3x Fury, 2x aj, 2x Dubois, 2x Chisora, 2x undisputed champion. Is this top 5 ?

Is this Usyks heavyweight legacy before retirement. I think that record is perfect symmetry and represents dominance over biritsh era which puts him in contention with Lennox Lewis

Will this make him top 5 heavywwight of all time ?

 

No, beating a few guys from the UK,because Americans top athletes no longer go into boxing, does not make him top 5

Top 5 British champion maybe lol

 

Parker beat Chisora twice and everyone shits on him for it.
Fury did it 3 times, and it´s rarely brought up.
And everyone has forgotten that Whyte beat Chisora twice too.

 

GOAT Commonwealth champ who never fought at the world level. Should endorse "5 guys" because thats the amount of HW opponents he beat.

 

Top 10 to top 5. Its an excellent record IMO - should get a bit more credit considering hes been the away fighter and has literally won rematch clauses and has beaten everyone formidable in this division.

Then again, to reach top 3 he needs to beat even more top contenders like Parker, Kabayel, and more but age is not on his side.

 

Add in a win over Parker and then have Parker and Dubois rule the division for a few years and he will be a shoe in I reckon. He will have effectively beaten two eras worth of top champions then.

 

There's definitely something in beating the next generations champions when you're old, declining and should probably lose... Those wins do age well.

Lewis beating Vitali despite being pretty shot counts well for his legacy - yes, the win wasn't a KO or UD, but it still aged well.


Usyk has two major problems in legacy terms:
1) He's in what will probably be regarded as a weak era.
2) He's not had that many fights at heavyweight and he's too old (and fighting too infrequently) to fix that at this point.

His legacy should age just fine - when recency bias and a bit of hype for down, so will some of the worst criticisms of the era, as well as certain wins beginning to mature (Dubois in particular).

 

But undefeated. No loss to Rahmen, McCall, Sanders, Purity, Schmeling, Norton, Marshal,Douglas, Moorer...no one making a name off Usyk.

Look, I afford Usyk the same bump I afford Charles, Tunney, and to a lesser degree, Spinks for beating good fighters at lower weights. When it is manifestly true that Briedis did better agains Usyk than Joshua or Dubois, then he counts. There is a certain blind stuborness in saying that "Usyk is pound for pound great," when he is 6'3", has a higher fighting weight then Ali, Tyson and Holmes in their primes, and with two wins each against Fury and Joshua, pretty much has the ATG record against quality super heavies.

Top five is not unreasonable, though I respect those who see it differently.

 

It's funny how when the 'ethnic' Europeans are champions it's always a weak era.
It's amazing how long this weak era has been with Klitschkos being on top for a decade or so and then Fury and Usyk dominating for a handful of years now.
We've got 15+ years of weakness right there.
Imagine claiming we just had 15 years of a weak era in tennis, it's laughable.
Where does this propaganda come from? I think we all know the place of origin.

I don't care about the journalist rankings, I just look at the fighters and ask whether they would win matchups with the fighters claimed to be better. And when it comes to Usyk it's hard to see any nostalgia fighters beating him unless he's an old man.

But the fact mongs believe that Frazier with his magical 'leaping left hook!' would even be competitive with Usyk sums up the mythology going on.

 

I mean we all know that if Vitali and Vlad were from Texas or something, then that would have been regarded as a "strong" era. We see that all it takes for an era to be "stronger" is to have someone like Wilder in the mix, even if he didn't have elite wins the fact that he existed boosted Joshua, and Fury after their fights, and by extension the whole division.

 

And the overrating continues
I could arguably concede top 10, but 5? No way and i am not trolling

Might have the ability but not the resume to back it up

 

I presume you rate Wlad way, way higher than Vitali then?

It's funny how many people don't... But will then use that argument when it suits.

 

I have him higher as a hw for accomplishments yes, but rate Vitali as better head to head

Yes wlad is certainly higher

I have wlad and many others above usyk also, so what's your point?

 

I guess the point is that it depends whether we're talking about top 5/10/whatever as far as accomplishments and resume go... Or whether we're talking about ability, perceived head-to-head, etc.

I sometimes feel that resume isn't given enough weight when assessing ability and head-to-head potential - for me, being proven to a higher level means a lot (the higher level the fewer will make it, so I dislike assuming people will even if they look good at a lower level).

 

I can't rate Usyk too highly head to head, because I don't think it is a great era. Others will disagree that is fine. I just don't think Fury, Wilder, Joshua, Parker etc are that good. Big yes, but not great

I try to go with resume first but also head to head if possible.

Would I favour Usyk to beat Wlad? Yes
But I still have him behind him all time