Recency bias is insane, ESB has turned into "Any HW who just won a fight could beat Ali"

A couple of sillly hyperbolic threads isn't reflective of the general forum consensus tho.. some of it's probably just trolling to get a rise, some of it might be admin trying to get clicks & some of it is just recency casuals.. but generally i think most would think Dubois beating prime Ali is unlikely..

 

Usyk is the same too.

It is easier to make cases for lower weight classes though as the talent pool is just deeper

 

Yeah, it's the people who say Usyk is beating Holyfield by UD. Uysk couldn't even beat Fury by UD, let alone Holyfield.

 

Usyk did beat Fury by UD. Plus Fury could have beaten Holyfield too, so what's the point?

 

Nostalgia bias is way worse imo.

Same shyte was said about the 90's while they were happening and now they are being reffered to as the second golden era. Lennox was not considered an ATG when he was retiring, now he is.

To properly evaluate today's fighters we need to wait 10-20 years.

 

There is a possibility that Fury would beat Holyfield. However, the version that faced Uysk would probably get beaten by Holyfield. I don't think the Fury in the Wlad fight would lose to Usyk (this is coming from a self-proclaimed Fury hater). Yes, Uysk is older than Fury, but Fury's damage to his body probably exceeds Uysk's. This is not an excuse for Fury, as he lost to Usyk twice fair and square. Also, Usyk didn't win a UD the first time against Fury, just like he wouldn't beat Holyfield by UD in a fantasy fight if they first met.

 

People forget how heavyweight boxing in the 90s was described at the time: "Once Tyson gets out of prison, he will unify the division again and beat these bums."

 

When Mike Tyson is released from his Indiana prison cell some time next spring and takes his first glance at the heavyweight ratings, he might just begin to squint hard, wonder about the Vitamin A content in his diet over the three previous years, and seek out the nearest optician. What he will see will hardly make imposing reading: the two aforementioned titleholders (assuming the picture remains the same, which, granted, is a precarious assumption); a group of contenders whom he has already ruthlessly dealt with; a sprinkling of up-and-coming prospects who haven't exactly captured anyone's imagina tion; and a couple of would-be heirs-apparent who have had their butts kicked, their egos busted, and their credentials considerable depleted. Heck, staying out of trouble will present a more serious challenge to Tyson than climbing the current heavyweight hill.

 

I think that was a combination of Tyson being overrated on an enormous scale (which he still is by many) and the 90's being underrated at the time.

 

With an honest referee, in the first fight, Usyk would have won by TKO.

And if all three judges were honest, when it went to the cards, he would have won by clear UD.

 

Ali is an absolute legend no shade against him but Usyk is better. Usyk will never be as iconic or even close to as famous or have an impact on the world but in terms of pure boxing, give me Usyk

 

Vinny Paz has as much chance of beating Wardley as Usyk has of beating Ali

 

Ali was iconic but overrated as a boxer. Usyk would give Ali a beatdown

 

The referee was right in giving Fury a standing 8-count. A lot of soft refs would give a TKO, but that doesn't mean it's the right decision. I agree, Fury vs Uysk was a competitive fight, but it was not close; however, to win a UD against a superstar, under normal circumstances, would require domination.

 

You are definitely out of your mind if you think this, but this is too funny a comment to actually respond to.