Joshua vs Wilder in December

But is there any way Wilder could prove otherwise, other than looking better?

As of now, Wilder's record is objectively better than, say, Razor Ruddock's. Still I believe many would pick Ruddock to beat him (and others hws of this moment).

That can only be based on 'eye-test', which, as I tried to explain, we don't in fact trust all that much.

 

A Swedish site writes that Joshua is going to face Otto Wallin in December 23rd, with Wilder vs Parker on the undercard.


Wallin has some advantages over Joshua that Usyk had (good movement, southpaw stance) and has more reach, but lacks the combos and is even lesser a puncher

 

Nah, apart from the supposedly ''untrustworthy'' eye test, we have a textbook example of why the division is garbage and a perfect valid theory to explain it. You chose to either ignore it, change the goal posts or make far fetched arguments to disregard it.

Basically you are taking what are some very rare occurrences ( that some good, even great fighters look mediocre, though none look remotely as appaling as the clowns we have at hw) and try to apply it to a whole division where they all look like clueless novices and/or clumsy oafs.

Fine, but please don't try to pretend you are the one using a ''rational'' approach.

 

Wilder fails the eye-test x 1000. It's quite obvious his boxing skills are abysmal, not to say non-existent. That him and that other big clown ( Joshua) had so much success is a clear indication of the suckyness of the division. He does have good athleticism though.

I also find it weird to see UGTBK claiming that Ortiz obviously passes the eye-test. To me it's it quite clear that despite solid technique, he would be nothing more than a decent journeyman in a good division due to his slowness of feet and hands; even with a sturdy chin (his seem average at best). Never recall anyone hyping Ortiz has some kind of special talent to be honest...

 

The point was that if the eye-test was reliable, Wilder shouldn't do well even now, since even now there are guys who look much better than him, Ortiz among them.

But I am not really trying to convince you here, nor trying to win anything, thus I have no reason to move any goalposts. I do believe sports fans tend to think in illogical ways, and I totally understand and accept that most people think I am dead wrong. So what. Sharing views is the whole point of forums anyway

 

Wilder is what he is. He's one of the top 10 biggest punchers in heavyweight history, that much I won't dispute. But do I consider him notable outside of that distinction? Nah, not really.

 

Wilder fights like a 38-year old, 3x champ Randall Bailey

 

Wilder wish he had the balance, footwork, and punch variation of a Randall Bailey...

 

Can we get a dislike button, punk? Ant? tha disrespeck

 

He has power. I feel like he needs to knock out some more legit guys for that distinction

 

AJ and Wilder are fighting on December but not against each other. That’s a bummer.

Anthony Joshua returns against Otto Wallin and Deontay Wilder faces Joseph Parker on same bill in Saudi Arabia

 

Pretty good for stay-busy fights.

As I said before, Wallin has some attributes in common with Usyk and has a pretty good run. It will be interesting to see if Joshua can show any improvement. However, if Ingemar Johansson was 'one-punch Swede', then Wallin is 'no-punch Swede'. He wouldn't KO Herbie Hide with free shots.

Parker should have the face-furst style to cause Wilder some problems, and also to take a nap sooner or later

 

Not entirely. Rudduck fought a lot more quality fighters than Wilder did, and even in his losses, still showed his level of ability.

We still speak about Wilder as if we don't know what he's capable of. He was heavyweight champion for seven years, and we still speak about his potential/ability based on the eye test and not his resume. Granted, the division was hardly legendary, but still, his best wins are Stiverne, Ortiz and Breazeale. Had he instead simply faced guys like Povetkin (2016), Parker (2017?) Whyte/Joshua (2018), and went out with the Fury fights, I know I'd be a lot more impressed than I am with what he's actually done - even if he won by decision. He'd probably be a lot richer too.

 

Did he? A SD over way past prime Weaver, a brutal KO over fat Dokes and a stoppage over old Bonecrusher after suffering a KD, that's pretty much it as far as I can recall.

I truly believe Wilder's wins are better. Ruddock had a reputation as the 'uncrowned king' but there was very little basis for it.

 

Wilder is going to waste Parker. Parker likes to move around and fence his opponent. That is a recipe for disaster against Wilder.

 

Parker is shit.

 

Wilder was Signed/Scheduled to Face Povetkin, Who FAILED a Pre Fight Drug Test for PED's...Even w/the Failed Test, Wilder was Still WILLING to Go Thru w/the Fight, IN RUSSIA No Less...Eddie Hearn HID Joshua from Wilder Because He was In the Midst of Launching DAZN to American Audiences, Needed Joshua as the FACE of Said Launch and Wanted to MILK a Few Bouts 1st, Before Entertaining Wilder...

Of Course, "Bad Built" Andy Ruined Hearns Ultimate Plans...

ALL a Man Can Do is Make an EARNEST Effort to Get the Best Fights Made...Throughout His Career, Deontay Wilder Has Done This...




REED

 

Wilder deserves criticism in my eyes for not trying to get Klitschko in the ring.

I think both parties are to blame for Wilder-AJ not happening tbh, I do remember Wilder admitting to turning down a 50m offer for that fight.

Reed is right though, Wilder did everything he could to fight Povetkin, more than would be expected in normal circumstances. Travelling to Russia and being willing to forego the failed test. He should get no shit for that one not happening.

 

I said fought, not beat. Rudduck faced a pre prison Tyson twice, and a young Lennox Lewis. I'd argue that Dokes was better than anyone Wilder has beat; especially off the back of his performance against Holyfield, though. Didn't he beat Bonecrusher too? I can't remember.

I'm not really a fan of Rudduck and certainly would never consider him to some form of uncrowned king, but I think it's clear he was better than Wilder, even in his losses.

 

Theyre all shit. The only skilled fighter in the heavyweight division is Usyk. Even fury is just a big sloppy mess.

 

Serious question: if Fury beats Usyk clearly, does it prove that Usyk is shit too, or that Fury has abilities, IYO?

 

Another thing about this bit off-topic, since you often refer to titles.

You have vast information about boxing history, but you really shouldn't pay ANY attention to title belts anymore. Wilder has never been a champion.

It can be a problem that there are not many better heavyweights than him, and I agree his record is quite lacking, although it is not solely his fault. But in no other time in history would we call a long-time contender 'champion'. He is to this era what Tua was to late 90s, or Terrell to sixties.

People made the same mistake already in 90s claiming that heavyweight was weak because the champions were Botha, Bruno and Seldon (although Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield and Tyson were there too).

This era IS weak, but it has zero to do with title belts. Also Usyk's hw legacy is two wins over Joshua, not his titles

 

I know we're a bunch of jaded cynics here but im saying it: what a card! 4 separate fights that would be solid main events

 

Saudis don't have the obligation, or even the intention, to break even economically. Suits us as fans

 

That's a great card. Hopefully it doesnt fall apart

 

Well, that depends on how he wins. If he smothers him and doesn't let either do anything then I'd still consider him to be a big sloppy mess. But an effective one. But if Usyk loses to someone who weighs 40 pounds more than him and is supposedly half a foot taller, will I think he's shit? No.

Either way, my estimation of both will go probably go up after the fight, unless it's a Crawford-Spence situation where one guy gets absolutely dominated.

 

I agree with everything you just said.

However, I tend to refer to titles in the modern era because despite my own thoughts on them, it's the way of boxing today. ABC titles matter to fans, to marketability, credibility, and the fighters themselves. Obviously they're a complete fucking cash scheme, but they've become integral to boxing to the point they're era defining. Wilder is a long reigning champ in the same way Golovkin was. Because we unfortunately live in an era where a guy like Wilder can be called a champion, it only makes sense to do IMO.

Although, I do usually contradict this when talking about the WBA regular title, or in Haney's case, the WBC title. While they've got World Champion on the belt, they're not even number one in the WBA's estimations so how can they be the champion? Anyway, sorry for the tangent at the end there

 

I agree, and that's probably the most badass thing about Wilder tbh.

If I'm remembering right, Hearn offered Wilder a three fight deal to fight on DAZN with the first being Breazeale for 20 million. I recall something about him getting 50 million for both of the last two fights if he fought Joshua in the states, so it does seem like Hearn felt ready for it, but it never came to be.

I don't really care whether it was deliberate or not, but I simply meant that throughout his reign, there was someone who he should/could've fought, and if he'd fought even just two or three of them, it'd be a lot easier to compare him with guys from other eras.

 

I've thought Wilder was hot garbage for a very long time. But I don't think it can be debated he has tried to fight everyone (sans Klitschko)

At least when it comes to that I tend to believe him in general that he hasn't really ducked anyone and noone wants to fight him.