Has Usky just demolished the myth of the modern superheavyweight?

I think Fury was always a bit overrated he'd shown considerable vulnerabilties in quite alot of his fights which is why when i heard people say he was one of the H2H goats that always baffled me.

He got a gift vs McDermott, was dropped heavily by non punch Pajkic, behind on points and dropped by Cruiserweight Cunningham, dropped 4 times vs Wilder, close fight vs MMA fighter.

Don't get me wrong Fury is a good fighter but i always felt he was very over estimated due to the Wilder fights, and Wilder's stock plummeted after the Parker fight so how good was Wilder in reality ?

I think you need to have balance all in all realistically 180 pound Cruiserweight sized Heavyweights won't be beating elite Super Heavyweights. But fighters who are similar size to Ali, Holmes, etc who are elite could definitely beat Super Heavyweights yes.

 

As I said in another post, The moment a person starts using the term super heavyweight then you know they are a casual who just repeats stuff they heard other people say. Casuals will pretend that if you are 6'5 plus you are a super heavyweight. Which is funny since in the 1970s alone there were literally 100's of guys 6'5 plus. I never heard anybody refer to guys like Al Jones, Chuck Wepner, Orville Qualls, Horse Geisler, Gerrie Cooney, Leroy Jones, James J Beattie, Bobo Renfrow, Roy "Tiger" Williams, Jimmy Abbott, Berndt August etc as being super heavyweights In the 1990's you had tons of 6'7 to 6'10 plus guys like Lance Whitaker, Michael Grant, Jorge Luiz Gonzales, Mike White, Stanley Wright, Henry Akinwande , Vitali Klistchko etc and I never heard anybody call these guys super heavyweights as a pro.

Even in terms of weight these guys now are usually out of shape. You had fat heavyweights back in the 70's like Jimmy Abbott who weighed as much as 300 pounds, Buster Mathis Sr who weighed as much as 300 pounds and Leroy Jones who weighed as much as 270 pounds. It didn't benefit them at all and they were called out for it.

Finally Usyk isn't clever. Tyson Fury is just that bad. This guy is 35 years old and the best win of his career was when he beat a 40 year old Wlad 8 years ago and didn't look good doing it. He only landed 86 punches in 12 rounds against a 40 year old shot fighter. Could you imagine a prime Mike Tyson, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe etc fighting a 40 year old Wlad and not destroying him? But lets sayi they didn't knock him out , could you imagine htem landing under 100 punches in 12 rounds against him? Heck Foreman landed 225 punches against Tommy Morrison when Foreman was 43. A 23 year old Morrison was better than a 40 year old Wlad.

Usyk won because how bad Fury is. It has notihng to do with a smaller man beating a bigger man or anything like that.

 

I don't know much about Sharkey but the others i agree on yes.

Holyfield himself showed he could beat Heavyweights the size of Super Heavyweights today Bowe 2, Douglas, Foreman, and gave Lewis who is one of the best Super Heavyweight H2H fighters of all time a competitive fight in their 2nd meeting.

 

Buffer was terrible tonight.

 

There's an 18 inch reach difference between Marciano and Fury lol.

 

Yes. If an aging Holyfield could be competitive vs Lewis, why couldn't Ali or Holmes beat Lewis? Or Usyk for that matter.

 

For me no, I always considered the modern super heavyweights as being great a MYTH.

 

I'd agree with the last line entirely.

Ultimately, Usyk's tactics were superior to Fury's.

 

For sensible boxing fans there was nothing to demolish. They always knew size is very important, but no the only factor to consider.
It is the casual fanboys in love with the idea of size as the only measurement of how good a boxer is the ones who have seen his mental frame shattered tonight.

Hopefully from now on we will see more balances discussion when comparing size and skill and matching a "big guy" versus a "small guy".

And size still matters ... as many other factors.

 

I don't think it proves anything about old school or smaller heavyweights vs super heavyweights. It proves that boxers (and I mean boxers as a fighting style) can use their skills to overcome size based disadvantages, something we already knew.

Boxers have always been able to use their skills to outmanoeuvre and decision much larger fighters. I mean Chris Byrd was in control of the Vitali fight before the stoppage, and he's not an ATG. They've always had more success moving up in weight or fighting at a weight disadvantage than sluggers and swarmers due to their strengths not being based on mass or strength based advantages, usually skill, speed, mobility, stamina, etc.

The Marciano's, Dempsey's, Frazier's, Langford's etc of the world would still get flattened by the Lewis's, Wlad's, AJ's, Tyson's etc. You can't be a fighter that relies on their physical advantage to win, be at a physical disadvantage, and expect to dominate.

 

they made men bigger, but the chin stays the same

 

So, he is bigger than prime Foreman. Dwarfs the likes of Dempsey, Marciano, Liston. I think that works just fine.

You ring this bell every time the smaller heavy wins. But the smaller heavy here is 6-3 and 225, a literal giant back in the your revered halcyon days of the division.