CMV: I think Usyk beats any version of Ali

Except only YOU believes this.

 

And as your intelligential and social superior my opinion has more value peasant.

 

I have a jar of beetroot in the fridge that’s intellectually superior to you.

 

Peasants are always resentful of their superiors. Sad!

 

Hypothetical match ups, unless prescribed otherwise, factor best vs best.

The thread DID NOT prescribe ‘73 Ali and on vs prime Usyk.

Ali was clearly past his prime years vs Norton.

Disingenuous reference. Not in good faith. Take the L.

Norton was a very good fighter, who did punch very hard and who, at an advanced age, took a prime or near prime Holmes (who didn’t fight like Ali) down to the wire. Norton gave two top end ATGs hell.

Norton would give Usyk a LOT of trouble and Holmes would defeat Usyk. Take another L.

A fighter who is past prime can only in potential gain credit for his wins, not discredit from his prime rating for his later losses or lesser performance.

I need to stop counting your Ls, they’re coming in too thick and too fast.

Interesting that when you are proven wrong you automatically default to the other party not approaching the discussion in “good faith”. Lol.

For as many times that you have falsely claimed same - it’s obvious that you have been proven wrong.

You really need to stop shamelessly projecting your own lack of “good faith” onto others.

Usyk just defeated the best HW of an era? Lol. Best of an era being arguable at any rate.

So you’re talking the same guy who got beaten up, knocked down and arguably beaten by a boxing debutant even before his first fight vs Usyk.

Also the same old guy who came in blubbery fat like a whale for the rematch and who has since retired, side stepping a match even against AJ? Best of an era and such a fight’n’ man he has been.

So Spinks beat the best of an era in Ali? - that doesn’t falsely elevate the true magnitude of Spinks’ achievement against the actual version of Ali he engaged.

That was an incredibly gruelling fight for an older and more worn torn Ali - very little to do with the quality of opponent at hand.

That AJ closed the gap due to decline in Usyk is not flawed. It’s common sense. You’re just an illogical apologetic when it comes to Usyk.

You’re simply deferring to your end game at the expense of rationality otherwise.

You’re conveniently forgetting and self contradicting ALL that you paint Usyk to be - that being that he is an acutely superior boxer who is able to adjust to all circumstances….and yet AJ, of all people, was able to better adjust and offset the steadily maintained or perhaps ever improving Usyk (as you’ve tried to inexplicably claim).

Wow. What an illogical, self serving side step.

You can keep trying to ignore the OBVIOUS logic put to you - you do so only because you refuse to admit to a decline that most others can see with their own eyes.

I said that Ali was in the best possible shape he could be in at that stage of his career.

See how much time you waste with BS replies, trying to twist words and applying false equivocations?

One finds need to assert the same and correct thing over and over when the other party, being YOU, chooses to ignore, or stonewall the facts and sound logic put to you.

You simply repeat already debunked points, over and over…an expressly closed system.

Greater size correlates with a reduction in skill - and that can present itself as natures compensation for the smaller fighter in the face of his greater sized opposition.

Today’s behemoths aren’t as skilled as you’re trying to frame them to be.

In lieu of pure boxing, the most notable advantage the SHWs gain from their greater size is when they apply it directly - via clinching, mauling and leaning - trying to morph a boxing bout into a wrestling match.

Briedis gave a PRIME Usyk his toughest and closest fight. Any version of Usyk some time thereafter was clearly POST PRIME.

Briedis holds the BEST performance against a Usyk at the true height of his powers. Simple.

You seriously either don’t understand fundamental concepts….

…OR, you deliberately try to falsely equivocate on them IF they correctly and air tightly detract from your argument - enter your “bad faith” deflective assertion and cop out.

For as many times that you have claimed “bad faith” it equates to as many times you have been flatly proven wrong. It’s a very reliable metric.

The real issue here is that you have such intense “feels” for Usyk it make you giddy and corrupts any objectivity you “might” possess.

You’ve described an impossible version of Usyk, a profile that is literally nothing short of the qualities of Superman.

That you claim that Ali is prone to being overrated is acutely ironic and laughable.

Stop, take a breath and centre yourself, get some Zen happening, otherwise you’ll keel over from swooning.

Being such an irrational Fanboy is not a good thing and tbh, you’re coming across as one of the more acute Fanboys I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading.

The Good Big Man being defeated by The Better Small Man is not such a rare, naturally phenomena, as has ALREADY been proven to you time and again.

The inherently generic Big Man disadvantages exploited by Usyk could and would be exploited by other, similarly sized ATG HWs of the past - especially against the aged versions of AJ (already soundly KO’d before Olek got to him) and Fury that Usyk has faced.

 

He’s clearly “lost” the debate with you Boke and is now “running away” with his tail between his legs….

 

Was it perhaps tough also due to slanted referring and Usyk being robbed of a rightful 9th round KO/TKO?

Younger, prime Usyk didn’t come anywhere near as close to stopping Briedis and Olek was fairly marked up at the end of the Briedis.

Briedis also came on stronger at the end, winning round 12, - not flagging like AJ and Co.

Say “bad faith” and I will happily take that as a non-sensical rejection of yet another legitimate “L” on your slate.

 

Well, try to stop being so resentful. Know your place.

 

These replies are not arguments. Say what….?

 

Just struggled through some of Usyk AJ 1 because it was rated by a few as Usyk's best performance in another thread

What exactly did he do that was a display of great skill? It was mostly just very basic linear coming in with a 1-2, AJ actually had better head movement at times which is hilarious because people on Usyk's nuts like to say he has good head movement

The stuff he landed on AJ with those basic movements...Ali would 100% make him miss, Ali would also figure out his range and pocket and use his actual ATG footwork to cut angles and find himself in position to land significant shots when Usyk was in range

Ali was known for landing punches that weren't seen, meanwhile Usyk basically telegraphs with his repetitious linear movement

Usyk is basic and does not have any extra dimension to his game

 

You’re trying to act like Ali was a shot fighter when he faced Norton just so you can dismiss his struggles. The reality is that Ali, even post-exile, was still an elite heavyweight. His speed and reflexes declined somewhat, but his technical skills remained intact—if anything, they improved in some areas. His ability to beat Frazier (twice) and Foreman proves that he was still an incredible fighter, not some washed-up version that should be ignored. The fact that you dismiss Norton’s success against Ali as just "past prime Ali" but don’t apply the same skepticism to Ali’s wins against other ATGs shows how selective you are with what you consider “best vs best.”
Not to mention, Ali struggled with technical boxers even in his prime—Doug Jones, for example, gave him problems. So why should we pretend Norton wouldn’t have still given him issues? You’re just trying to erase evidence of Ali’s vulnerabilities to avoid admitting that Usyk, a superior technician to Norton, would exploit them just the same.

About Norton, your logic is completely inconsistent. You say Ali was diminished when he fought Norton, but then turn around and call Norton a great fighter for beating this supposedly diminished version of Ali. So which is it? Either Ali was still great when he fought Norton (which means Norton troubling him matters), or Norton doesn’t deserve much credit because he fought and beat a diminshed Ali (which contradicts your argument that he’d give Usyk trouble). On top of that, Norton never even fought a southpaw, let alone someone with Usyk’s movement, speed, and footwork. Saying Norton would trouble Usyk is just an excuse to overrate Norton and downplay Usyk. You’re acting like it’s a given that Norton’s awkwardness would translate against a completely different style when there’s no evidence to support that claim.

Your entire logic about dismissing fighters once they’re past prime is flawed. It allows you to ignore any loss by saying the fighter “wasn’t at their best,” completely disregarding how good they still were at the time. Fighters decline gradually, not in a binary on/off switch. A fighter can be past their absolute peak but still be an elite competitor. If we used your logic, we’d have to discredit nearly every win in history unless it was a prime-vs-prime matchup. But that’s not how boxing works. Fighters develop, adapt, and still perform at a high level even after their peak years and sometimes they improve their technical skills to compensate for their loss of athletic ability. Your argument just shows a lack of understanding of how fighters age and evolve.

It’s clear that your agenda is to downplay everything Usyk has accomplished at heavyweight rather than evaluate him fairly. You refuse to acknowledge how impressive it is for a smaller fighter to dominate modern SHWs, and instead, you just discredit every win he has.
Rather than giving Usyk his due, you make excuses for every opponent—Fury was “out of shape,” Joshua only “closed the gap because Usyk declined,” and so on. You’re not concerned with objectivity; you just want to make past fighters look better at the expense of modern ones. The reality is that great fighters exist in every era, and Usyk is proving that now just like past legends did before him. You act like Usyk’s success is just a matter of him “exploiting” SHWs’ weaknesses, but if it were that simple, why aren’t more smaller heavyweights doing what he’s doing? The fact that Usyk is alone in achieving this level of success shows how special he is.
Modern SHWs are much better than the ones from past eras—bigger, stronger, and better trained—so Usyk overcoming them is even more impressive. It’s difficult for small fighters to compete against SHWs today, and the fact that Usyk can not only compete but dominate proves he’s an exceptional fighter.

 

Cont:

You have to cling to the idea that Briedis was Usyk’s hardest fight because it’s the only way you can push your ridiculous claim that cruiserweight was somehow harder than heavyweight. But that’s just not true.
Fury and Joshua were both tougher, more physically demanding fights. Just because the Briedis fight was competitive doesn’t mean it was harder than those. Usyk won that fight clearly, whereas against Fury and Joshua, he had to push through serious adversity. You refuse to admit this because if you did, your entire narrative about heavyweight being "easier" than cruiserweight would collapse.

Every criticism you throw at me is pure projection. The truth is, you are the one with a dogmatic view who refuses to adjust despite overwhelming evidence against your stance. You keep repeating the same arguments over and over, not because they’re valid, but because you don’t want to admit you’re wrong.
Instead of engaging with counterpoints, you dismiss them, sidestep contradictions in your own logic, and keep doubling down on outdated ideas just to protect your pre-existing beliefs. That’s not analysis; that’s just blind stubbornness.

At the end of the day, your entire argument boils down to one thing: You refuse to give Usyk credit because it would force you to acknowledge that modern fighters can be just as great as past ones. And that’s why you keep taking Ls in these debates.

 

Your take on Usyk being "basic" completely ignores the deeper technical mastery that made his performance against Joshua so dominant. Just because Usyk’s style isn’t flashy like Ali’s doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly advanced. Usyk didn’t just throw basic 1-2s; he controlled the entire fight by dictating when and how exchanges happened. He forced Joshua to react to his movement, feints, and pace, never allowing him to establish his own rhythm. That’s not "basic"—that’s high-level mastery of the ring. Usyk’s lead hand was used in a variety of ways (feints, jabs, probes, check hooks) to disrupt Joshua’s rhythm. His ability to control distance and manipulate Joshua’s reactions was anything but simple. Usyk’s foot positioning was instrumental in his victory. He constantly angled away from Joshua’s power hand while setting himself up for clean shots. The article details how he baited Joshua into overcommitting, only to reposition and punish him. Unlike Ali’s exaggerated head movement, Usyk uses small, efficient defensive adjustments (upper body movement, foot positioning, and clinch work) to minimize damage while staying in position to counter. His ability to make Joshua miss wasn’t about raw reflexes—it was about superior positioning and awareness. The idea that Ali would just "make him miss" assumes Usyk is predictable, when in reality, his feints, changes in rhythm, and footwork would make him incredibly tricky even for an all-time great like Ali. He doesn’t telegraph his shots; he conditions opponents to expect certain patterns and then breaks them. Saying Usyk has “no extra dimension” is just flat-out wrong. He has one of the most layered, adaptive styles in boxing today. His dominance over Joshua wasn’t due to athleticism or basic linear movement—it was because of his ability to dictate terms, manipulate positioning, and exploit weaknesses with an incredibly deep technical toolbox.
Here's a good article on the fight if you want a more in-depth look https://www.thefight-site.com/home/oleksandr-usyk-vs-anthony-joshua-lessons-in-initiative

 

That's basically just Tim Witherspoon and the few pro boxing trainers who made themselves known on this forum.

Even the poetic, wistful way you put the conclusion points to how easy it is for us to want to believe. Boxing has raised up a lot of heroes. It's seductive for boxing fans to believe that our heroes might just pull it off against whatever Ivan Drago is fashionable in the current year. I think that's half of why fantasy fight threads even exist.

Real life boxing results have a way of disappointing and disillusioning people, though. The Great White Hype ended the way it did for a reason; it had a lot of real world models to work from. Just something to consider.

 

We can believe things based upon logic.

We can form educated opinions based on all of the evidence to hand.

It’s not a romantic, nostalgic dream, to believe that Ali could have beaten Usyk and other modern guys.

It’s absolutely very realistic.

All fights are determined by how the two guys match up on the night stylistically.

So it’s not that important what era they were from.

Many guys of Ali’s era could have beaten many guys of today.

That should just be pure common sense to any knowledgeable boxing fan.