Replies

[Gambit808]

Pretty Interesting question that I'd like to here some points on. I was chatting with a friend and he asked why Deontay Wilder's name can't generate the same kind of Buzz that Iron Mike generated when comparing the two's first 26 opponents. My answer was simply, well, one has a Gold medal and the other a Bronze. He came back saying well on a Professional level "one looks like Gold (Wilder) and the other Bronze (Tyson)" which is true (I guess), I mean both guys opposition were either over-matched or both these 2 guys skill level made it look so, Yet (on paper) Wilder has the better Win-K.O. ratio.

How can you compare this argument?

[daprofessor]

mike was a little dude knocking out big dudes in very impressive fashion. add to that he had a very tight team with cus, jacobs and clayton. they marketed him and matched him appropriately. i'll also add that mike came at a time when ppl still paid attention to the heavyweights so it was a big deal. wilder on the other hand is flying under the radar. i've only seen one of his fights on tv since he turned pro. mike didn't make the olympics...but the way he became the huge star he was...u would have guessed he won a gold medal. he appeared to be an invincible beast. as for wilder...even with the olympic background, he doesn't look invincible to me. in fact, he looks very beatable. real boxing fans know something special when they see it. mike was special....wilder is ok.