Oleksandr Usyk > Lennox Lewis

Nah.

 

Chisora wouldn’t have lasted 12 against Lewis.

 

That's a negatory.

 

Maybe 3 rounds. Maybe.

 

Sadly, it’s probably too late for Usyk to be rated high all-time at heavyweight. He’s well into his 30’s, has only had 20 fights, and only wants one more. The fight with Fury is similar to Tyson-Spinks, having two greats, but one of them with much more natural heavyweight strength. If Usyk wins it’ll boost him up high, but most likely he’ll be physically overmatched and lose, then retire with a Jim Jeffries type of record.

 

Lennox would destroy Usyk

Usyk is great but Lennox is the greatest HW of all time

Dont get it twisted

 

You are being optimistic....

 

Short Bus>Short Round

 

Banned again NEETzschean

Ah well, hope it's not permanent. I'd love to see more clown posts

 

Hey dummy, you and your buddy claimed Lewis just fought old men. So I went down his list of opponents and posted their ages, which proved just the opposite.

I didn't say Mike Dixon was a great opponent. I posted his age.

This thread is a joke.

What you know about heavyweights is next to nothing.

I'm tired of beating you over the head with facts.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Why do you think many are "like" my posts critiquing your distortions, & not vice versa?
And you have so much tension & conflict. Because you are not being fair & accurate.

1) It is not a matter of "boxing culture" to say something below 40 IS the age of 40.
And the further from 40 it is the less often folks do this.

2) Why would you say what I "know", based upon what?
I disagree with you, should I say you are lying of "feigning ignorance"?
That is not rational.

3) I made it very clear that Lennox-by all rational accountings-was 36 when he beat Holyfield in all but the official verdict. SO he had turned & was 37 when Lewis finally got the official win that he won.
I never debated that.

4) There are many times when there is a miscommunication & people uncharitably assume someone is lying.
You may not have been lying when you said you meant that saying 210 lbs. MEANS anything in the 210's, but if so that is not at all accurate, not what anyone MEANS when they give a precise figure.

5) But I struggle to see how you are not consciously distorting things by shifting the debate to whether Holyfield was 37 when he lost to Lewis-not disputed since you are discussing what is the official decision, not when he was robbed...

When you know that your initial claim was that he was 40 years old.
Which is what I objected to.
You are at best imprecise with numbers, & IF there is no conscious fudging going on, your strong BIAS is reflected in using figures that accord with your agenda. NOT the true ones.

But you completely changes the goalposts on the age at least.
Be scrupulously honest if you want people to not believe you are an agenda driven fan boy.

6) People tend to round things off.
Fury weighed 277 in the face off with Wilder before their last fight, not 278.
But it is NOT the usual to either round further away than the closest number, or say 270 in the case of Fury-they may, but this is not routine.

But when they DO it likely is because Fury has been steadily gaining weight, so he weas lighter before.
Such as in their second fight:
For the rematch, Wilder came in at a career-high 231lb and Fury tipped the scales at 273lb, claiming he'd been eating six meals and drinking eight litres of water daily in search of a size advantage against the lighter American.

But people who might erroneously round down are NOT tying to minimize his size.
He is already huge-height & a fairly high bodyfat %.
You are making Holyfield seem smaller due to an agenda & bias!