What then?
Printable View
What then?
I don't think anyone will be shocked
Yea, it's a pick em fight to me. Depends how he'd lose I guess, but I don't expect it will be a close decision either way, someone is either getting knocked out or the fight will stink. That's my prediction.
He will fake an injury.
Whether anybody rates him or not, it will be bad for boxing. Boxing needs him to be the "real deal" because he is an athlete and people love KO's. No guarantees though, but we are going to learn exactly what he is all about.
Boxing is not about celebrity or KO's it is bout great fights, if Wilder was not American you would of never heard of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Laughter. Lots of it. I'm not so much concerned with him winning, its how he does it. Blowing him out without being hit or showing more...i'd still have the same questions I do today.
In theory you are right. But when we look at the circus act Tyson became, it drew numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by boylaBoxing is not about celebrity or KO's it is bout great fights, if Wilder was not American you would of never heard of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Mayweathers ignorant statements one after another...it too draws ratings.
And Dlh was loved by the women.
I think your statement defines what us hardcore fans believe, but when a PPV does a million plus? Those numbers imo reflect the people who love theatrics-big mouths...and if wilder was not American, i agree.
The Haitian Nightmare on the way.
That's BS, sir. Any HW with a record like Wilder's is not going to go unnoticed, regardless of how soft we think that record might be.Quote:
Originally Posted by boylaQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Boxing is not about celebrity or KO's it is bout great fights, if Wilder was not American you would of never heard of him.
The dude has one punch KO power and people are interested. That's boxing!
I'd be disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by VG_Addict
Then he fights another contender and loses again and will be a journeyman plagued by injuries looking for paydays.
He becomes another Michael Grant
I think Grant gets a bad rap in hindsight, at least as far as early competition v Wilders and before he was ko'd by a jab. Grant showed big balls and solid sharp ability before that. It was dopes like Kellerman making him the poster boy for "needing a new super heavyweight division" who got swallowed up in hype.Quote:
Originally Posted by holmcall
Depends on how he loses but if he gets dogged out quick, he'd be the next Tyrone Brunson..
Wilder is a question mark but if he loses he doesn't fall far I think. Hes untested its not like he'd lose to an unknown heavyweight. Stiverne is a legit heavyweight so Wilder losing to him shouldn't be a big deal its a 50/50 fight ( if Wilder is the real deal ). I'm more interested on how he would handle the loss. Would he crumble and end up being another over hyped fighter? Or will he go back to his gym and improve the fighter he is and come back better?
Modern HW is held to such a ridiculous standard these days.
In the past, double digit losses were a sign of character.
Today even a single loss and you are apparently "exposed" as a bum LOL
Boxing is about celebrities, KOs, and great exciting fights. How can you be so confused about what boxing is?Quote:
Originally Posted by boylaBoxing is not about celebrity or KO's it is bout great fights, if Wilder was not American you would of never heard of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
With so much TV exposure fighters fight less and are more manufactured to win titles. They have less time to develop and learn the skills they need to be successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
That's not true. Instead of fighting bum fights more often, they fight quality opponents less often and have far more sparring and mitt work in between fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterWith so much TV exposure fighters fight less and are more manufactured to win titles. They have less time to develop and learn the skills they need to be successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
In the past bummy opponents sometimes got top ranked. In the past fighters earned title shots by beating unranked bums and even by LOSING fights.
Atleast today, even if a guy like Wilder has bummed his way to 31-0, he atleast will never again be able to fight a bummy opponent if he manages to beat a good one now.
Your mate Muhammad decided to stage a title defence against a cruiser bum, Jimmy Young and never landed a significant punch in the entire fight and lost clearly, yet again, unsurprisingly, robs the guy of the win. And shortly after again, takes on another cruiser bum, this time a 6 fight green, there's some REAL skilful experience there! And who won that fight too?
Take a look at this article...
Are bums of the Klitschko era better than top fighters of Ali's era? | Box statistics, analysis of boxing history records, stats of boxing eras
Pretend you don't know who the boxers are whilst reading the stats.
I will tell you right now, boxer 2010 is modern day bum-buster Deontay Wilder.
And boxer 1970 is PAST-day bum-buster+cruiser-cruncher Kenny Norton.
Calling the competition of Wilder pathetic is only RELATIVE to this era.
Compared with previous eras, Wilder's competition isn't quite as bad as your trying to sell, and this is the WORST case in recent times of bum-busting we have seen from a top ranked opponent!
Besdies, because Wilder fights bums, he does so more often, in fact he has among the quickest fight turn-overs.
Obviously the tougher the opponents you fight, the more preparation and recovery between events necessary and the less often you can and should fight them!
How many times did you mention bum? :)
For Christ sake I am not covering for Wilder, he fights "those guys" alright. It's just I think your perspective is blinded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Do you understand the concept of irony?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerFor Christ sake I am not covering for Wilder, he fights "those guys" alright. It's just I think your perspective is blinded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Yes @Master,Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDo you understand the concept of irony?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerFor Christ sake I am not covering for Wilder, he fights "those guys" alright. It's just I think your perspective is blinded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I DO see the conundrum here.
Wilder is NOT the standard that ALL the boxers in the HW division have elevated themselves by.
He is a project to see if this method can work.
Personally I don't like it. I think something should be done as you climb the rankings so that you are unable to climb higher until you BEAT higher ranked fighters.
That makes intuitive sense. That way you can make your extra small cash by pasting these guys left and right but forcing you to step it up if you wanna crack the big time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYes @Master,Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDo you understand the concept of irony?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerFor Christ sake I am not covering for Wilder, he fights "those guys" alright. It's just I think your perspective is blinded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I DO see the conundrum here.
Wilder is NOT the standard that ALL the boxers in the HW division have elevated themselves by.
He is a project to see if this method can work.
Personally I don't like it. I think something should be done as you climb the rankings so that you are unable to climb higher until you BEAT higher ranked fighters.
That makes intuitive sense. That way you can make your extra small cash by pasting these guys left and right but forcing you to step it up if you wanna crack the big time.
Moorer got a title shot without ever fighting a top 10 fighter.
Yeah but that sort of thing I'm not that concerned about and guys jumping up form lower divs is what confuses it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterQuote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYes @Master,Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDo you understand the concept of irony?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerFor Christ sake I am not covering for Wilder, he fights "those guys" alright. It's just I think your perspective is blinded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I DO see the conundrum here.
Wilder is NOT the standard that ALL the boxers in the HW division have elevated themselves by.
He is a project to see if this method can work.
Personally I don't like it. I think something should be done as you climb the rankings so that you are unable to climb higher until you BEAT higher ranked fighters.
That makes intuitive sense. That way you can make your extra small cash by pasting these guys left and right but forcing you to step it up if you wanna crack the big time.
Moorer got a title shot without ever fighting a top 10 fighter.
Moorer was a champion boxer before he entered the division.
Guys from Cruiser and Light Heavy etc fought all there bums IN those divisions, then they pretty much jump right in with quality opponents when they hit heavy. It's how it is.
Guys who've always fought heavy like Wilder start right at the bottom. Except it's pretty clear that by 30 fights, Moorer's competition had significantly more quality than Wilder's.
Basically I have no problem with a boxer circumventing the rankings somewhat if they have been a champion boxer in a lower div first and then built up.
Remember Vaughan Bean? He got a shot and I do not know how other than having the right connections ie Don King.
Point noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
In every era, opponents have gotten shots who never actually worked for it.
I don't care about guys like Haye and Moorer who were champs in lower divs.
But it has occurred in all eras.
I concede. You have me here.
CONCLUSION: I think there can be applied a fair as fair can be formula of ranking fighters according to the quality of the opposition they fight with regards purely to their own era, no nostalgic comparisons necessary. And I think it should be implemented.
And I also credit you too @Master with hitting the nail on the head why it is not applied.
MONEY! And the powers that be (i.e. King) that put it up.
In other words the rankings systems are corrupt.
Someone recently right here was trying to tell me how Boxrec had it right with a "fair points system" LOL I forget the poster but of course I disagree.
All I can say is that I disagree with bum-busting as a method to reach the top. Whether they are modern or not!
In fact I'll give you another concession.
Even though I don't consider the cruiser opponents of guys like Norton or Liston as valid HW opponents when comparing today (I view Wilder as having a better record) I acknowledge that against the criteria of their day, these WERE valid HW opponents and if treated as such, their records are in fact better!
Relatively speaking, Wilder is a worse bum-buster than Liston and Norton!
You have me reduced here to merely a weight argument! ;)
I would not call Liston or Norton a bum.
What is your definition for a bum?
Norton and Liston WERE bum busters by definition that most of their REAL HW (200+) opponents had lost more than a quarter of their fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
If you consider their sub 200+ opponents in their records (of which their records were significantly or even largely composed) then their records are inflated to be better against modern HW boxers records.
The reason this distinction IS important in a cross era comparison is that TODAY if they were to box, that portion of their record would be considered part of their cruiser record (one in which they were HW's fighting CW's hence had a significant weight advantage which they would not be permitted nowadays.
It's only when you put CW back to CW and delete bums that you can make an accurate HW comparison between eras.
To put it another way, if you want to include olden days boxers cruiser records as valid HW records (as they were then) then that's fine, but you THEN have to include guys like David Haye's entire career as a valid HW career too (as it was then) and all of his opponents. It then becomes very clear how much better quality opponents Haye fought, beat and how many he KOed than these guys.
You cannot have it both ways!
I simplify all this by deleting all bums and cruisers off records when making such a comparison. In my opinion, you must!
That was the weights at those times. Your definition is nonsense. If you followed your logic then Wlad would be considered a bum in 40 years. Ridiculous.
It depends on how he loses. If he loses a lose decision, then we may say he is/was worth the salt.
He can't lose by ko and he can't lose by a blowout ala Jennings v. Spzilka.
No. I already conceded to you that Liston and Norton and now Wlad too were not bums and they never will be, because they all beat most of their opponents and that wont change over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
And their opponents wont change over time either in terms of quality as boxers.
But in the future, when the weight limit is raised, and people will want to compare the then current champs record to Wlad's they will have to focus only on that portion of Wlad's record that reflects the then HW limit.
Let's say it's 220lbs. Even THEN, it will be clear, even at 230!, that Wladimir faced a good class of opposition.
Liston and Norton are qualitatively different because even given the current standard of 200lbs, their heavy competition is revealed, exposed if you will, to consist of bummy heavy opponents (mostly).
Liston and Norton will never themselves be bums. There overall opposition will never be either. But the ones that need to be focussed on, the HW worthy ones, are!
You could call them quality cruiser crunchers, real HW bum-busters LOL ;D
I think he will always be a dangerous opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
If he loses an (unlikely) decision, his skills failed him but his chin didn't. It will be surprising for his chin and expected given his lack of skills.
If he loses by KO, his chin failed him (unsurprising) but a KO loss does not necessarily equate to a lack of skills. You can be outboxing your opponent but get caught by a hard punch at HW.
Of course the most likely scenario is that Wilder gets both outboxed AND KOed, which will demonstrate both.
anyone can outbox wilder........i have not seen any outstanding boxing skills---
WILDER KNOWS HOW TO THROW THE JAB, ONCE, TWICE, THRICE, THEN HE THROWS THE 1-2
SO GODDAM PREDICTABLE.
It all depends, to me, on whether or not the decision was a blowout. Like Jennings was on the way to a blowout UD vs. Spzilka before he stopped him in the final round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerI think he will always be a dangerous opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
If he loses an (unlikely) decision, his skills failed him but his chin didn't. It will be surprising for his chin and expected given his lack of skills.
If he loses by KO, his chin failed him (unsurprising) but a KO loss does not necessarily equate to a lack of skills. You can be outboxing your opponent but get caught by a hard punch at HW.
Of course the most likely scenario is that Wilder gets both outboxed AND KOed, which will demonstrate both.
Sometimes a ko can be better than a blowout UD. I think your last scenario was spot on too- blown out and then stopped in the 9th, 10th or 11th.