Question for those who think Usyk is too small to take punches from big heavyweight punchers

You were the one who INITIALLY started throwing insults. It only reveals volumes about you as an individual, that you have to go around throwing insults online over a topic as insignificant in the grand scheme of things as boxing to members you don't know at a personal level. I simply come here for entertainment! You are the one who is taking this topic WAY WAY WAY too seriously. But be my guest and continue to inadvertently further expose yourself and reveal volumes about the quality of your life outside online forums.

If you get overly emotional and need to therefore throw insults over others disagreeing with you, then that's your problem. Since that's the recipe of your post!

I used the word 'boxer' (not 'FIGHTER') in the title of my thread due to the limited number words that can fit into titles in this forum. However, it was made very clear in my original post of that thread that I was mainly referring to the heavyweight division. Specifically past and current heavyweights. Not future heavyweights. Usyk isn't a current or a past heavyweight. He is a future heavyweight! So if you were incapable of comprehending this, then that's your problem. No need for the emotional outburst!

You keep calling me a 'hypocrite'. But it's you who is exposing yourself to be a hypocrite. You fail to stick to your own reasoning / logic. You only use a specific reasoning when it suits you, but ignore it in other situations.

You keep blabbering on about one historical fact of how no small heavyweight with below average power dominated the heavyweight division. Yet, you ignore another the crucial fact, which is that EVERY cruiser weight in history who was the best at their time, did better at heavyweight than other cruiser weights who were the best during their time, but weren't as dominant (relative to their era). In other words, the more dominant the number one cruiser weight is historically, the better they do at heavyweight after they move up.

For example, Evander Holyfield was the best cruiser weight during his era. David Haye was the best cruiser weight during his own era. However, Holyfield was more dominant in his own cruiser weight era than David Haye was in his own cruiser weight era. Therefore, Holyfield also performed better at heavyweight than Haye did.

Usyk has been more dominant at cruiser weight than Haye or Holyfield were. So going by your own "historical reasoning", Usyk should be expected to perform MUCH better than Haye or Holyfield did at heavyweight. Holyfield became the undisputed champion at one point. So I expect Usyk to at bare minimum, perform just as well as Holyfield did. However, I see Usyk being even more impressive at heavyweight than Holyfield.

And as for your other straw man argument about me claiming Usyk can achieve unprecedented feats in the heavyweight division because he achieved unprecedented feats at cruiser weight. No, that's not my argument! I believe Usyk can achieve unprecedented feats at heavyweight, BECAUSE of the skills and the feats he has shown throughout his amateur + pro boxing career and because of the exploitable flaws I've seen in today's heavyweights that Usyk is more than capable of exploiting.

The only reason why I mentioned Usyk's UNPRECEDENTED feats at cruiser weight, was because the likes of you have constantly been stating that small heavyweights like Usyk have never dominated the heavyweight division, so therefore, Usyk somehow wouldn't be able to. You see, that position is TOTALLY irrational too. Just because nobody has ever done something at heavyweight, it doesn't mean it couldn't be done at some point in the future (by the right guy).

The point was, before Usyk even became a pro at cruiser weight, you could have used all those same arguments about how Usyk would have had no chance of dominating the cruiser weight division and accomplishing what he accomplished because no southpaw previously ever dominated cruiser weight and those feats were never accomplished before. But Usyk STILL MANAGED to become the first man to do what nobody ever previously done at cruiser weight. Therefore, there's no reason to believe Usyk couldn't also become the first man to do things at heavyweight, nobody else has previously done. Not because of his unprecedented feats at cruiser weight, but because of his unique boxing abilities he carries to heavyweight.

Usyk carries combination of movement, elusiveness, technical ability, tactical ability, adaptive ability among many other combined abilities that no past small heavyweight had as the full package. Which is why I believe Usyk can have more success at heavyweight, then past "small heavyweights" did.

As for Usyk showing vulnerability against Gassiev. Usyk fought Gassiev in Gassiev's backyard without any hometown advantage as Joshua had against the likes of Parker, but still managed to practically shut out Gassiev. Usyk only lost 1 round in two judge's scorecards and won every other round. I don't see how that's evidence of Usyk showing 'vulnerability'.

In contrast, Joshua didn't look very impressive against Parker. He fought with a hometown advantage and was still not as effective as he usually is. That was because of Parker's skill set. The fact that he won is irrelevant. The fact that he won unconvincingly and unimpressively is what's relevant. Why? Because Parker used specific abilities to neutralize Joshua's effectiveness, that Usyk also has but in higher quantities. In other words, everything Parker did to lessen Joshua's effectiveness during their bout, Usyk can also do, but EVEN better, combined with EVEN MORE abilities.

There's nothing Joseph Parker can do, that Usyk also couldn't do at least as well, if not better. But there are things Usyk can do much better than Parker. Point is, if Joshua won unconvincingly against Parker, then chances are, against a much better Usyk who can do everything Parker can do but much better plus more things Parker can't do, then Joshua will not win that time, he will instead lose.

Also, Usyk showing vulnerability against Bellew has no bearing on how Joshua would perform against Usyk. Why? Because Joshua doesn't possess the necessary attributes that Bellew possesses, that caused Usyk trouble. Such as elusive upper body movement and speed. Joshua is MUCH slower than Bellew and has FAR INFERIOR elusiveness than Bellew, considering he is a much heavier and a much more muscular man.

So Joshua's vulnerability against Parker is relevant to how Usyk would perform against Joshua. Whilst Usyk's vulnerability against Bellew isn't relevant to how Joshua would perform against Usyk.

 

Are you going to find me the part where I SPECIFICALLY stated:

"NO FUTURE HEAVYWEIGHT WOULD EVER BE FAVORITE TO BEAT SUPER HEAVYWEIGHTS IN THE HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION"?

OR

Are you going to admit that:

1) You are committing a straw man fallacy?

2) You are a hypocrite for accusing me of committing straw man fallacy when you're the one who's committing a strawman?


Until you find exactly where I stated that SPECIFIC statement, the rest of your post remains pure drivel and blather.

When I use a historical argument, it becomes 'imaginary'. But when you do the same, it's supposed to be legitimate? Yep, keep contradicting yourself and continue exposing your straw man fallacies left, right and center.

You're entire argument boils down to "nobody has done it, therefore Usyk can't". Which I disagree with. Since it's totally fallacious to claim that because nobody has done something, that nobody in the future would also be unable to do that thing. My position is simply that the right boxer can, and Usyk happens to fit the bill.

You're getting overly defensive because I disagree with your argument and position. Speaks volumes about who you are as an individual. You need to find a way to deal with disagreements!