Joseph Parker... a meaningless fight for Usyk?

This is gibberish. You should have just said them "it's true" part.

 

True.
But whilst they are looking back at the records, they might also notice that:
Tyson Fury was coming off a 10 round split decision against Ngannou, a 0-0 inactive UFC fighter, had only defeated Wilder (whose record they'll see as completely fraudulent) and Whyte (who was 1-1 with old Povetkin) in the 8 1/2 YEARS since a decision over 39 year old Wlad Klitschko, which they'll regret watching because it's so bad.

& they might notice....
Anthony Joshua was destroyed quite emphatically by Andy Ruiz not many fights before Usyk won a decision over AJ. They're see that AJ did beat Ruiz in a rematch but only by decision. They'll be as disgusted by Ruiz's body shape as we are. They'll not be impressed by Kubrat Pulev (never mind Charles Martin, Carlos Takam, Eric Molina, Dominic Breazeale) and will notice the best names on AJ record are old veterans and he struggled with fresher opponents, ultimately destroyed by Dubois. They might wonder how on earth AJ went 12 rounds with Usyk twice.

They might also notice Dubois didn't deserve a shot at Usyk the first time at all, was also beaten into submission by Joe Joyce. ... the worthiness of Dubois for the second fight really rests on how good was Hrgovic ...

They might conclude that Usyk's defeated a pretty lame trio of overrated British heavyweights, twice apiece, in a strangely weak but hyped era, the Golden Age for British promoters directed by a Saudi Arab prince. They will see Usyk as the clear best in a poor era.

 

Zhang was never the bogeyman of the division. That’s a myth.

 

I think he was in a brief period of time following the KO of Joyce (who many had in the top 3 at the time).

Funny how that turned out.

 

It depends what you're trying to say...

The broad point is just how thin Zhang's record - which it very much is.

You could say he's 3-3-0 against top-20 guys and that'd tell you he's had a handful of fights against top guys and come out 50/50... Yep, that's true... But it only tells you half the story of how thin his resume is - because you wouldn't think for a moment that he'd be 0-0-1 between there and 200 rankings, but that's exactly what he is.

You can asterisk the Forrest fight all you want, but historically...

This is just the facts.

 

There's a difference with Usyk, though - he came up from cruiser as a known elite fighter.

Zhangs record and it's depth are entirely on his heavyweight bouts.

At the end of day, though, neither stat is misleading - they're both a matter of record.

 

George Foreman beat Frazier who never accomplished anything notable in his career besides beating Ali once. Lost to an also-ran in Jimmy Young. Came back years later to only fight cab drivers. Got a title fight versus Holyfield, got wrecked. Got another title fight versus Morrison, got wrecked. Got yet ANOTHER title fight versus Moorer, lost every single round, and then Moorer decided to be an idiot and allowed George to knock him out. Thus, George sucks.

See how easy it is to play this game? Lewis sucks because he got sparked out by two utter journeymen. Joe Louis sucks because his 25 title defenses came against dudes who had day jobs and outside of a few names like Carnera and Baer, nobody remembers who they were. Hell, Ali himself sucks because he had fixed fights (which the FBI investigated him over), got beat by Frazier, needed gift decisions versus Norton, and then got beat by a guy who only had 7 pro fights.

And it isn't clever or original to claim that the current era of HWs is weak. People have literally been doing that as far back as forever. In the 70s people said Ali and his contemporaries couldn't hold a candle to Louis, Charles, and the guys of the 40s/50s. In the 90s people wouldn't shut up about how those guys weren't as good as Ali and Co. in the 70s.

 

Please can I ask where these facts are coming from?

The record I would expect is
5-3-1 for fighters in the top 100.

I would be very happy to have a source for these historical rankings. you are using. I say this truly, as PBO no longer operates, and they only make notation for fighters within their then top 100.

However, here are the PBO rankings from September 21st, 2020:
PBO: Heavyweight

At that time (which was before the Forrest fight) Zhang had already fought two guys in the top 100. According to PBO rankings: Rudenko and Graham were ranked in their top 60. Now, I can completely agree that with rankings, one ranking group will say one thing, and another will have a different opinion. But it is unlikely that those two fighters would be outside a top 200. Also, while this pre-dates the Forrest Fight, I'm pretty sure Forrest would have fallen in the 100 range. Heck he is still in the top 100 now on Boxrec (though maybe that is because he drew back-to-back with Zhang and Hunter).

So, it could be said that it is fact that he has a record of
5-3-1 for fighters in the top 100.
But I could understand
5-3-1 for fighters in the top 200

but genuine questions where are you getting
3-3-1 from?

 

As above
edit: it might even be 6-3-1 for top 100/200, as someone mentioned Vargas being a somewhat significant fight on another thread (that fight preceded Forrest and was after the above PBO rankings snap shot). Is that an unusual record for a contender pre world title fight? (when as you say, we can see he went 1-1 with top 20, and 2-2 in interim title fights). Again, saying "3-3-1* top 200" even with an Asterix doesn't seem very factual.

 

Kabayel`s reach is only 2 inches longer than Usyk`s and Usyk has a far better jab than Kabayel or anybody Agit has faced thus far, I would like to see Parker vs Kabayel.

 

Lol. Beating a 29 year old Ali is one of the 5 greatest wins in the history of heavyweight boxing. And Frazier had cleared the entire division.

Foreman beat Moorer. The fact he was losing is irrelevant.

Foreman losing a competitive decision to a very good defensive boxer like Jimmy Young is in no way comparable to Fury struggling to beat a 0 win MMA debutant.

Usyk is great, sure, but his resume doesn't hold a candle to Ali's.

 

Personally I wouldn't put any trust in reach measurements, I'm sure at least half of them are fully made up.

 

I had a really short reach for a long time, when you look at the measurements, but I found one weird trick that tribesman have been using for thousands of years that takes only thirty seconds, and now, even though the measurement hasn't changed, I can tell it's getting longer.

 

WHOOSH! /rightoveryourhead

Point is, you can nitpick anyone's resume with nonsense arguments. And since we don't have a time machine to put old fighters in versus modern fighters, you'll never be able to say who can beat who. Tell me what the literal Cruiserweight sized guys of the 70s would do with 260+ pound, light on his feet Tyson Fury. I say Fury would smash all of them because they're tiny compared to him and if Wilder can't knock him out they sure as hell ain't. But we'll never know.

Usyk has been flawless. That's a fact. Literally won everything there is to win in boxing. Done it all on the road as the B-side guy. Didn't need fixed fights. Didn't need gift decisions. Just beat all the best guys in their backyard or at a neutral site and dominated. That's a pretty good resume if you ask me. Trying to disrespect his wins is loser level behavior.