Do you people finally agree that this is another golden era for Heavyweights?

I think that is the future, though. It just takes too long to get the money right and book the venue.

Maybe when Turkyi gets out of things they will revert to normal.

 

It is a great argument for greatness if one person has a much larger volume of proven contenders in addition to the elite heavyweight wins.

First of all no one on Usyks resume has a resume anywhere near as stacked as Evander Holyfield, so quality my ass.

And in reference to an eras strength, well that's the only way the cookie crumbles. The 90s had people with better resumes than today and the 90s also had more proven contenders because they fought eachother more.

No, Dubois is less skilled than Bruno. What does Dubois do better as far as ability and technique goes ? He might hit harder, he's a better pressure fighter, he has a better overhand right. Bruno has a better jab, ironically more head movement, better balance, throws more technically correct 1-2s.

Saying guys like Wilder and Wardley being very limited compared to the most limited 90s guys is a straight fact. Wilder is the biggest one trick pony the heavyweight division has seen in over half a century. Even someone like Shavers had a bigger offensive arsenal than Wilder. When someone stuck a jab in wardleys face he's restricted to an agricultural overhand swing, relys on his durability instead of tactics and he doesn't know how to put others in position by setting traps. Wardley is what old heads describe men in the early 1900s being tough with unmatched will power and grit. Wardley isn't a scientific heavyweight that people claim modern heavyweights are, he is nothing more than a tough lugnut and he still managed to beat Parker and Huni, managed to drop Dubois too.

Clearly this era has talent but calling a golden era and better than the 90s is premature

Itauma isn't until further notice. Fury/Joshua/Wilder/Usyk era is almost at it's end considering most of the contemporaries are past their prime and Usyk plans to retire after a few more fights. Itauma has no belt. He's been feasting on past it fighters associated with this generation that started all the way back in 2015 and he's only 21. The bulk of his career will unfold way after Usyk retires unless Usyk doesn't retire anytime soon and Itauma is actually a hypejob who doesn't accomplish anything great. 10 years from now he'll only be 31.

 

That matches the four from the 90s era, in Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis and Bowe.

 

n the “volume vs quality” point, it’s not that volume is irrelevant, it’s that it only matters if the opposition context is comparable. Lennox Lewis having more ranked wins isn’t automatically meaningful unless you account for timing, title fragmentation, and how many top fighters were actually active and in position at the same time. Otherwise you end up rewarding activity rather than peak wins.

On the resume comparison, it’s also not accurate to say nobody on Oleksandr Usyk’s record has a comparable résumé to someone like Holyfield. Holyfield is an all-time great, but that doesn’t automatically mean every modern champion is operating at a lower level of opposition across the board. You still have to compare eras in context, not just stack resumes in isolation.

On the skill argument, you’re being too absolute in both directions. Saying Dubois is categorically less skilled than Frank Bruno ignores stylistic and contextual differences, not just technique-for-technique comparisons. Likewise, saying modern fighters like Wilder or Wardley are “factually” below every 90s contender is more opinion framed as certainty. Every era had limited fighters alongside elite ones, including the 90s.

On Itauma, the point isn’t whether he’s ranked now, it’s whether he’s actually established as a top-tier heavyweight in the same way the main names of the era are. A ranking position alone doesn’t automatically make him a defining win for an era discussion.

Overall, I don’t think this is about the 90s being objectively superior. It’s that you’re treating the 90s mid-tier as uniformly higher quality while treating the modern mid-tier as uniformly lower quality, and that’s where the comparison stops being consistent.

 

No, as long as said fighters were game, not shot to bits, or held legitimate titles then any win over them is meaningful, how meaningful is debatable. But the statistics favor Lewis.

Saying his wins came across a fragmented reign is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme. A mere nit pick considering said opponents were still world class or coming off wins over top contenders or held titles especially when there were less belts than today.

This is a bunch of hypothetical nonesense. We're talking about resumes. If we're referring to levels of operations even I think Usyk would beat Holyfield and perhaps Fury might h2h, but thats all hypothetical and anyone can disagree for the right reasons

We need something more tangible like actual RECORDS for comparison. You said it's not accurate to claim nobody on Usyks resume has a comparable record to an all time great like Holyfield, but it is accurate. Nobody on Usyks resume has beaten anywhere near as many world class HWs as Holyfield, it isn't close. So please go on about this "quality" you keep mentioning. If you want to compare eras in context, how about we bring up the fact that Tyson Fury only beat 5 ranked heavyweights in total, Klitschko was even older than 37 yr old Holyfield in 2015 and Fury struggled with an old mma fighter, got dropped twice and resorted to illegal elbows with a large section of viewers thinking Ngannou was robbed.

I'm not being too absolute in both directions I'm describing observations and I asked you how and why you would disagree with my opinion and what does Dubois technically do better than Bruno. What am I specifically ignoring ?

Explain which 1990s contender was technically as limited as Wilder and Wardley, I've never seen it, Ruddock and Morrison are the closest things and both are far more multifaceted than Wilder and Ruddock had a stronger jab than Wardley when he actually used it, Morrison had better footwork. Joyce might be the slowest heavyweight in history. I'm not uniformly claiming the mid tiers today are worse, that claim doesn't apply to every top contender but generally they are, even with exceptions. I've already listed 2 examples.

It makes you wonder if a time displaced Wilder would even be able to dominate the 1940s HW era with how deficient his boxing capabilities are, and yet he was a 5 year reigning champion.

 

Next you clowns will be claiming Rico could beat prime Muhammad Ali.

 

Come on rose tinted man, Ali got embarrassed by Inoki.

 

No way is dubois out of the top 5. He is probably 2 right before kabayel.

Fury's performance against makhmudov hardly gets him any top 5 spot. Who else is there to push dubois out of the top 5? Untested itauma? Hrgovic? Joshua??

No way

And before the Fight wardley was 3 and dubois 4...

 

Inoki was allowed to use kicks on the ground goofy. Rico would obliterate Usyk if he were allowed to use kicks at all, Rico almost beat him on the cards

 

I said before the fight, and arguably.

 

That's what I'm saying. Ali struggled against lesser opposition too, especially later in his career. Loss to Leon Spinks? Dropped by Wepner? Come on man stop pretending to be stupid.

 

Let me know when Usyk has fought every world level heavyweight of his era, fights more than twice a year and has 16+ title defenses, all of those accomplishments and activity take their toll. Thats Ali territory. Rico would get embarrassed by Jerry Quarry.

 

Okay so you're not pretending. Usyk has had 374 total fights across his career, well over double the fights Ali had. I think Ali is clearly greater at Heavyweight than Usyk, but you're so hyperfocused on the positives of the past, you can't be objective.