Usyk or prime Ali: More exceptional movement?

I'm not sure what you're saying then...

Basically you've said...


Usyk fundamentally is fair superior.
Ali wasn't a better boxer
A trainer would prefer their fighter to look like Usyk

 

Ali got away with most of that stuff cause the fighters he fought

Its no way he would get away with that stuff in this era even if people say its not that good its people who are underrated who would take advantage of those flaws he had

 

Hm. Okay let me help you understand you would want a fighter you train to look like Gilberto Roman and to fight that way Sung Kil Moon (ignore when it happened) bulldozes Mr Gilberto. He’s a better fighter, not a “boxer” in the scientific sense, technically speaking Moon was a mess.

Ali was as reliant on his chin, reflexes and other godly gifts probably more then any HW ever. Simply put he was a mess to watch but no punk, he was tough and a mental giant that’s mostly how he got by, but it’s not to say he was a mindless baboon.

Muhammad was intelligent in his application, feinting, timing blah blah blah. At the end of the day your style can be overshadowed, carried and exceeded by the thing between your ears or the balloon in the left side of your chest.

 

I don't see an inconsistency there.

Usyk looks like a technically better boxer -- more sound, better fundamentals -- than Ali. Trainers prefer to infuse good fundamentals into their boxers whenever possible; some posters believe even Ali himself could have benefited from becoming more orthodox.

This doesn't mean Usyk is better than Ali overall. Ali was an incredible heavyweight despite his flaws. It's not unusual in boxing history for the technically inferior guy to be a better, greater fighter than his more orthodox competitors.

EDIT: @Journeyman92 seems to have beaten me to it; just saw that he replied as I wrote this.

 

I understand what you're saying here, J, but I cant't agree with it.

Sure, Ali was quite unconventional and ignored a lot of what many trainers would term "fundamentals"

His athleticism , speed and reaction time allowed him to get away with this...to box differently and unconventionally.


But this statement is essentially false:

"Ali didn’t get by because he was a better boxer."

Truth is, he DID get by because he WAS a better boxer.

He boxed within the rules of boxing and he beat all of his opponents when he was in his prime.

By definition, that makes him a better boxer.

 

See previous post.

 

You two are using different definitions of the phrase "better boxer."

You agree on the substance, as far as I can tell, and only disagree on the words you choose to describe it.

 

There is only one functional definitions that is appropriate here.

Better = more successful.


You could argue that Boxer A has better boxing fundamentals than Boxer B, and that might even be true, from a trainer's point of view, based on that trainers experience of what usually works for his boxers.

But if Boxer B consistently does better than boxer A against common opponents and / or against each other, then Boxer B is simply the better boxer.

Again, by definition.

 

I don't think yours is the only definition of "better boxer" accepted on the forum, or in the boxing community generally. Certainly, I haven't seen evidence from either side that their definition is binding on everyone else. Some people will continue to call a guy a "better boxer" even when he loses to a fighter with inferior fundamentals. Others will call someone a "better boxer" when he's more successful, as you are doing. It's an ambiguous term. I myself use both definitions at times. I don't think any boxing language commissions have weighed in to enforce a single definition.

That said, if we're critiquing people's definitions on functional grounds, I'll throw in that Butterbean would beat up Jimmy Wilde. But Wilde was nevertheless the better boxer.

 

I don’t think you understand properly or your purposely knit picking. I’m not trying to be rude but I’ve said all I can say.

 

I think your Wilde-Butterbean example is perfect. If not for the fact I don’t think Butterbean could hit or catch Wilde within the rules.

 

Fair enough. Plug in the size/skill mismatch of your choice, then. Jimmy Thunder vs Willie Pep, perhaps. Thunder was a lot better than Butterbean, but still a long way from the technical wizardry Pep had.

 

Both have fast feet but Ali has faster feet wheras Usyk has more effective and technically proficient footwork

 

Functionality is the only definition that makes sense, in boxing or any other enterprise for that matter.

I once had a chess opponent whom I had just beaten in around nine moves lecture me that that was not the proper way to play chess. I was, according to him, supposed to develop my pieces and set up for the middle game.

Fine, but he made a couple of important errors and I took the opportunity.

To this day, he probably thinks he is a better chess player, despite failing to win in several tries.

There is No language commission to set definitions for these things, but again, if Boxer B consistently does better against common opponents than Boxer A, then there is no logical or sensible scenario whereby Boxer B cannot be described as the better boxer, regardless of subjective fundamentals.

It's a simple matter of definition.

Really CT ?

Cheeky or what ?



This started about Ali and Usyk, two HWs....apples and apples.

Obviously, it's implicit here that we are discussing like weights.


Otherwise we might be thinking that Wilder was better than SRR.

 

No nit-picking intended J.

There was just two of your three parts that I couldn't agree with within my definitions of better boxer.


See my response to Crosstrainer as to why Butterbean - Wilde does not apply here.