Dubois defeats Wardley, and the winner is...USYK!

This whole thread of Uysk glazers (a great boxer but, like any other boxer, not above criticism) reads like Fury fans when you ask if he would fight anyone with a pulse other than Wilder. "FURY WOULD DESTROY JOYCE." Sure, I think Fury would have beaten Joyce, but hypocritical wins don't count. Did people think Tyson would lose to Douglas? No; however, he did. Because he was a model champion who would fight actively. The myth of the untouchable fighter still stands strong with Usyk. Uysk needs to retire because he is doing more harm to the heavyweight division than he is helping it.

Also, can you give Dubois a little credit? Hahaha, you pretentious pr*ck. "ERM, ACTUALLY the REAL winner of Wardley vs. Dubois is Usyk.

 

Ali, to use one of those examples, had almost three times more professional fights than Usyk currently has towards the end of his career. I'd be more forgiving of modern day trilogies or rivalries if they didn't take 3 years to complete, but they don't so I shant.

 

I was quoting Redbeard7 where he said he'd value a 6-0 series higher if you wanted context there.

 

Finally a bit of sanity.

 

Off the top of my head they don't, and they all also have multiple losses, despite being A-sides in many cases.

How many of them are 6-0 or 7-0 or anything close against HoF's? What is Ali's record against them?

 

It is of relevance when you bring up historic trilogies, and all of those fighters had far greater depth in their resumes than Usyk does.

Usyk only fought on average once per year. He could and should be fighting more, alternatively he could retire.

 

B-b-but Usyk never fought Parker!

 

He avoided Parker, Wardley and Kabayel to fight a kickboxer this month instead.

 

He does need depth, because fighting 6 opponents in 6 years (when he faces Rico) doesn't exactly cut it when compared to other greats.

 

Ali had 5 losses, could have easily been 10+ without A-side advantage, and ended up with serious health problems not long after retiring. His record against HOF fighters was something like 9-3, with two or three of those wins being highly controversial (Frazier 2, Norton 2, Norton 3), another two being against a natural sub cruiser (Patterson). And that is "the greatest".

They all go about it a different way. But champions, even with as near perfect careers as is possible like Usyk, are usually underappreciated in their time.

 

True, but it shows that fighting the best consistently will lead to losses. If Usyk fought as much as Tyson when he was champion, we would see him lose. Also, Ali fought in a better era.

 

And how many losses would Usyk have if he had 61 professional fights?

It's the whole point. It's easy to look good against the same opponents, it's a lot harder facing many and coming out the other end undefeated. Styles make fights, and the more opponents you face the more likely you are to meet the one who has your number.

And no, I'm not suggesting or even implying Parker could do this. I would have liked to have seen Usyk against different styles though, because to me that's far more interesting than seeing Fury/AJ/Dubios "3rd time lucky".