Usyk In The 1950's?

Help me understand. How did Russell outplay Wilt in these series? Did you mean to type that the Celtics outplayed Wilt's team? If these stats are misleading or irrelevant, please explain how.

1960: https://www.basketball-reference.co...tern-division-finals-warriors-vs-celtics.html
1966: https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1966-nba-eastern-division-finals-celtics-vs-76ers.html
1969: https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1969-nba-finals-celtics-vs-lakers.html


And which 50's heavyweights would you favor over Usyk?

 

They had much different roles, so of course Wilt outscored Russell, but it has very little to do with their impact. I won't write paragraphs here, but you can try to find something on Player Comparison Board on RealGM. It's by far the best place online to discuss basketball. I recommand old top 100 projects in particular.

I'm not sure. For now, I'd entertain peak HW version of Ezzard Charles (though he fought in the 1950s) and Archie Moore could also beat him (though Usyk's style would be tough for him to overcome). Liston also has reasonable case. Rocky has the right style, but I'm not sure if he's fast enough.

 

I honestly think it’s to early still to say he would beat Marciano, Walcott, Charles Liston. Even Moore, Patterson and Harold Johnson would be his best wins. Then you have tough competition like Machen and Folley and Layne. If you think the 50s is a cake walk for him you’d be mistaken. Lots more skilled competition then today imo. AJ was a great win and a great start to put him in the convo

 

I don’t think you would need to write paragraphs to shed light on your earlier statement…

Liston - Usyk is the matchup I would want to see.

 

He be a good contender, but I think Marciano beats him, HOW EVER, once Rocky retires in April 1956, I do not see Patterson and the late 50's guys beating Usyk.

 

Apart from Liston, I don't see anyone troubling him.

 

Only Liston.

 

Usyk beats everybody besides probably Liston. But Liston would have to just go for Usyks jugular like he did Ali or else he looses on points

 

He's had an enormous amateur career though, plus his semi-pro fights at HW in the WSB before he turned pro in the cruisers. He also stepped it up incredibly quickly and was fighting for a belt in his tenth fight. I'm not sure what a ton of filler fights would do to make him any better than he is, or why that would even be necessary. Is Wilder more experienced than Usyk because of his larger number of pro fights? Only a blind man would think so.

Older fighters didn't have the benefits of extensive amateur schooling before turning pro. They were mostly expected to learn on the job. Hence the need for that many fights to season them before challenging for a title. It's a totally different dynamic.

 

He just beat the number one (or number two) HW in the world via unanimous schooling. He's way better than anyone Marciano fought. If he beats Fury I don't think anyone can question it.

Marciano's stamina wouldn't be much of an advantage against a man with freakish stamina himself and speed to boot. I just don't see how he manages to close distance and land his clubbing shots against a constantly moving target thirty-five pounds heavier than him with a ten inch reach advantage, four inch height advantage, much quicker, much more accurate, with a proven chin and one of the best boxing brains of this generation. There are no intangibles there to work with.

We've seen Usyk against shorter stockier swarmers. Look up the Mihai Nistor fight. Nistor fought in about as similar a fashion as you can get to Marciano in this day and age, and barring the early rounds (always a weak point for Usyk) he got outclassed. Nistor by the way is the man who knocked out Joshua in the ams, so not a bad barometer.

This content is protected

 

How are you supposed to fight HOFers (quite a meaningless accolade I might add) when all your opponents are still prime and active? You understand how the HOF works don't you? You need to be retired at least five years before you're even considered. Many great fighters weren't inducted till long after they quit the sport. Before that they weren't HOFers and therefore... not great? Of course they were. The eye test and their resumes would have told you that much.

 

I'm afraid I would. Understandind that basketball analysis should be way beyond boxscore numbers requires a lot of effort. 8 years ago I had similar thoughts about the subject, but I've been actively trying to gain knowledge and watching as much footage as possible. It takes a lot of time and this is not basketball forum. I invite you to PC Board, it's the place for you if you like in depth sport discussion. The quality of average post is much higher than here.

 

I'd like to see him against Moore, this would be exciting.

 

The term HOF is pretty meaningless today,imo

 

Please link that board.
You describe watching games closely & looking at things in more discerning ways than a box score.
Which makes great sense. Because even before era & competition is considered, one needs to isolate 8all* that a player in any team sport contributes to success.
Doing this, it seems both Wilt & Abdul Jabbar are the two players that stand out dramatically from the old & pre-1980's days. Jabberwocky later too.
Even when you adjust for improved competition, size, athleticism, a much larger athletic pool due to population & internationally.

But Russell does not have anything like this level of dominance.
Either in the finals, or regular season.
I assume you are familiar with Sabermetrics, the advanced stats you can find on basketballreference & nba.com?
Things like win shares, WS per 48 minutes, Efficiency Ratio, Value Over Replacement Player, Box +/-...

These show things such as Iverson was never nearly an ATG, & Chris Paul *is* "The Point God".
Russell just does not seem up to the level of a the giants I mentioned.
And Wilt's efficiency dropped dramatically when they made him more of a team player-unlike with Jordon, I am unconvinced that the folks around him were good enough that this was a worthwhile choice.