BoxRec

Stuarty30 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:25 Povetkin, Parker, Pulev and Miller are decent but as pug said even the champs are mediocre nowadays. BoxRec has Bellew rated 5th best at heavyweight ffs! Says it all!

IronFrost wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:34

Stuarty30 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:25 Povetkin, Parker, Pulev and Miller are decent but as pug said even the champs are mediocre nowadays. BoxRec has Bellew rated 5th best at heavyweight ffs! Says it all!

But are those guys dangerous like Luis Ortiz?

For example Pulev has no power , Povetkin has short reach and is very small compare to Wilder or Joshua,

Miller is not on Ortiz's level at all. Slow and pounderous.


Seems like Joseph Parker and Luis Ortiz are the best choices and the most dangerous opponents for Wilder or Joshua

Stuarty30 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:46

IronFrost wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:34

Stuarty30 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:25 Povetkin, Parker, Pulev and Miller are decent but as pug said even the champs are mediocre nowadays. BoxRec has Bellew rated 5th best at heavyweight ffs! Says it all!

But are those guys dangerous like Luis Ortiz?

For example Pulev has no power , Povetkin has short reach and is very small compare to Wilder or Joshua,

Miller is not on Ortiz's level at all. Slow and pounderous.


Seems like Joseph Parker and Luis Ortiz are the best choices and the most dangerous opponents for Wilder or Joshua

I've not been impressed with Ortiz his last few fights. He's been fuckin dreadful. I think Wilder will KO him in three tbh.

IronFrost wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:53

Stuarty30 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:46

IronFrost wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 12:34



But are those guys dangerous like Luis Ortiz?

For example Pulev has no power , Povetkin has short reach and is very small compare to Wilder or Joshua,

Miller is not on Ortiz's level at all. Slow and pounderous.


Seems like Joseph Parker and Luis Ortiz are the best choices and the most dangerous opponents for Wilder or Joshua

I've not been impressed with Ortiz his last few fights. He's been fuckin dreadful. I think Wilder will KO him in three tbh.

Who looked great in their recent fights ? Povetkin and Parker were just so bad. And Kubrat fought ghosts like Peter or Kingpin No one looked GREAT

candyslim wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 13:25 I would pick the Ortiz who crushed Bryant Jennings to school Wilder. Wilder would have just a puncher's chance that he will always have - you can never write him off entirely.

Is Ortiz still that same fighter? If the fight went ahead Ortiz would be 39 officially and could be a lot older. He hasn't impressed in his last fights and looks to be on the slide.

If Haymon thought Ortiz was as good now as he was two or three years ago, there is no way in my opinion that he would be risking Wilder fighting Ortiz in a voluntary defence. History shows team Wilder to be risk averse.

Even now I'm not really expecting the fight to happen.

Dancin' Dan wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 13:12 Every decent opponent is dangerous for Wilder. I am amazed how many folks don't simply look at his record. He has not fought a single top ten opponent. Zero. Ortiz is getting older but is a big puncher and one of the most dangerous out there. Funny how both Poventkin and Ortiz are now clear to fight after the messes with Wilder. Wilder needs to fight someone in the top ten before he is 50-0. Joshua's record is mind boggling better with much fewer fights.

candyslim wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 18:57 Joshua has wins over top ten (then or now) contenders Dillian Whyte, Charles Martin, Dominic Breazeale, Wladimir Klitschko, and Carlos Takam. Take Martin out of the equation and anyone of them would be favoured to beat any Wilder opponent you care to name.

This despite having half the number of fights and having been a pro for half the amount of time. If you're not impressed it's because you don't want to be.

I suppose WK being on the last leg (of his long career) is accurate in a literal sense, but I seriously doubt Wilder could have coped with him that night and emerged the winner, even in the unlikely event he were up for the challenge.

Your Flores comment; I couldn't work out what it was you were attempting to say.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 19:09

candyslim wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 18:57 Joshua has wins over top ten (then or now) contenders Dillian Whyte, Charles Martin, Dominic Breazeale, Wladimir Klitschko, and Carlos Takam. Take Martin out of the equation and anyone of them would be favoured to beat any Wilder opponent you care to name.

This despite having half the number of fights and having been a pro for half the amount of time. If you're not impressed it's because you don't want to be.

I suppose WK being on the last leg (of his long career) is accurate in a literal sense, but I seriously doubt Wilder could have coped with him that night and emerged the winner, even in the unlikely event he were up for the challenge.

Your Flores comment; I couldn't work out what it was you were attempting to say.

I agree. Wlad on his showing against joshua would have destroyed wilder.

Badhusker wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 20:49

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 19:09

candyslim wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 18:57 Joshua has wins over top ten (then or now) contenders Dillian Whyte, Charles Martin, Dominic Breazeale, Wladimir Klitschko, and Carlos Takam. Take Martin out of the equation and anyone of them would be favoured to beat any Wilder opponent you care to name.

This despite having half the number of fights and having been a pro for half the amount of time. If you're not impressed it's because you don't want to be.

I suppose WK being on the last leg (of his long career) is accurate in a literal sense, but I seriously doubt Wilder could have coped with him that night and emerged the winner, even in the unlikely event he were up for the challenge.

Your Flores comment; I couldn't work out what it was you were attempting to say.

I agree. Wlad on his showing against joshua would have destroyed wilder.

I just love arguments that compare this guys opponents would beat any of that guys opponents, meaning that is why he is better. Candy you are such a doofus.

As far as the laughable Wlad that showed against Joshua would have destroyed Wilder. Logically, the Wlad that fought Fury, being a year and a half younger and active, would be better than a non-active 41 yr old Wlad that was out of the ring for a year and a half. How many boxers all of a sudden get significantly better between 39 and 41? Could the difference possibly be the style of the opponent? Why did Wlad choose to fight Joshua instead of Wilder? He fought him because he saw things he could expose, knew he was still green, and was less of a risk than the wild devastating puncher Wilder is.

The most devastating thing that could happen in the heavyweight scene right now is Joshua losing to Wilder, and AJ nuthuggers hate the thought with a passion. I think Ortiz presents a big challenge for Wilder, and is possibly a tougher challenge for Wilder than Joshua is. Ortiz is better skilled, just older. One thing for sure, is Joshua is not in a hurry to fight either guy.

Badhusker wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 20:49

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 19:09

candyslim wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 18:57 Joshua has wins over top ten (then or now) contenders Dillian Whyte, Charles Martin, Dominic Breazeale, Wladimir Klitschko, and Carlos Takam. Take Martin out of the equation and anyone of them would be favoured to beat any Wilder opponent you care to name.

This despite having half the number of fights and having been a pro for half the amount of time. If you're not impressed it's because you don't want to be.

I suppose WK being on the last leg (of his long career) is accurate in a literal sense, but I seriously doubt Wilder could have coped with him that night and emerged the winner, even in the unlikely event he were up for the challenge.

Your Flores comment; I couldn't work out what it was you were attempting to say.

I agree. Wlad on his showing against joshua would have destroyed wilder.

I just love arguments that compare this guys opponents would beat any of that guys opponents, meaning that is why he is better. Candy you are such a doofus.

As far as the laughable Wlad that showed against Joshua would have destroyed Wilder. Logically, the Wlad that fought Fury, being a year and a half younger and active, would be better than a non-active 41 yr old Wlad that was out of the ring for a year and a half. How many boxers all of a sudden get significantly better between 39 and 41? Could the difference possibly be the style of the opponent? Why did Wlad choose to fight Joshua instead of Wilder? He fought him because he saw things he could expose, knew he was still green, and was less of a risk than the wild devastating puncher Wilder is.

The most devastating thing that could happen in the heavyweight scene right now is Joshua losing to Wilder, and AJ nuthuggers hate the thought with a passion. I think Ortiz presents a big challenge for Wilder, and is possibly a tougher challenge for Wilder than Joshua is. Ortiz is better skilled, just older. One thing for sure, is Joshua is not in a hurry to fight either guy.

Badhusker wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 08:22 Unlike most posters here, I don't give Joshua the huge amount of credit for his win vs Wlad, because of Wlad's age, being out of the ring for 1.5 years, and how he looked in the fight previously. My point is that Wlad looking much better had something to do with the opponent, their style, and many fail to admit it had anything at all to do with it.

cs: Yes Joshua's style is far more suited to Klitscho than Fury's was. As I've recently posted, Fury has the tools to nullify Klitschko and I believe would be likely to beat him if they were both at their peak. That's not to say Fury is a better fighter than wlad any more than Norton was better than Ali. As you say it's a matter of styles.

cs: Also I believe Wlad's long time dominance of the division made him complacent which wouldn't have helped him in the Fury fight.

Now we have Wilder apparently lined up against Ortiz, who is about 2 years younger than Wlad was, is undefeated, active, and those same posters are already attempting to downplay the win of Wilder over Ortiz. (Just in case it happens)

cs: I take your point but there were serious doubts about a 41 year old, 15 months inactive, coming off a loss, Klitschko as well. I was expecting a short blast out for AJ. There is a reason why the inexperienced Joshua was the favourite, and that isn't because Wlad was thought to be inferior, just old and passed his best. Maybe Ortiz will prove the doubters wrong but Deontay had better hope not.

cs: You don't need me to tell you that Klitschko came in as fit and motivated as any 41 year old could be. I would give Wilder more chance against Joshua next year than I would have given him against Wlad that night. Wlad would have boxed his ears off and stopped him, no question in my mind. It's a question of relative vulnerability.

cs: Do I think a younger Wlad would have stopped AJ in round 6. Maybe, but I think Wlad's naturally cautious approach was his undoing, more so than his age.

My other point is that just because the quality of opponents are different, it doesn't necessarily mean one guy beats the other. It would be stupid for me to say that I think Canelo's top five opponents are better than GGG's, so he is automatically better than GGG. It would be equally stupid to say it has no significance at all. It just isn't a huge factor.

cs: Yes, again I take your point, but when discussing the respective merits of boxers who have never fought, what else do fans have to go on (other than the hugely subjective and unreliable eye-test) but a comparison of their records? It's far from infallible.

cs: Wilder's failure to test himself against the best available, and thereby learning how to overcome better and better opponents, might well come back to bite him on the arse. There again he carries that equalizer so I'm taking nothing for granted and neither I'm sure, will Joshua.

And if Wilder somehow beats them all? Most will say it is only because the current heavyweight scene is crap. Reminds me a little of George Foreman's prime era, since his technical skills were sub-par, and not any better than Wilder's. Wait, he was among good heavyweights!

cs: Some undoubtedly will, we boxing fans are not always known for our objectivity and neither of us are without sin in that respect.