Oleksandr Usyk vs Muhammad Ali primes

Well you're just wrong but please show me more about how you know what you're talking about. Here's something to educate yourself in case you actually want to learn

This content is protected

 

In the 60s?? That's delusional. A 200-220 pound elite southpaw as skilled as Usyk would be at the top of the division in any era. What may be up for question is if he would be THE top heavyweight.

 

Highlights are for people like you. A know nothing.
Two minutes and twenty one seconds isn't close
to what a fighter has done the majority of his career.
I can make Howard Davis Jr. Look like the most devastating
puncher in history by using highlights.
Sit down and watch the fights in their entirety against
multiple opponents, get a real read on the subjects of
them at their best AND their worst.

Also Learn a little humility while your at it.

 

So in other words you can't concede when you're obj wrong maybe take your own advice chum and watch the fighters you claim to know all about because so far all you've shown is you know nothing but how to yap.

 

I'll also use the video you provided to prove my point
on how insignificant a highlight video can be.
All the many times on this SHORT video
of your proof of Usyk using head movement,
to prove a point.
All the countering opportunities he missed.
You think Joe Louis, Mike Tyson, or Ali wouldn't
have made the robotic, predictable Joshua pay dearly
with that many missed countering opportunities?
Could it be you're so busy trying to prove a point
you don't realize how bad that video makes him
look with the many missed opportunities?

 

It's laughable to say Usyk would be a regional fighter in 1967. Forget Ali, let's look at who was in the top 10 that year. Surely, one can't think that Usyk was any worse than Ernie Terrell and Zora Folley who managed to make the top 10 during that time period.

 

The only version of Ali he beats is the 1975 onwards.
Even then it's a tough fought win for Usyk.

 

All it shows is YDKSAB but keep yapping

 

No, your comments show's anyone that does know
about the sport your lack of knowledge of it.
And unfortunately by the way you're ranting
You will always be stuck with a superficial
knowledge because of your arrogance.
But if Usyk is the greatest heavyweight
in history in your opinion.
You are welcome to that belief sir....

 

There's a difference between having an opinion and being delusional.
Your OPNION is Usyk is special, and would be at the top in any era.
That fine, it's your OPNION....
Mine is he wouldn't be. My reasoning is I've seen much better fighter
over the years , plus the man has a grand total of seven fights at the weight limit
against below average competition, and many other reason's I have
But ultimately it's only MY OPNION......
By the way, wasn't you one of the posters on this very site that preached
how great Anthony Joshua was and no fighter smaller than him could
ever beat him?
If it wasn't you, apologies , but my has that unbeatable super heavyweight
narrative has changed
Now the latest flavor of the month (With no substance) is Usyk.

 

Not saying Usyk is unbeatable. Not saying he beats prime Ali. But come on, in an era where Chuvalo or Cooper or Folley could make the top 10, why couldn't Usyk? Usyk is a 200-220 pound fighter who is arguably the most skilled southpaw of all time, at least at cruiserweight and heavyweight. There's no era where he would not be in the top 10. Would he dominate? That's debatable. From say, 1900 to now, I can't think of an era where Usyk wouldn't be included amongst the best of the division.

As for AJ, yes he's beatable but in some eras, he would be downright scary. A 6'6 245 pound fighter with KO power and decent speed and combination punching ability wouldn't necessarily be out of his depth amongst the 185-200 pound heavies of time past. AJ would also reliably be amongst the top 10 of any HW era from 1900 to now.

 

I like what you’ve written but… actually the foot outside the lead foot is wrong if you count it as a “must” or as the “only way” your lead hand is also how you can beat a southpaw - it’s the better way IMO you step in to there left and jab or throw a hook they’ve been trained to let that straight go at said moment, it’ll go by your head and you’ll score, you can get inside wth your shoulder in his chest… you take away his best weapon his “awkward angles” it removes his right from the game, you just keep your eye on his left hand - this was how Jake LaMotta handled lefties. if you work off their jab instead of bumping fists with them you can slip outside it and your away from there left by a long shot, rip a hook top or bottom, you can slip outside there left hand and rip rights top or bottom (uppercuts depending on the angle) but that’ll involve stepping inside not outside the lead foot. Do you see what I mean? This is just what I could type up pretty quickly, I hope it makes sense.

 

I don't know the minutiae of boxing like some of you guys but I can find videos that make Ali look like the Jimi Hendrix of boxing who is almost universally recognized as the greatest guitarist and universally recognized as the most creative.

 

No, it's not written in stone that the tactic I explained must be done in the exact way I wrote.
Basically what I was mainly focused on is the topic at hand ,
That's Usyk vs Ali. And how I see Ali being quicker of hand and foot ( In his prime) and what he did better than any heavyweight in history, that's right hand leads.
And why in my opinion, he'd have as easy of a fight against Usyk as he did with other South paws he faced.
But of course theirs different tactics.
Only a fool believes they have the only way.
But thank you for having a reasonable conversation and explaining your point of view.
It's much better than some posters " Fighter A ' s is better because I like him and he's modern " . Attitude s but really they can't explain why Fighter A is better.
I appreciate reasonable feedback.