Has Usky just demolished the myth of the modern superheavyweight?

Good post.
However I am afraid that after years of enduring "Wlad and Fury are the gReAteST!! Nobody can beat the superheavies" now we are entering into a "Usyk is the gReAteST! Nobody before or after could defeat the superheavies".

I suspect there is a new narrative developing that ONLY Usyk could defeat superheavies or whatever, because he is the chosen one, he is a smal "huge" WH, his mysterious "soviet style", etc., etc.
Next we will know Usyk wrestled bears in siberia and that is the reason he is the one and only who can stand up to the big guys.

IMO all mumbo jumbo to "justify" how a small guy beat a big guy.

Usyk is a good boxer, maybe an ATG. But he is not unique. I can think of others "small guys" who could defeat Fury or any other "superheavy".

 

Here we go again.

 

Chisora tried to put pressure on Usyk. Did it help?

 

You know, Janitor, that is a really unfortunate misspelling of Usyk's name - given with what it could phonetically rhyme.

 

This is a proof that Ali,Foreman,Louis,Dempsey,Holyfield,Lennox,Tyson etc would kill Fury and Joshua.

The myth of the modern superheavyweights is over, and I won't buy any more size gap hype.

 

Objectively, one would have to say, 'Yes'.

It would be fair to say that Chisora isn't the class of Joshua but, by way of attempting to apply the pressure (behind which Chisora brought little in the way of skills to execute), he actually, on paper, performed as well against Usyk as did AJ.

It's actually fascinating to me that neither AJ nor Fury seem to have taken Chisora's performance into consideration when deciding upon their own tactics.

 

I have always thought folks here just like in other sports are too wrapped up in today’s larger and supposedly better physical specimens, not that Fury is an Adonis.

 

I said in another thread that anytime Usyk breathes people with a retro agenda use his existence to prove that literally any heavyweight born before the 21st century would dominate

Their minds get put into overdrive in a desperate attempt to extrapolate why a 6'3 220lbs southpaw boxing prodigy beating a super heavyweight means that Jack Dempsey or Sam Langford could do it too lol

 

5'6 Sam Langford beat 6'6 Bill Tate a bunch of times. Whats so different?

 

He's not adonis but it was obvious that his size was an advantage. If he had Usyk's skills + his size current Usyk wouldn't stand a chance. Usyk is just much better boxer than Fury and probably anybody else.

I'm sure AJ is happy about the outcome.

 

Size still matters, up to a point.
I think there is a happy middleground.

Guys like Marciano, Patterson, Frazier, etc. are probably too small and light to be competitive versus the "superheavies", and actually should be considered cruisers.

Buy guys like Ali, Liston, Foreman, Holy or Holmes?
I think they beat Fury as bad or even worse than Usyk did.

 

He didn't it was a clear Usyk win both Joshua and Fury gave him much more trouble there's a reason they didn't emulate Chisora style because it didn't work

 

Yet in another 93 years they'll all be saying the same thing about Fury that you just said about Carnera. Lot of you guys utterly gave into recency bias and now you can't admit it.

 

Why persist with "Usky"? Is it auto correct that messes with you?

 

He's proved that the smaller heavies of the past *could* beat current giants, but to be fair he's very different to any heavyweight champion in history. He's a southpaw, he's more comfortable on the front foot than a guy like Ali and he goes to the body more, but despite that he still struggled with Fury's reach. And whenever Fury pressed the action he was unable to do a whole lot.