Past Heavyweights Who Beat Usyk

Lewis
Holyfield
Holmes
Wlad

Think tua would of been a good fight to watch

 

1.Prime Tyson would be horrible for usyk

Prime Ali with that razor sharp jab

Larry Holmes with that jab

Foreman of 73/74 would give usyk a nightmare

Holyfield 50/50 fight

Lennox Lewis beats usyk under Stewart

 

I wasn't trying to discredit it, only put it in context. None of them were great wins. Some were good, and some downright poor. All had context.

 

Don’t be silly.

It’s nothing to do with IQ.

It’s simply a clash of many different styles.

Nobody could beat everybody.

 

You didn’t apply context though.

And how was destroying Spinks like that not a great win?

He’d proven that he was a legitimate world level HW, in his 2 fights with Holmes.

 

Your context was misleading though and only focused on the negatives no positives so you weren't being balanced in that post at all.

 

When you’re talking about a higher ceiling, are you talking about athletic performance, skills, or both of those together?

Are you saying that the modern athlete is generally fitter?

Are you saying that the modern athlete is generally superior skilled?


There is just no evidence of either one of those things.

Today’s top fighters aren’t the best in history.


There’s entire weight classes today that are inferior.

Not just a handful of fighters, but huge groups of fighters from many divisions.

The ceiling doesn’t keep getting higher as time progresses.


Today’s WW’s aren’t better than the group from the 80’s, which was over 40 years ago.

Today’s MW’s are nowhere near the level from the 80’s and 90’s, from 30-40 years ago.

And that’s only looking at just two divisions.


There is no continual progression in the sport.

 

Of course I did...you didn't want to read it.

Beating a 33 year old, inactive natural LHW with chronically bad knees is not a great win. Context.

 

No, they were sold as positives, I applied the context.



con·text
/ˈkäntekst/
noun

1. the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

 

Then how is beating a 36 year old 30lbs overweight drug addict, who arguably lost to a rookie MMA fighter in his previous, fight, a great win? Context right.

 

It didn’t apply any context whatsoever. You just rubbished the entire list, by looking negatively at them.

Regarding Spinks, again, he’d proved himself to be a legitimate HW.

He wasn’t just a blown up LHW.

Do you think an average fighter could have beaten Larry Holmes in 1985 and 1986?

He beat Ray Mercer in 1992.

Give Mike credit.

Look at his age.

His size.

The manner of most of those victories.

 

Don’t bother posting the definition.

We know what it means.

Now go and input it into your posts.


This is what you wrote:

How have you applied any context exactly?

 

No you provided a one sided perspective to make Tyson's resume look worse by discrediting his whole resume that's not context that's called being biased.

This is what you wrote below.

"Holmes- 38 years old
Spinks- 33 year old pumped up LHW with bad knees
Bruno- Bruno
Ruddock- Guy who was beaten by Dave Jaco and Tommy Morrison
Tucker- Drug addict
Gollotta- mentally deficient quitter
Berbick- Solid but unspectacualt
pinklin thomas- Drug addict
tony tubbs- fat drug addict"

So basically you found every negative aspect to Tyson's resume without actually providing any context.

Here's the actual context.

Holmes = Yes 38 years old but he went on to become a top 10 Heavyweight in 90s and was never stopped again hence it's a good win in the manner in which Tyson won.

Spinks = Undefeated lineal Heavyweight champion great win in the manner in which Tyson won.

Ruddock = Number 3 ranked Heavyweight dangerous KO artist.

Tucker = 6'5 34-0 undefeated IBF champion.

That's actual context.

 

A one sided perspective in response to presenting them as great wins. Thus, both sides presented. Context.

 

Just explained. It please go off of that as I do not intend to have the same argument with two people.