Why hasn't Deontay Wilder faced the following boxers in his pro career so far?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Wow. He probably amazed you with his performance then?
So a prime Ortiz would be better than prime Wilder?

I knew what to expect from Luis Ortiz. he showed some of the skills that he possesses, but couldn't sustain it or apply it for long enough due to his age and his poor physical condition.

Yes, Luis Ortiz at his best, such as when he fought Bryant Jennings, would've defeated Deontay Wilder in my opinion.

[JAB5239]

Speak for yourself! You're not in a position to say if everyone else takes Wilder's words seriously.

I take Wilder's words seriously, because I have no reason not to. And based on that, I criticize his poor level of opposition.

I don't criticize Vitali Klitschko's resume, for the same reason why I don't criticize Hughie Fury's resume or Andy Ruiz Jr's resume. Because none of those guys are / were disrespecting past heavyweight greats and calling themselves greats, without even first proving to be the best of their own era.

The question is, why should I criticize Vitali Klitschko's resume?

The word objective means, holding everyone to the same standard and judging them by the same standard / rule. How is anything I've done so far, not objective? You haven't answered this question yet!

If you're objective than why are you not criticizing any other fighters for their resumes? You sound like a child saying you take Wilders words seriously. Or do you mean to tell me that you think it's objective to demean a fighter over a self promoted opinion of himself? Wouldn't it be more prudent to argue the merits of fighters fought, or not fought in this case? Personally I think you're avoiding this because you know you will no longer be able to paint the same picture. Fact is, Wilder doesn't have a good resume. But he's still young enough, improving and has shown he wants to make fights. That's more than I can say for many other fighters.

[Mr Objecitivity]

If you're objective than why are you not criticizing any other fighters for their resumes? You sound like a child saying you take Wilders words seriously. Or do you mean to tell me that you think it's objective to demean a fighter over a self promoted opinion of himself? Wouldn't it be more prudent to argue the merits of fighters fought, or not fought in this case? Personally I think you're avoiding this because you know you will no longer be able to paint the same picture. Fact is, Wilder doesn't have a good resume. But he's still young enough, improving and has shown he wants to make fights. That's more than I can say for many other fighters.

I've already answered why I'm not criticizing other boxers for their resumes. It's because, other boxers aren't / weren't claiming they are / were better than other past heavyweight champions or they were great heavyweights, when they didn't even first prove to be the best of their own era. I've answered this question multiple times now.

How does it make me non-objective, if I am critical of the resume of every heavyweight boxer that claims to be an all time great or better than other past greats, when they have yet to even prove to be the best of their own era?

Yes, it is objective of me to criticize a boxer over their resume, if they are claiming to be better than other past greats or dissing past greats, when they haven't even proven to be the best of their own era. Provided, I apply this standard for every other boxer too.

Do you even know what the word 'objective' means? Explain the definition please!