Most impressive: Spinks over 48-0 Holmes , Or Usyk over Undefeated Fury?

You should be making fortunes in sports betting, not posting here.

 

With a sport so old, countless generations of talent pools, being the same species we've been since the start, clear footage of past elites being comparable to top guys today if not better and atg legacy with many title defenses and several top 10 wins being a consequence of atg talent, evaluating the level of ones win should be fairly easy, or at least, comparing people with resumes levels apart should be fairly easy. Eye test Holmes looked elite, so I'm not sure where you're going with that

Go ahead, explain why the Fury win is better. It doesn't make any logical sense but explain away

And it failed. If Fury had good punching power and better footwork going forward perhaps it would have been different, but thats hypothetical. After all Fury and Ajs best rounds were when they pushed Usyk back and worked the body, boxing just gave Usyk more space to work because Fury is a huge target. Fury himself said he regrets not being on the front foot enough against Usyk

 

Surprised Uysk got that many votes even.

 

There’s heavy bias in his favor in General.

 

Not even Michael Spinks or Larry Holmes at the peak of their primes could beat a washed up version of Jake Paul

 

Cool I wasn't on here then. Surprised because this was around the time many were saying he wouldn't make it at heavyweight with the big dogs.

 

Had Usyk got the fight a year earlier, when Fury was pretending to be in camp preparing for him (where does that rank among the craziest things in boxing history btw?) I could see the argument for him. Fury had half assed himself through easy wins over Whyte and Chisora and was seemingly still a real force if he actually bothered to get in top shape again. But as has been said by many others here the 15 or so months that passed until they actualy did meet did nothing good for Fury's standing.

Yes, Holmes also had a close fight soon before the fight with Spinks, but that was against a top contender - not someone making his boxing debut. I do think, though, that Holmes took Spinks lightly in their first fight, whereas Fury probably prepared well despite displaying a less than beautiful physique on fight night.

 

I already did if you wanna disagree feel free.

Easier said then done when you're fighting someone like Usyk hence why they couldn't do it consistently

 

In his case, the bias turned out to be deserved.

 

And I'm trying to find the logic here. You say its because Holmes struggled in his last fight, and cherrypicked, but Fury cherrypicked more, doesn't come close to Holmes legacy and struggled against worse opponents

"Easier said then done when you're fighting someone like Usyk hence why they couldn't do it consistently"
Fury isn't good on the front foot regardless. Usyk typically has more problems with ones who close the distance well and have fast hands, Chisora didn't have fast hands and won 4 rounds because he didn't want Usyk to have his space to box

 

Usyk .... Fury was still near the top of his game while Larry had already lost his legs ...

 

I gave my logic: from my perspective Fury in the Usyk fight looked better then Holmes did in the Spinks fight simple as that

4 is generous, 3 at best, arguably only 2 and it was Chisora's size that really gave Usyk trouble.

 

Good to see you in agreement, for once.

 

Larry Holmes was the better legacy fighter. Fury was probably seen as the more formidable when Usyk faced him although in hindsight he was probably just as diminished as Holmes. Also Spinks was in his first fight at heavy moving up from 175. Usyk had been hanging the round the division a while and wasn’t moving up from quite as far down. Therefore I’ll say Spinks win over Holmes.

 

In recognition of the disparity between Valuev and Haye we can weed out how important the Usyk/Fury size difference is to this conversation. It's something, sure, but the quality of Holmes here makes the Spinks victory the clear winner. Fury is huge, that is of significance, and he is a unique type of talent for that size, but also among the least professional class of champions, which devalues that talent significantly. In short, when we are discussing significance and insignificance and whether something does or does not significantly or insignificantly signify significance or insignificance significantly or insignificantly enough, we must signify all of these factors significantly or we cannot even have an honest discussion on here. Not a significant one or one of any genuine and evident significance.