Past Heavyweights Who Beat Usyk

We all saw what Tony Tucker did with a broken hand against Tyson. Usyk was not even knocked down during his career or seriously hurt. Usyk's jab is underrated big time. Vulnerable to the body? How many times he was knocked down after body shot? Usyk is too clever for Tyson and let's be honest - Usyk has stronger mind and will. Tyson had flaws. This 38 years old Usyk beats Tyson from Golota and Botha fight and Holyfield fights. And I believe 32 years old Usyk beats 20 years old Tyson. All Guy Tyson schooled during his prime would be equally schooled by Usyk.

 

Here you are again, with your little agenda, and again not applying any context.

Ray Mercer was a very credible HW.

Of course you’ll just note his losses.

However, he’d beaten Morrison, and he came within a whisker of beating Lewis. And on a decision. Not just by catching him like Rahman did.

Ray Mercer was good.


Larry beat him when he was 42.

Which means that he wasn’t shot when Mike had beaten him 4 years earlier.


Yes, we know that Larry was past his best for Mike.

Nobody is saying that it was some great feat.

But it was a very CREDIBLE win, based upon everything that I’ve mentioned previously.


You cannot completely dismiss it, just by typing that he was 38.

Again, there is a lot more to look at than just that.

 

\

If you know Larry was past his best for Mike, then you understand the context I provided. It was a decent win, but nothing special in the annals of history.

No agenda, I have just told the truth.

 

Usyk has shown vulnerabilities to the body and fighting on the inside, both at amateur and pro.

Against Beterbiev, Chisora, Dubois and Breidis.


It’s not about who you think is better.

It doesn’t matter who you think Usyk would have schooled.

It’s about how they’d have matched up on the night stylistically.


Usyk barely beat Breidis in his prime at CW.

His cleverness and jab, wouldn’t do anything against a small, fast, ferocious, power punching pressure fighter.


Usyk hasn’t got the attributes to have beaten a prime Mike Tyson.

Mike would have suffocated him on the inside.

He hasn’t got for the attributes to have kept him off of him.


It’s very easy to predict.

Again, it’s not about resume and who ranks higher.

Only how they’d have matched up stylistically.

 

Nobody has ever said that it was some great win.

But you didn’t apply context.

You just completely dismissed it by saying that he was 38.

Again, all things considered, it was a very credible win.

The fact that he could still beat world level fighters 4 years later, and that nobody else ever knocked him out in his entire 20 year career, absolutely make it a credible win.

 

Actually when you make a claim you need to support it. You failed, so we can dismiss your claim easily.

 

38 is the context.Please research what context means.

 

You can at least admit that it was a credible win.

 

Of course I did.Everything I said is 100% truthful.

 

No more double posts. That is why I perhaps ungraciously called you a spaz. Contain your outrage to one post, please.

 

Even if it was truthful it does not mean they were not great wins. Aaron Pryor was also a drug addict yet I have never seen anyone deny he was a great fighter.

 

Oh my word.

38 is ONE FACTOR to look at.


Are you serious?

Again, you have no idea what the word context means.

Read the definition yourself.


Yes, he was 38.

However, when you APPLY CONTEXT, you can see that:

DESPITE being 38, he was STILL a world level fighter, who went on to beat fellow world level fighters, 4 years LATER, in the following decade.

He was also only knocked out ONCE, in a 75 fight career, which spanned 20 years!


The definition of context, is to LOOK at ALL of the relevant factors.

That is literally what it means.


So: Despite his age, all things considered, it was a very credible win for Mike Tyson.


Larry was world class.

Mike was young, undersized and beat him with ease.

That = A credible win.


Joe Calzaghe’s fans celebrate the win over Hopkins at 43.

Why?

Because he was still an elite level fighter at that point, who beat Kelly Pavlik straight afterwards.

That is the definition of applying context.

 

There is no outrage.

Just complete befuddlement.

 

I never said they are all great wins I was giving you the context of how the opponents were rated at the time which you failed to mention in your original post hence you didn't give context and I did. You presented a negative one sided baseless write up in an attempt to discredit Tyson's resume with 0 context what so ever.

That's me like me doing this with Usyk's resume......

Fury = 36 years old out of shape past his prime should've lost to an MMA fighter.

Is that proper context ? Because that's basically what you did pretty much with Tyson's resume.

I don't want to argue with you so I'll make this my last post I just think you were harsh in your write up and didn't give proper context to Tyson's resume which is one of the better Heavyweight resumes I think outside of Ali, Louis, who have ridiculous resumes.

 

He can’t admit what he’s done.

Your analogy is perfect.


We could also say:

AJ - past his prime, and got bashed up by Ruiz a few years earlier.

That’s another example of what he’s done.


Both the Spinks and Homes wins were very credible wins.


The ironic thing is, he’s literally written up the definition of the word context, despite the fact that he’s literally never once applied it himself in any of his posts.

It’s just laughable.