George Foreman (First Career) Vs Oleksandr Usyk?

We’re going to act like Frazier wasn’t the undisputed champion before stepping in the ring with Ali?

 

Ok so using your logic Tyson Fury could beat any heavyweight in history because he has not allowed anyone to beat him.Oh and by the way neither did Terry Marsh so he must be an atg.I really like Usyk but at this stage of his heavyweight career i can not see anyway he beats Foreman

 

Yeah I agree that logic doesn't really work for me either TBH.

 

Well, no, because Fury has fought very little credible competition, whereas Usyk has fought the best of the best cruiserweight division, ever.

Duh.

It is your logic that is flawed, not mine.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, so I cannot address it.

 

If you think that fine but it just does not wash with me

 

True, that was a while ago - but we did see AJ enjoy some notable successes when he went to Usyk’s body in the latter stages of their rematch. The punches appeared to hurt and slow Oleksandr down for a time - but lest it be over magnified, Oleksandr did weather it so credit to him.

Aside from Usyk’s skills - I love his fighting spirit.

Which cruisers (v Usyk) were the ones you think came in much heavier than Frazier, Moorer etc. and what weight do you estimate they were come fight time?

Finally, do you think the degree of Usyk’s own dehydration and rehydration was one of the more extreme among the cruisers he competed against - say, with him coming in at a natural 210-215 by fight time?

These are just open, curio questions.

 

I'm not even sure I could call it logic.

 

You seem to be arguing Frazier and Norton were only great because of their series with Ali.

Frazier was already quite accomplished before stepping in the ring with Ali, which is why their first bout was correctly touted as the two best in the world facing off against each other.

 

Accomplished but not great. The great part come from winning the FOTC.

 

That's certainly debatable. He may not have been a top ten ATG without the Ali win, but I'd be hardpressed to leave him out of the top 30 even without it.

Regardless, your logic is, if we take away a fighter's best win they're not that good?

 

Ali and Frazier (Foreman too) both beat the best of the best of a division like Usyk did. They also beat each other. Usyk was the sole standout in a fine division so he didn't have to share the spoils.

 

Now, you are proving my point for me. If we took away Frazier's best win, he is still Joe Frazier...but we wouldn't know it. We know him as great because he has Schmeling paradox wins and losses with Ali.

Now, some of Usyk's opponents certainly have and still have that capacity...Briedis as a three time cruiser champ is certainly good enough that he could prove himself "great." Joshua as a two-time unifed champ. But we don't see it because Usyk is so good, that none have been able to share the paradox with him.

I reject the flawed logic that you prove your greatness by losing.

 

Yes. This. Exactly right.

 

I honestly have no idea where you're going with this. Frazier's not great because Ali avenged his loss against him?

Regarding your statement "I reject the flawed logic that you prove your greatness by losing." If Frazier hadn't subsequently lost to Ali in the two remaining bouts, he'd undoubtedly be ranked even higher than he is today. Those losses to Ali didn't exactly help his ATG standing.