year where he can no longer perform at the high level and intensity that you mentioned. Only then would I also make Ortiz and Wilder the favorite over Povetkin too. However, I would favor a younger Povetkin over them all.

And Ortiz didn't look any better against the likes of Malik Scott than Povetkin did against Andriy Rudenko. So if Povetkin's performance leaves question marks against Rudenko, then so shoud Ortiz's against Malik Scott.

1 . Sum win /ratios have absolutely nothing to do with head to head match's

2 . Same applies to Wilder .

IM sure Povetkins resume is one of the best on paper ,hes was around in the Klitchko era and has racked up some decent wins overall, im also as sure if Ortiz was on it that Povetkin would have taken an L .

Ortiz is not fighting Povetkins resume just like hes not fighting Wilders ,he HIMSELF is fighting Wilder and it will be by far either ones biggest win .

Povetkin is NOT young so that is speculation ,bc its not possible to determine . Povetkin years ago struggled with Huck , so would have being younger be an advantage ? Thats speculation bc some of his best wins have been after Klitchko .

The eye test is not as speculative bc it is something possible NOW that can be applied to form an educated opinion bc you are comparing the only 2 who are actually fighting .

Unlike mashing up numbers all together of combined wins and losses of who their opponents fought to detemine who has the advantage which is meaningless and unrealistic.

EYE TEST
EX: Malik Scott

Clearly out classed , Clearly knocked down multiple times ,mostly out of fear , and most of all CLEARLY didnt want to be in there so avoided to fight by not fighting all together .

CONCLUSION : The fight hasnt determined anything for or against Ortiz other than Malik was not going to win under any circumstances.



WIN / LOSS METHOD
EX : Will vs Jimmy

Wills opponents have a 250 / 100 wins to loses .

Jimmys opponents have a 280 / 180 wins to loses .


Jimmy has 30 more wins but his opponents have lost alot more .

Will has less wins but his opponents have lost less and has 150 to Jimmys 100 ratio of wins .

Will and Jimmy are going to fight eachother .

Jimmy has never lost but Will has fought the better opponents . Everyone says Will should win bc hes overall better and has fought better guys but Jimmy ends up winning bc they did not take other things into consideration like experience and size . Jimmy outweighed Will by 50 pounds .

CONCLUSION : Mashing numbers to determine outcomes are flawed .

[Holler]

He was #2 ESPN, #2 Ring Magazine, #3 TBRB, etc. He was a top 3 fighter in the world in all the major independent rankings. How is this news to you? Did you start watching boxing yesterday?

This is the level of fighter Stiverne was facing. Never faced anyone ranked within top 10.

Watch boxing for long enough and you realise that people can game '/ manipulate / rig the rankings and get their guy to a level that will allow them to reap the rewards. I don't think Stiverne was ever top 3, I do think his promoter has a long history of rigging the system however.

Regardless, it's not Wilder's fault that Stiverne was an unworthy champion. He can only beat what's in front of him. It is Wilder and his team's fault however that Stiverne is the best name on his resume. Even with Povetkin and Ortiz testing positive Wilder is 32 and has fought 39 times.