conty22 wrote:Dohoupas is better than
Charr
Szpilka is much better boxer than this slow robotic
Wach . Wach has poor KO ratio against D level opposition. Wach has only chin lmao. He trhows 7 jabs per round. Szpilka is much better boxer. His movement , speed and everything exept his chin. Szpilka is the best Poland boxer right now.
How much is
Stiverne worse than
Takam or
Perez? People complain about who has Stiverne beat , but let's be fair. Takam lost against Gregory Tony and he has only one legit win against old Thompson. He needed 8 rounds against old Michael Grant
![[icon_e_biggrin.gif] :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
You all know what Lewis did to young prime Grant
So only one guy was much worse and it was
Eric Molina.
I do not get this HYPE .
Povetkin has some good wins over Byrd or Chagaev but in was in the past.
I agree that right now, Duhaupas is better than Charr, but Charr is clearly on the decline - when he fought Povetkin he had only lost to Vitali and that was arguably a premature stoppage and was coming off a five fight win streak (although by reports his decision over Johnson was dubious). Looking at their BoxRec ratings at the time they fought Povetkin and Wilder:
Duhaupas - 182
Charr - 289
I agree that Szpilka is a much better boxer than Wach, but he's also much smaller and weaker chinned. Considering that Jennings and MInto did to Szpilka, Wilder's performance against him was far from impressive (up until the KO of course). That Povetkin stopped Wach and the much bigger Wlad couldn't is very impressive.
Perez once looked formidable, but I think he will never be that same after the Mago fight. Takam, on the other hand, was a formidable opponent and a very good win for Povetkin - I would say on the same level as Wilder beating Stiverne.
I agree that based on recent opponents they are comparable (though I think Povetkin comes slightly ahead), but the way that Povetkin has been winning has been more impressive and he would deserve to start as a narrow favourite against Wilder.