The haters have hated for 5 years and Wilder is still the champion.

[Blond Beast]

I will take that line! I do not think Wilder is any better than most people originally thought, he just hits like a mule. Realistically he's only beaten 1 credible opponent in a 5 year title reign. That is incredibly tough to look past and the best and most convincing fight on his record is a draw, where the majority thought he lost. (I actually thought a draw was fair but that's not general consensus)

I have absolutely no issues at all in saying I thought Brezeale would do better than he did (I still had cash on wilder to win by ko!) and I also picked him to beat Ortiz but felt he would do so coming from behind. Wilder reminds me of Carl Froch in many ways, very similar mindsets, crude as heck at times but tough as nails and inhumane levels of self belief and power, especially so in Wilder's case. However world champions don't tend to lose every second of every round in fights and the ones that do will eventually be found out. I think the same is true of Wilder, if it isn't - awesome! I have been wrong 100 times on boxing and i'm sure ill be wrong 100 times more I can only form an opinion, based on how I see somebody fight.

I think Wilder gets a lot of hate and most of it is entirely unwarranted, admittedly he is a polarising sort of dude but he's still great for the sport!

Very well said indeed! I think Fury won on points as far as the system dictates. Its when u get dropped twice and one of the times was damn hard and in the 12th round, it kind of lessens the value of how much all that previous “winning” was worth. It wasent enough winning for Fury to get a KD or stoppage himself, and it wasent worth being able to keep Wilder off him in the last round. That’s how I can “feel” the fight a draw if I don’t score it like a judge would have to. Maybe that’s ur conclusion too. I thought he’d KO Ortiz sooner than the first fight, and he did, but I didn’t expect him to be so calm and prepared to lose so many rounds. One day he might run out of time if he’s too patient. I like the nervous scared bombs away energy. With his power I think it’s his best chance, especially if he’s as unskilled as a lot say he is. But I think he is underrated skill wise like u said. He haven’t been dropped once yet himself. It happens at heavyweight. Sometimes I really like hearing him talk. I hated the “warm body” comments though. Maybe he meant it, maybe he didnt. But he doesn’t know what that feels like. Something could happen to him one day even. He should talk to Ray Boom Boom. I’m leaning towards Fury on points. If Wilder blows him out I’ll be damn impressed. Like u said getting things wrong is part of the fun, and brings us back.

[15 Rounds again]

I'm not claiming anything. It's easily verifiable fact. Look it up yourself.

Nah, you are either slow minded or a paid shill. There is no other explanation. Wilder's resume is crap. How many fights has he had? Where is Wlads name on his record, Whyte, Povetkin, Parker and more? He's being carefully managed, and its because of people like you who dont object to it when governing bodies allow fighters to avoid mandatory and cherry pick. Joshua would absolutely toy with Wilder before obliterating him into a crumpled mess. Wilder and Finkel know this, so they lie and duck

[techliam]

Here’s the difference:

Unbiased perspective - Wilder hasn’t achieved enough to be regarded so highly. But if he beats Fury legitimately, he will be worthy of the praise. Fully acknowledge the idea that everything isn’t black/white (love/hate) and adjust appropriately to the actual facts

Biased perspective - attempt to twist the current facts to create positive perspectives for everything, despite the fairly thin resume. Don’t wait for any noteworthy wins, instead cast your lot early. No decent wins? No problem, throw out an alternative methodology based on the history of the WBC. Most capable posters won’t fall for it though

Pretty clear which posters fall into which category

[techliam]

Very well said indeed! I think Fury won on points as far as the system dictates. Its when u get dropped twice and one of the times was damn hard and in the 12th round, it kind of lessens the value of how much all that previous “winning” was worth. It wasent enough winning for Fury to get a KD or stoppage himself, and it wasent worth being able to keep Wilder off him in the last round. That’s how I can “feel” the fight a draw if I don’t score it like a judge would have to. Maybe that’s ur conclusion too. I thought he’d KO Ortiz sooner than the first fight, and he did, but I didn’t expect him to be so calm and prepared to lose so many rounds. One day he might run out of time if he’s too patient. I like the nervous scared bombs away energy. With his power I think it’s his best chance, especially if he’s as unskilled as a lot say he is. But I think he is underrated skill wise like u said. He haven’t been dropped once yet himself. It happens at heavyweight. Sometimes I really like hearing him talk. I hated the “warm body” comments though. Maybe he meant it, maybe he didnt. But he doesn’t know what that feels like. Something could happen to him one day even. He should talk to Ray Boom Boom. I’m leaning towards Fury on points. If Wilder blows him out I’ll be damn impressed. Like u said getting things wrong is part of the fun, and brings us back.

With respect, boxing is scored round by round. 12 separate times. It’s almost irrelevant what happened in the previous round. It means the bolded part of your post has no bearing in scoring fights

[Marchegiano]

Here’s the difference:

Unbiased perspective - Wilder hasn’t achieved enough to be regarded so highly. But if he beats Fury legitimately, he will be worthy of the praise. Fully acknowledge the idea that everything isn’t black/white (love/hate) and adjust appropriately to the actual facts

Biased perspective - attempt to twist the current facts to create positive perspectives for everything, despite the fairly thin resume. Don’t wait for any noteworthy wins, instead cast your lot early. No decent wins? No problem, throw out an alternative methodology based on the history of the WBC. Most capable posters won’t fall for it though

Pretty clear which posters fall into which category

How much do you put into triangle theory?

[techliam]

How much do you put into triangle theory?

Considering that ‘theory’ (if it ever was one) has been disproven time and time again, it should go without saying

How does it relate to Wilder?

[Marchegiano]

Considering that ‘theory’ (if it ever was one) has been disproven time and time again, it should go without saying

How does it relate to Wilder?

Well, okay, care to explain to me how resume whoring isn't triangle theory except even more convoluted and removed from the ring?


A beats B, B beats C, does not mean A beats C. We all pretty much know this....all of us who've been fans for any considerable length anyway. However, when it comes to resume we throw this principle right out the window and say A is proven better than C because A beat B and B beat C.

I don't mean to argue for or against triangle theory or resume/record exaltation. I just think it's curious triangle theory is almost universally looked down on while names on records are almost universally exalted as proof of skills.

As it pertains to Wilder, I feel it's ducking the issue. You can compare Wilder to any level of competition any other fighter has faced. It doesn't explain his run, it's like a pretentious stance, basically, I won't bother with explaining how or why until his record proves to me I need to. Eh..that's ducking the issue.

[techliam]

Well, okay, care to explain to me how resume whoring isn't triangle theory except even more convoluted and removed from the ring?


A beats B, B beats C, does not mean A beats C. We all pretty much know this....all of us who've been fans for any considerable length anyway. However, when it comes to resume we throw this principle right out the window and say A is proven better than C because A beat B and B beat C.

I don't mean to argue for or against triangle theory or resume/record exaltation. I just think it's curious triangle theory is almost universally looked down on while names on records are almost universally exalted as proof of skills.

As it pertains to Wilder, I feel it's ducking the issue. You can compare Wilder to any level of competition any other fighter has faced. It doesn't explain his run, it's like a pretentious stance, basically, I won't bother with explaining how or why until his record proves to me I need to. Eh..that's ducking the issue.

There is a more foundational error there, in that you’re making a false equivalence

The triangle ‘theory’ is a predictive tool based on flawed logic

Comparing resumes is a method that allows for qualitative comparison, in lieu of fighters proving in the ring at the very moment, which is mostly impossible. It doesn’t conclude that the person with the ‘better’ resume (A) would beat fighter (B), it simply ranks who has achieved more.

I don’t recognise the example you’ve provided - ‘say A is proven better than C because A beat B and B beat C’, that is just a triangle theory with a bit of paint on top. Remove the triangle and open the scope, and you’ll probably conclude that A has proven more than C because he has beaten B, and C has no comparable wins to B. If C does have comparable wins, does A have a comparable loss?

I really don’t see how the two are comparable at all, in scope, methodology or even results. Using triangle theories in any method will produce bad results, like your example

[Marchegiano]

There is a more foundational error there, in that you’re making a false equivalence

The triangle ‘theory’ is a predictive tool based on flawed logic

Comparing resumes is a method that allows for qualitative comparison, in lieu of fighters proving in the ring at the very moment, which is mostly impossible. It doesn’t conclude that the person with the ‘better’ resume (A) would beat fighter (B), it simply ranks who has achieved more.

I don’t recognise the example you’ve provided - ‘say A is proven better than C because A beat B and B beat C’, that is just a triangle theory with a bit of paint on top. Remove the triangle and open the scope, and you’ll probably conclude that A has proven more than C because he has beaten B, and C has no comparable wins to B. If C does have comparable wins, does A have a comparable loss?

I really don’t see how the two are comparable at all, in scope, methodology or even results. Using triangle theories in any method will produce bad results, like your example

You don't think that's cutting hairs and playing semantics?

You are using triangle theory to claim one has proven more than the other.

Nothing to do with performance, nothing to do with technique, nothing to do with any physical sequence that ever took place in the ring. Just a name used as evidence to suggest one man ought to be elevated above another. Better than, more proven.....whatever, at the core of it what you are saying is your evidence to suggest A is above C in any regard is A having defeated B who themselves defeated C.

[Blond Beast]

With respect, boxing is scored round by round. 12 separate times. It’s almost irrelevant what happened in the previous round. It means the bolded part of your post has no bearing in scoring fights

Obviously I know how the “Ten point must” system works. I’m talking about perception of a fight as a whole. They used to go until someone could no longer toe the line. Street fights go until someone quits. When u survive by the bell in the final round, someone can say u almost lost, or barely won, or it was close in the end, because it’s true. On paper winning 11 out of 12rnds looks great, but not so great if ur the one barely surviving in the 12th.