CMV: I think Usyk beats any version of Ali

Ali had incredible foot speed.

Incredible speed and reflexes.

But he couldn’t escape Frazier, who was on his chest.

He suffocated Ali on the inside.

Yes, of course Usyk wouldn’t have just been static.

That goes without saying doesn’t it.

The point is: Usyk hasn’t got the attributes to have kept him off. Just like Ali hadn’t.
That is the beauty of the sport.

Styles.

Usyk could have beaten Foreman.

But he’d have struggled more with Frazier, as Usyk doesn’t possess Foreman’s attributes.

This post here is a perfect example of where your knowledge is lacking.

 

If Ali was in great shape but still "diminished," then how do we determine when a fighter is diminished enough that their performances no longer count as valid references? If we follow your logic, any fight past a fighter’s absolute peak could be dismissed as irrelevant, which is unreasonable.

The Ali who fought Norton 2 was still good enough to beat Frazier (twice) and Foreman, two of the best heavyweights ever. If he was too “diminished” for Norton to be used as an example, then by that logic, should we also dismiss those wins? Because if we do, then we’re left questioning a huge portion of Ali’s post-exile career. If he was too diminished to be measured against Norton, was he also too diminished to be measured against Foreman? Too diminished to be measured against Frazier in the rematch? That’s the inconsistency in your argument—where do you draw the line?

If an Ali good enough to beat Foreman struggled with Norton, that suggests Norton was simply a legitimate stylistic problem, not that Ali was too far gone to take anything from those fights. Even if Ali wasn’t in his 1966 prime, his style and tendencies didn’t suddenly disappear—he still had great movement, speed, and stamina (though slightly reduced), and he still struggled with pressure fighters and awkward movers.

Here’s the real issue: whenever Ali struggles in a fight, people try to attribute it to decline rather than acknowledging that his opponent was simply good enough to trouble him. But that’s not how stylistic matchups work. Fighters don't just struggle because they’ve declined; they struggle because the opponent in front of them is doing things that make them uncomfortable.

Norton was never a great puncher. He wasn’t overwhelmingly fast, and he certainly wasn’t a generational talent. But he had a style that made Ali’s life difficult. He had a strong, educated jab, a solid defense, and a tenacity that forced Ali to work harder than he was used to. If Norton, who wasn’t as skilled as Usyk, could consistently exploit Ali’s weaknesses, then why wouldn’t Usyk—a superior boxer—also be able to exploit them?

You acknowledged that Norton improved between fights. But if we’re considering Norton’s improvement, why can’t we consider the idea that Usyk is simply better than Norton?

Your logic works one way: Ali’s performances should be ignored because he was diminished, but Norton’s improvement is allowed to be a factor. That’s inconsistent. If we dismiss every fight where a fighter wasn’t at their absolute peak, then we wouldn’t be able to analyze any historical matchups. The Ali that fought Norton was still an elite heavyweight, capable of beating all-time greats. If he had clear struggles with Norton, it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest Usyk, a more complete and versatile fighter than Norton, could also trouble him.

 

You claim Usyk has “naturally declined,” yet he just defeated the best heavyweight of this era. If he had actually declined, he wouldn’t have been able to outwork and outthink Fury in the late rounds the way he did. His footwork, ring IQ, and stamina are still elite.

The idea that Joshua only “closed the gap” because Usyk declined is also flawed. Adjustments happen in rematches. Fighters study their opponents and improve strategies. That’s not unique to Usyk-Joshua—it happens in boxing all the time.

Frazier won their first fight, Ali won the rematch. Did Frazier “decline,” or did Ali make adjustments?
Even if Usyk has slowed slightly, his skill level at heavyweight has remained high enough that he still outboxes, outworks, and outlasts bigger men, which is exactly what makes him special.
It seems like whenever Usyk’s heavyweight career is brought up, you try to minimize his success by blaming his opponents’ decline or supposed flaws in SHWs.

The reality is that Usyk is winning because of his superior skill set, not just because his opponents are fading or because SHWs have inherent weaknesses.

If size disadvantages were the biggest factors, why aren’t more smaller heavyweights doing what Usyk is doing? The answer is simple: they lack his skills.
You keep saying “size has disadvantages,” but here’s the issue: when size is combined with skill, it becomes a massive advantage.

This is why modern heavyweights are significantly larger than in Ali’s era

This is why smaller fighters struggle to dominate the division today


You also claim that I exaggerate size’s importance—but if that were true, why did so few sub-210-pound heavyweights succeed after the 1990s? The fact remains that size, when combined with ability, has played a major role in shaping modern heavyweight success. You keep insisting that Briedis was Usyk’s toughest fight, but that fight wasn’t as physically demanding as his rematch with Joshua or his fight with Fury.

Briedis was competitive, but Usyk took over the later rounds and won clearly.

Against Joshua in the rematch, Usyk had to withstand a brutal body attack and dig deep to win late rounds.

Against Fury, Usyk was losing multiple rounds in the middle of the fight before making a massive comeback and almost stopping Fury.


If we’re talking about difficulty, physical punishment, and adversity faced, Usyk had to overcome way more against Joshua and Fury than he did against Briedis.

You keep ignoring that just because it doesn’t fit your argument.
You say Ali was “diminished” but also “in great shape” for Norton 2.

You acknowledge Norton improved in the rematch but refuse to acknowledge Joshua did the same.

You claim Usyk declined, but he just beat the best heavyweight of this era.

You downplay size’s importance, yet heavyweight history clearly shows that modern elite heavyweights are bigger and stronger than past ones.

You insist Briedis was Usyk’s hardest fight while ignoring how much more physically demanding his fights against Joshua and Fury were.
If you want to argue in good faith, then engage with the actual points being made instead of just asserting the same thing over and over.

 

Watch the second fight when Ali actually used his footwork he won Usyk could do the same.

 

I don't even know who you are

 

Okay.

How can you believe that you’re having a debate in good faith, when you sarcastically type responses to people such as:

“Usyk has got this thing called footwork! He wouldn’t just stand there still”

That’s not an honest debate.

Also, Usyk’s hardest fight was against Breidis.

Simply because it was a harder stylistic fight for him.

 

I'm the guy wanting know for the fourth time if you're going to answer who gets **** for facing old fighters when Ali doesn't? Do Charles and Marciano for Louis for example?

Answer in that thread or leave this forum.

 

His hardest fight was Fury

 

Sure

 

Many of his points weren’t in any way valid.

And as great as Usyk is, he has never seen someone anywhere near as fast, with a style that was very unconventional.

You don’t know that he would be more aggressive.

Ali’s unique speed and style could well have made him more cautious than normal, because Ali had the speed to fire off first and beat him to the punch.

And it’s not just his hand speed.

It was his unique footwork.

Circling, feinting, jumping in and out of range, bouncing on his toes.

Nobody else had Ali’s footwork.

Usyk isn’t a pressure fighter. He’s not a swarmer. And he doesn’t have a great jab and huge power.

Who did Ali fight with the same stamina? Joe Frazier.

This fight would have been a chess match between two technicians.

A very intriguing fight.

 

I had Uysk Breidis 6-6. I would say that was his toughest fight on all honesty.

 

What's your Round by Round?

 

You're very welcome to give me examples, in that thread.

 

He is a pressure fighter he's constantly feinting and pressuring his opponents to wear them out and he had a great jab and lead hand what do you mean........

 

I had it noted down somewhere I will find it and reply to you.