Is Deontay wilder the greatest unskilled heavyweight in boxing history?

Ar558a

Fighting the Fury loving Scum
Jun 2, 2019
626
191
Easily, he has defended the WBC title 10 times despite being an awful technical boxer. I had him 6-0 down to Ortiz (and seconds away from 7-0) but that Power means he gets one good shot and far superior men are KO'd. Never seen someone with so little other ability succeed so much.
 
Reactions: attaboi

tommygun711

You don't have the capability for mayhem
Jun 4, 2013
12,046
3,184
29
Wilder is technically abysmal and unorthodox. He is definitely susceptible to getting outboxed, even by guys like Washingon and Szpilka. His defense is not all that sound, he can be countered and he often backs up in straight lines.

However - he's not unskilled. You guys realize that power alone would not get him this far. There has been heavyweight punchers in the past with good delivery systems and they have not been as successful as Wilder. Take Michael Grant or Alex Stewart for example. Both hit very hard, both scored some impressive knockouts but neither of them were champion. That's because Wilder has aspects to his game that they lacked.

Wilder's elite timing and Ring IQ makes him much better than most punchers, look at the Szpilka fight for example. Wilder timed the right hand perfectly once he saw the opening for it. Wilder is not a dumb fighter by any stretch. He understands his own limitations and his own strengths. He understands that right hand is a fucking bomb. He is also smart enough to probe with his jab to find the distance necessary. I would put Wilder's 1-2 up there with Larry Holmes, Sonny Liston and Muhammad Ali in terms of effectiveness.

 
May 16, 2013
2,460
547
Norfolk, England
If that's a strategy, it's a very illogical one. It almost cost him against Fury. In Fact a lot of people believe he lost that fight. I'm not saying he should outskill his opponents but he should try to win some rounds just in case a a Tyson Fury like occasion occurs. He might not outskill his opponent but he can outwork them by simply letting his hands go instead of throwing single shorts like he has a habit of doing.
Is it though? He's had 2 fights that have gone the distance. The first Stiverne fight his game plan allowed him to outbox his opponent and that's what he was sent out to do. The opportunity didn't present itself but he boxed to the game plan. The second fight he was within a whisker of sealing the deal with a KO. Of the 42? fights he has had, plan A has worked what 40 times, that is a mightily successful plan A. I can't say it's not risky and it almost backfired against Fury, his style (certainly against higher calibre opponents) is self preservation and detonating the right hand when he get the opportunity. It's a strategy that serves him very well.
 
May 16, 2013
2,460
547
Norfolk, England
Wilder is technically abysmal and unorthodox. He is definitely susceptible to getting outboxed, even by guys like Washingon and Szpilka. His defense is not all that sound, he can be countered and he often backs up in straight lines.

However - he's not unskilled. You guys realize that power alone would not get him this far. There has been heavyweight punchers in the past with good delivery systems and they have not been as successful as Wilder. Take Michael Grant or Alex Stewart for example. Both hit very hard, both scored some impressive knockouts but neither of them were champion. That's because Wilder has aspects to his game that they lacked.

Wilder's elite timing and Ring IQ makes him much better than most punchers, look at the Szpilka fight for example. Wilder timed the right hand perfectly once he saw the opening for it. Wilder is not a dumb fighter by any stretch. He understands his own limitations and his own strengths. He understands that right hand is a fucking bomb. He is also smart enough to probe with his jab to find the distance necessary. I would put Wilder's 1-2 up there with Larry Holmes, Sonny Liston and Muhammad Ali in terms of effectiveness.

Exactly, he knows what he is doing in there.
 

Pedderrs

Starspawn
Jun 1, 2012
22,689
14,998
30
United Kingdom
When people say 'Wilder cannot box', they don't mean he literally cannot box and has absolutely no capabilities outside of hitting hard. They just mean comparatively to other world level boxers he lacks in these fundamental areas.

'Wilder is smart enough to probe with the jab to find the necessary distance'. He is 6'6. If he doesn't know to throw the jab, then he is in the wrong sport.

'He understands the right hand is a fucking bomb'. Well, who doesn't at this stage? He routinely knocks people out with it.

'Look at the Szpilka fight'. Just the two clips where he lands hard punches or the totality of the 9 rounds where he was being outboxed?

@tommygun711 Neither Grant or Stewart hit as hard as Wilder does, although they may have won world titles if they had to face Stviverne to do it.
 
Sep 5, 2018
901
703
Wilder seems to have outraged fight fans since day one.

Early days it was 'he has a glass jaw.' Then it was 'he has only fought bums and as soon as he fights someone half decent he will get KOed.' Now it is 'he can't box and as soon as he fights someone who can box and punch he will lose.'

Thing is he is now fighting decent opponents and he is still winning and there aren't many real threats left.

I just enjoy Wilder for what he is. The division needs excitement and unpredictability. Not sure why so many are up in arms.
 
Jun 6, 2013
12,339
1,375
Is it though? He's had 2 fights that have gone the distance. The first Stiverne fight his game plan allowed him to outbox his opponent and that's what he was sent out to do. The opportunity didn't present itself but he boxed to the game plan.
One should note that in the first Stiverne fight, Wilder literally broke his right hand in round 1 or 2. (As confirmed by x-rays after the fight.)

That's the only reason it went the distance.
 
Reactions: DOM5153

tommygun711

You don't have the capability for mayhem
Jun 4, 2013
12,046
3,184
29
When people say 'Wilder cannot box', they don't mean he literally cannot box and has absolutely no capabilities outside of hitting hard. They just mean comparatively to other world level boxers he lacks in these fundamental areas.
And most people would agree and say that Wilder has poor fundamentals. That doesn't mean he is unskilled. Aaron Pryor had a unique style with poor fundamentals and did things "incorrectly".. doesn't mean he was unskilled.
'Wilder is smart enough to probe with the jab to find the necessary distance'. He is 6'6. If he doesn't know to throw the jab, then he is in the wrong sport.
I am talking about the way he sometimes feints with the jab, touches with it as a measuring stick to land the right hand. The way he occupied Ortiz's lead hand with his jab. It is intelligent stuff. His height means nothing. There have been big men in the past who did not have a good jab; Sugar Valuev, Tye Fields, Gerry Cooney and Primo Carnera come to mind.

Anyway, "unskilled" punchers (which is an oxymoron imo) often discard the jab in favor of power shots. Wilder does not.

'Look at the Szpilka fight'. Just the two clips where he lands hard punches or the totality of the 9 rounds where he was being outboxed?
You missed the point. The point of posting that video was to highlight the way Wilder timed Szpilka coming in with the right hand. It is not easy to do that considering he was getting outboxed for the majority of that fight. There is a method to his madness.

@tommygun711 Neither Grant or Stewart hit as hard as Wilder does, although they may have won world titles if they had to face Stviverne to do it.
Both Grant and Stewart were rated punchers in their day; One stopped Golota and the other reconfigured Foreman's face to the extent that he was almost unrecognizable. But whether Grant or Stewart were harder punchers than Wilder is immaterial. The point is that Wilder is not just a dumb, unskilled puncher. He has an effective jab, great timing and the Ring IQ to land the power.
 

Pedderrs

Starspawn
Jun 1, 2012
22,689
14,998
30
United Kingdom
And most people would agree and say that Wilder has poor fundamentals. That doesn't mean he is unskilled. Aaron Pryor had a unique style with poor fundamentals and did things "incorrectly".. doesn't mean he was unskilled.
We can agree that Wilder isn't totally void of skill, but he's world's away from someone like Aaron Pryor. Pryor was insolent but when he wanted to box he was more than capable. Not a great example.

I am talking about the way he sometimes feints with the jab, touches with it as a measuring stick to land the right hand. The way he occupied Ortiz's lead hand with his jab. It is intelligent stuff. His height means nothing. There have been big men in the past who did not have a good jab; Sugar Valuev, Tye Fields, Gerry Cooney and Primo Carnera come to mind.
Wilder doesn't have a good jab either. It is occasionally effective in measuring distance otherwise when has it ever controlled his opponent for any length of time? Maybe in the first Stiverne fight. We shouldn't be attributing a whole lot of credit to a pro simply for measuring with the jab or occasionally feinting it. It's not rocket science.

Anyway, "unskilled" punchers (which is an oxymoron imo) often discard the jab in favor of power shots. Wilder does not.
Wilder's jab is not a dominant weapon.




Both Grant and Stewart were rated punchers in their day; One stopped Golota and the other reconfigured Foreman's face to the extent that he was almost unrecognizable. But whether Grant or Stewart were harder punchers than Wilder is immaterial. The point is that Wilder is not just a dumb, unskilled puncher. He has an effective jab, great timing and the Ring IQ to land the power.
It's not immaterial in the context of the discussion. You were suggesting the only thing distinguishing Wilder from those two was that Wilder was smarter and more skilled. That's false. Neither had the same kind of equaliser Wilder does, and they had to fight the likes of Holyfield, Tyson and Foreman and Lewis if they wanted to be a success at world level. Wilder has had to fight Stiverne, Ortiz and Fury. One of those guys beat him on most people's scorecards.
 
Reactions: tommygun711

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
18,479
6,651
You missed the point. The point of posting that video was to highlight the way Wilder timed Szpilka coming in with the right hand. It is not easy to do that considering he was getting outboxed for the majority of that fight. There is a method to his madness.
Szpilka has dropped a stone and is to fight at cruiserweight next up.

 
Reactions: Mexi-Box
Jun 4, 2013
23,832
5,752
Szpilka has dropped a stone and is to fight at cruiserweight next up.

He looks great, but I doubt he'll go anywhere. Dude's punch resistance is shit for the top fighters who are all punchers. Plus, I can't imagine dropping weight and draining down benefit him at all.
 
May 19, 2013
6,303
3,804
Thing is he is now fighting decent opponents and he is still winning and there aren't many real threats left.
What?

All the threats are left.

Fury, Ruiz, Joshua, Whyte and Povetkin are the top guys and he's fought one of them and failed to win.

They all pose different issues and he could lose to all of them.
 
Reactions: Bob Weaver

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
18,479
6,651
He looks great, but I doubt he'll go anywhere. Dude's punch resistance is shit for the top fighters who are all punchers. Plus, I can't imagine dropping weight and draining down benefit him at all.
Precisely what I was thinking. If he faces a puncher I reckon he will get KOed.
 
Reactions: Mexi-Box
Jul 23, 2017
683
409
31
What?

All the threats are left.

Fury, Ruiz, Joshua, Whyte and Povetkin are the top guys and he's fought one of them and failed to win.

They all pose different issues and he could lose to all of them.
No one knew who the hell Ruiz was before Joshua. Had Wilder fought him, he would have been accused of cherry picking.
Povetkin is a PEDing fraud who built his carrier out of fighting faded fighters. Didn't he test dirty for a banned substance a few day before Wilder was ready to fight him in his home town.

If there is one fighter perfectly made for a highlight reel for Wilder it's Dylian Whyte. A fat slow plodding below average height heavyweight with no head movement. By the way where is the result for his B sample? I guess Eddie must have payed enough officials to sweep his test result under the rug.

You guys act like there are talents littered throughout the division. The talent level between the 4th rated guy and the 15th ranked guy in today's heavyweight division is almost negligent. This isn't the 1990s. There are no Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Moore, Foreman, Ibeabuchi, Byrd, Mercer, Golota, Ruddock, Bruno, Morison, Tua, and Holmes littered throughout the division at one time.

The only legitimate threat to Wilder are Joshua and Fury. Maybe Daniel Dubois and Efe Ajagba 2 years now.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Bachafach
Jul 6, 2019
864
976
30
What?

All the threats are left.

Fury, Ruiz, Joshua, Whyte and Povetkin are the top guys and he's fought one of them and failed to win.

They all pose different issues and he could lose to all of them.
I would also add Usyk, Parker, Hunter and Rivas to that list. I can see them all giving him more problems than all his opponents other than Fury or Ortiz.

You also have Hrgovic, Dubois, Joyce, Yoka, Makhmudov, Majidov and a few others coming through.

Then a few names that I think he steamrolls, but who are better than 95% of his opponents to date. Pulev, Konwacki, Chisora etc.

Lots of decent fights he hasn't taken yet.
 
Jul 6, 2019
864
976
30
No one knew who the hell Ruiz was before Joshua. Had Wilder fought him, he would have been accused of cherry picking.
Povetkin is a PEDing fraud who built his carrier out of fighting faded fighters. Didn't he test dirty for a banned substance a few day before Wilder was ready to fight him in his home town.

If there is one fighter perfectly made for a highlight reel for Wilder it's Dylian Whyte. A fat slow plodding below average height heavyweight with no head movement. By the way where is the result for his B sample? I guess Eddie must have payed enough officials to sweep his test result under the rug.

You guys act like there are talents littered throughout the division. The talent level between the 4th rated guy and the 15th ranked guy in today's heavyweight division is almost negligent. This isn't the 1990s. There are no Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Moore, Foreman, Ibeabuchi, Byrd, Mercer, Golota, Ruddock, Bruno, Morison, Tua, and Holmes littered throughout the division at one time.

The only legitimate threat to Wilder are Joshua and Fury. Maybe Daniel Dubois and Efe Ajagba 2 years now.
It's a very weak division, and he starts as favourite over everyone, but he hasn't come close to clearing it out.

He has fought one top 5 guy in Fury and should've lost, and one top ten guy in Ortiz, and had a lot of problems.

Stiverne and Breazeale were prob top 15/25 ish, Washington, Spilzika, etc prob 20/40 ish.

I have him as number one. I picked him to beat Fury first time, and I am picking him again, but he has only fought a couple of the top guys in what is a very slim division.

Despite his record, he still had a lot to prove
.
 
Reactions: LondonSkylines
May 24, 2018
75
126
48
I think there is another way to judge DW as a boxer, and that is by taking a historical perspective.

First, if we look at the rules of professional boxing today, I would say that they benefit a particular type of boxers; those considered skilled, but who may not necessarily have much power or any interest in getting hit or hit their opponents hard (e.g. Sven Ottke - so good, but also frustratingly boring to watch sometimes). At worst, it's like watching a game of chess.

Moreover, boxing has become a game where the market interests and tv deals, with scripts of 3-4 fights at a time for the 'franchise champion' means that the points system is abused to protect fighters with the highest commercial interest. Last weekend, it was Callum Smith who was gifted a wide UD, but one could also say the same about Wilder - Fury I. However, not necessarily only in favour of Wilder, who knew he had lost on points. For sure, many within the boxing industry wanted a D. Thus, the 12-rounds point scoring system, with corrupt judges and no consensus scoring, does not only benefit the 'technically skilled boxer', but by and large, I do believe it has changed the perception of who is a good or bad boxer, skilled or unskilled. The same goes for male anatomy and what the typical body looks like nowadays, reflecting the way we live and exercise our bodies today. Let me give you an alternative take on this.

If we go back a century or so, boxers often boxed an unlimited number of rounds, and you could only win by KO. Later, there could be a fixed number of rounds decided prior to the bout, but if the two went the distance without either man scoring a KO win, the bout was automatically scored a draw. If we look back at MMA as the sport was in its infancy in the 1990s, rules were pretty similar. Two men fought until there was a winner. Forget about the skills or points. Whatever the means, fight until one last man is standing. The backside of this is health and the risks involved in the sport.

In amateur boxing boxers were using headgear for decades until recently, the winner is the boxer landing most clean punches (with KDs or power punches not counting more than a simple jab), and there are standing counts. For beginners there are also diploma fights, where the boxers should not try to KO the opponent. Instead you earn the diploma through showing off your boxing skills, almost like a 'kata' in karate, but with two dudes performing at the same time in the ring. In pro boxing, a scoring system has been created that favours skilled boxers (i.e. who can hit the other more often than they are hit themselves, plus some grey rules about "ring generalship' etc., even when a man is walking backwards for 12 full rounds!), with a fixed number of rounds limited to 12 for championship matches. Significantly less than the 15 rounds used until the 1980s, or the dozens sometimes used in modern pro boxing's infancy. In many ways, modern boxing is similar to other contact sports, where rules and regulations are meant to protect the boxer's health. At least in any single fight.

Now, this is my point: Two technical boxers without too much power, such as Fury and Ortiz, could show off their boxing skills for 12 rounds, in an entertaining match, but they would probably need a lot more than 12 rounds to make either man so worn down, that he is eventually too exhausted to fight back, so that eventually the fight could end by a TKO or KO. A century or more back in time, Fury would probably outbox his opponents early on, but in a long contest he might have lost to a smaller man due to exhaustion, or (too) often going the distance in say 20 or 25 rounds. I think many spectators in those days would have considered him a rather boring boxer. At least I think we would have seen a different Tyson Fury in those days, taking more risks and slugging it out to get that win. Wilder on the other hand, who is more slim and fit, and interestingly (in terms of his anatomy) has "long" rather than "short" and pumped up muscles, could probably have boxed 20-25 rounds in the good old days in the same way he does for 12 nowadays, looking for that opening. I think he would have flattened most if not all opponents. Rarely would he have gone the distance and earned a D. Most viewers would probably have considered Wilder 'the real deal', and his legacy would have been a lot better than it is now, in this era. I also think DW would have been admired and received more acknowledgement for his physique and appearance in older times than he does today, especially among today's casuals who believe someone pumped up like AJ with his "thick neck" is the normal looks of a big, strong man. Some experts also express worries thinking DW is too light for a heavy weight, but isn't that worry built on an image of what we believe a big heavyweight boxer should look like in the 2000s?

In this respect, I'd like to add another important issue. In the old days (say before the 1970s) most strong men had built their bodies and strength from hard physical labour from a young age, for example as lumber jacks working 10 hour shifts a day for years. In appearance they looked different from the guys getting strong through lifting weights and eating PEDS nowadays. They probably had stronger back/abdomen/inner core muscles and perhaps legs too, than today's men, who build their bodies and strength in a modern gym, one body part a time. Even more so if using machines a lot, as they do not help much in building those inner core muscles. I would not be surprised if many boxers in older times actually hit as hard or even harder (with the whole body, from leg to shoulder), than many of today's boxers.

Many today believe modern sports is superior to the past, but in all honestness, we eat shit (industrialised produced food with a ton of chemicals) and many (also those who do sports at a high level) did not play and develop basic motor skills at a very young age, as kids did in the past. (This has been well documented in research. Motor skills, dexterity, balance etc. is a lot worse among children in general today compared with earlier generations.) Consequently, even if a lot of today's athletes from the western, modern world, are good, strong and skilled, relative to one another, I also believe a lot may have been lost on its way until where we are today, living in a post-industrial society.

DW to me, seems more like men did in the past. His body looks more natural than the bodies of most other heavyweights, and even if he is not that technically gifted as a boxer who can outbox other big men over 12 rounds, he is probably much more a natural fighter, and a winner man to man, whatever the era. I have no idea how DW built his body and strength. Perhaps he did it in a gym like everyone else nowadays, and he may never have climbed a tree or balanced on a wall in his entire childhood. Nevertheless, he is what he is. Genes may also play a role, and some of us got that genetic lottery ticket. We are all descending from an infinite chain of winners and survivors, so some of us do carry with us the genes of some real badasses from our human past. DW could be one of a few big men (in boxing/sports) today that has something in him that would have made him great as a hand to hand fighter, whatever the era. Outside of sports, back in time, he may have been a great warrior or gladiator. Seeing that opening at the right time, striking that deadly blow.

Imagine, if we could have put DW and Fury back in time to the ancient olympics in Greece. Boxing was one of the main events in the antiquity. A very dangerous but also very prestigious sport in a much more violent society. I predict Fury would have been struggling against men of that era, whereas Wilder probably would have stood a chance to beat the beasts that were assembled from every corner of the Roman empire. If there is any heavyweight boxer of today that has what those ancient boxers or warriors had in them, it probably is Deontay Wilder. He looks like one of them, and he hits like one of them. Most heavyweights of today don't do that.
 
Jul 6, 2019
864
976
30
I think there is another way to judge DW as a boxer, and that is by taking a historical perspective.

First, if we look at the rules of professional boxing today, I would say that they benefit a particular type of boxers; those considered skilled, but who may not necessarily have much power or any interest in getting hit or hit their opponents hard (e.g. Sven Ottke - so good, but also frustratingly boring to watch sometimes). At worst, it's like watching a game of chess.

Moreover, boxing has become a game where the market interests and tv deals, with scripts of 3-4 fights at a time for the 'franchise champion' means that the points system is abused to protect fighters with the highest commercial interest. Last weekend, it was Callum Smith who was gifted a wide UD, but one could also say the same about Wilder - Fury I. However, not necessarily only in favour of Wilder, who knew he had lost on points. For sure, many within the boxing industry wanted a D. Thus, the 12-rounds point scoring system, with corrupt judges and no consensus scoring, does not only benefit the 'technically skilled boxer', but by and large, I do believe it has changed the perception of who is a good or bad boxer, skilled or unskilled. The same goes for male anatomy and what the typical body looks like nowadays, reflecting the way we live and exercise our bodies today. Let me give you an alternative take on this.

If we go back a century or so, boxers often boxed an unlimited number of rounds, and you could only win by KO. Later, there could be a fixed number of rounds decided prior to the bout, but if the two went the distance without either man scoring a KO win, the bout was automatically scored a draw. If we look back at MMA as the sport was in its infancy in the 1990s, rules were pretty similar. Two men fought until there was a winner. Forget about the skills or points. Whatever the means, fight until one last man is standing. The backside of this is health and the risks involved in the sport.

In amateur boxing boxers were using headgear for decades until recently, the winner is the boxer landing most clean punches (with KDs or power punches not counting more than a simple jab), and there are standing counts. For beginners there are also diploma fights, where the boxers should not try to KO the opponent. Instead you earn the diploma through showing off your boxing skills, almost like a 'kata' in karate, but with two dudes performing at the same time in the ring. In pro boxing, a scoring system has been created that favours skilled boxers (i.e. who can hit the other more often than they are hit themselves, plus some grey rules about "ring generalship' etc., even when a man is walking backwards for 12 full rounds!), with a fixed number of rounds limited to 12 for championship matches. Significantly less than the 15 rounds used until the 1980s, or the dozens sometimes used in modern pro boxing's infancy. In many ways, modern boxing is similar to other contact sports, where rules and regulations are meant to protect the boxer's health. At least in any single fight.

Now, this is my point: Two technical boxers without too much power, such as Fury and Ortiz, could show off their boxing skills for 12 rounds, in an entertaining match, but they would probably need a lot more than 12 rounds to make either man so worn down, that he is eventually too exhausted to fight back, so that eventually the fight could end by a TKO or KO. A century or more back in time, Fury would probably outbox his opponents early on, but in a long contest he might have lost to a smaller man due to exhaustion, or (too) often going the distance in say 20 or 25 rounds. I think many spectators in those days would have considered him a rather boring boxer. At least I think we would have seen a different Tyson Fury in those days, taking more risks and slugging it out to get that win. Wilder on the other hand, who is more slim and fit, and interestingly (in terms of his anatomy) has "long" rather than "short" and pumped up muscles, could probably have boxed 20-25 rounds in the good old days in the same way he does for 12 nowadays, looking for that opening. I think he would have flattened most if not all opponents. Rarely would he have gone the distance and earned a D. Most viewers would probably have considered Wilder 'the real deal', and his legacy would have been a lot better than it is now, in this era. I also think DW would have been admired and received more acknowledgement for his physique and appearance in older times than he does today, especially among today's casuals who believe someone pumped up like AJ with his "thick neck" is the normal looks of a big, strong man. Some experts also express worries thinking DW is too light for a heavy weight, but isn't that worry built on an image of what we believe a big heavyweight boxer should look like in the 2000s?

In this respect, I'd like to add another important issue. In the old days (say before the 1970s) most strong men had built their bodies and strength from hard physical labour from a young age, for example as lumber jacks working 10 hour shifts a day for years. In appearance they looked different from the guys getting strong through lifting weights and eating PEDS nowadays. They probably had stronger back/abdomen/inner core muscles and perhaps legs too, than today's men, who build their bodies and strength in a modern gym, one body part a time. Even more so if using machines a lot, as they do not help much in building those inner core muscles. I would not be surprised if many boxers in older times actually hit as hard or even harder (with the whole body, from leg to shoulder), than many of today's boxers.

Many today believe modern sports is superior to the past, but in all honestness, we eat shit (industrialised produced food with a ton of chemicals) and many (also those who do sports at a high level) did not play and develop basic motor skills at a very young age, as kids did in the past. (This has been well documented in research. Motor skills, dexterity, balance etc. is a lot worse among children in general today compared with earlier generations.) Consequently, even if a lot of today's athletes from the western, modern world, are good, strong and skilled, relative to one another, I also believe a lot may have been lost on its way until where we are today, living in a post-industrial society.

DW to me, seems more like men did in the past. His body looks more natural than the bodies of most other heavyweights, and even if he is not that technically gifted as a boxer who can outbox other big men over 12 rounds, he is probably much more a natural fighter, and a winner man to man, whatever the era. I have no idea how DW built his body and strength. Perhaps he did it in a gym like everyone else nowadays, and he may never have climbed a tree or balanced on a wall in his entire childhood. Nevertheless, he is what he is. Genes may also play a role, and some of us got that genetic lottery ticket. We are all descending from an infinite chain of winners and survivors, so some of us do carry with us the genes of some real badasses from our human past. DW could be one of a few big men (in boxing/sports) today that has something in him that would have made him great as a hand to hand fighter, whatever the era. Outside of sports, back in time, he may have been a great warrior or gladiator. Seeing that opening at the right time, striking that deadly blow.

Imagine, if we could have put DW and Fury back in time to the ancient olympics in Greece. Boxing was one of the main events in the antiquity. A very dangerous but also very prestigious sport in a much more violent society. I predict Fury would have been struggling against men of that era, whereas Wilder probably would have stood a chance to beat the beasts that were assembled from every corner of the Roman empire. If there is any heavyweight boxer of today that has what those ancient boxers or warriors had in them, it probably is Deontay Wilder. He looks like one of them, and he hits like one of them. Most heavyweights of today don't do that.
One point that I would like to make is that Fury is a traveller, he comes from a bare knuckle boxing culture and would be well suited to that era.


He has good endurance, can grapple, do dirty stuff and work the body, and I don't remember any hand injuries. His thin skin could be an issue though.

Wilder would obviously crack Jaws without gloves, but he might also crack his hands. He is also prone to arm injuries, and rarely works the body or grapples.

He would need to adapt a bit more than Tyson would to that particular era. Both men are giants and born fighters though, so they should be fine.

PS I would say that Fury has a more natural looking body than Wilder. He doesn't look like he's spent a day in his life in the gym. That's just down to genetics though.