In 5 years people will accept Usyk as the GOAT heavyweight

Usyk wasnt having early Parkinson s though.

 

And Rico wasn't an olympic gold medalist and full cut boxer.

 

That doesnt equate though.

Ali was badly sick by that time.

 

How would it supposed to equate? Ali was sick + he was fighting a full cut boxer, an olympic gold medalist. Usyk wasn't sick and fought a kickboxer with 1 fight in boxing.

 

I don’t want to block you or anyone.

But you have labelled me as being a hater.

And for what exactly?

For saying that he can’t be classed as being the HW GOAT??


Again, Usyk is one of my favourite fighters.

And not only that, he is a tremendous role model.

Everything about the guy is great.

How respectful he is etc.

I love the guy.


However, to be regarded as the GOAT at HW, you need to possess:

Great ability, and/or wins over prime ATG’s, a long reign, depth/longevity.

Usyk only has one of those things.


Now if you want to tell me that based upon ability, that you think that he’s as good as, or better than, guys like Lewis and Holmes etc, then fine, no problem.

But under traditional ranking criteria, he hasn’t done enough to surpass them.


Fury may go down as being a modern day great. Possibly. But AJ and Dubois won’t.

Usyk cannot surpass Ali, Lewis and Holmes etc, having only beaten 7/8 guys at the weight, with his best wins being over Fury, AJ and Dubois.

Surely you can see this.


Yes, Holmes wasn’t undisputed. But the landscape was different then, and Holmes had the reign, the depth and the longevity at the weight that Usyk doesn’t have.

Yes, Usyk has the ability. But it’s not enough, unless your criteria is mainly based upon H2H ability.


On H2H ability, I have Mike Tyson rated highly.

But under traditional ranking criteria, I can’t put him in the top 5, as he only gave us 5/6 years of being a great fighter. He had no longevity as being a great HW. No wins over prime greats etc.


You’ve asked the question:

“Why can’t he be the GOAT, when he was undisputed, whereas Larry wasn’t etc.”


Again, it’s still not enough.

Although he has that advantage over Larry, again, Larry still holds more advantages.

He was beating guys like Ray Mercer at 42, where he had a 75 fight career, which spanned 20 years.


I don’t know if Slyk was just having some fun, but it’ll never happen. Not because he isn’t great. But simply because he hasn’t done enough, where other HW’s are more deserving than what he is.

 

Ali shouldn’t have been licensed at that point.

It wouldn’t happen today.


Regarding Usyk, from what I’ve seen, it was Turki who really wanted that fight.

I don’t think Usyk wanted it at all, and it put him in a no win situation.


I didn’t expect what I saw, but Usyk was in a position where he had everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Whereas for Rico, it was vice versa.


Then add in the size and the highly unorthodox style, it’s easy to see how it was a hard nights work.


This is what happens when it’s one guy’s ‘Superbowl’ or final.

It’s why lower league soccer/football teams knock out the huge clubs in cup competitions.

 

1. OK, you are not a hater. I am big enough to apologize.

2. I never said he was the GOAT. Ali is the Goat at heavy. I am happy saying Usyk is a PfP great who happens to be 6'3 and fight over 220 at heavy. I am sure you can tell that there is a little tongue in the cheek there, but I am fine with people rating his greatness as they will, as long as they recognize.

3. He has accomplishments that surpass Holmes. Again, he defeated the three other demonstrated best heavies of the post Klitschko era in six ovrerall fights, leaving no doubt. Who did Holmes beat? Witherspoon? That's it. No Tate, no Dokes, no Page, no Tubbs, No Thomas...

And never mind the stuff about rematches...Holmes SHOULD have rematched Witherspoon when he had more than a handful of fights.

The idea of a "long reign" breaks down when champion has twenty defenses, and most of them are wins over guys that do not matter.

Lennox is s different story. I have him at #3, but every champions reign is re-defined in new eras. Looking at it, I am not sure that he will in the long run be rated that high because a lot of his bets wins have collapsed over the years in reputation. I love the guy (I was a fan when the Brits considered him Canadian and loved Gary Mason) and I stand by him.

Ali and Louis are basically the indisputable first tier, because they had quality, qunatity, and longevity. Everyone else is open to some interpretation.

There is a poll on here taken just after the Rico fight- about 39% still consider Usyk a top 10, and I think 64% or more still think top 15, so some level of greatness is not disputable.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...r-uysk-rank-as-a-all-time-heavyweight.749742/

Sorry again for calling you a hater. Sincerely.

 

Many thanks for the apology.

I really appreciate that.


Regarding Larry, I think you've been quite harsh overall.

First of all, you can't fight everyone.

There's always going to be gaps in any reign/resume.


I'd have liked to have seen Usyk rematch Breidis, and I think that he should have fought Parker and Kabayal.

Although, I do appreciate that he fought better fighters, and he had rematch clauses at an advanced age.

So they're not really criticisms, but those matches would have been nice.


Regarding Witherspoon, I agree that a rematch would have been nice.

I also agree that he should have fought Thomas at some point.


The others?

I don't agree with you.


Again, you can't fight everyone.

They also all fought and beat each other.

Some of them weren't bad omissions from his reign/resume.


If you go back and look at the landscape/timelines, he didn't need to fight Tubbs. Tubbs fought mostly low level guys at that point.

He also definitely didn't need to fight Tate. Tate lost early to Berbick and Weaver, before fighting a long list of lower level guys afterwards.

Dokes and Page would have been nice, but they weren't big misses.


As you will already know, Larry also beat the guys who the above guys lost to.


Larry beat:

Shavers
Norton
Berbick
Bey
Weaver
L Spinks
Snipes
Cooney
Smith
Williams

He tried several times to fight Coatzee.

He then fought prime versions of Mike, Evander and Mercer etc.

So it's hard to criticise him.


I agree that Usyk is great.

I have no issue with a top 10-15 rating.

However, again, he hasn't done enough at the weight to surpass guys like Lewis and Larry.


Yes, Larry wasn't undisputed, and he never had a win over a guy like Tyson Fury.

What he does have though, is the official reign, as well as the depth and the longevity.


So again, I'm not sure how Usyk could rank higher than Larry at the moment.


Good debate.

 

No problem...you deserved it.

Could be, but my point is that there is comparative advantage to what the two men did, as there is with just about everyone after Ali and Louis, the indisputable top 2.

Which is true, but not the issue. The issue is that Usyk actively sough out the #2, #3, and #4 or his era and beat them twice each.

Contrast that to Larry, who never unified, and indeed, contributed to title proliferation by talking a belt from the IBF. Larry walked into a wasteland of a division, but very talented men came out of the amateurs in Dokes, Page, Tubbs and Cooney. He fought one of them.

I know in my heart who I feel did more to walk in Ali's shoes.

Sure, but after Briedis, he had to go on to win the tournament against Gassiev. Then it was one more fight against Bellew at cruiser, which was suddenly a big fight due to Briedis beating Haye and then returning to cruiser. It's not quite the same thing as getting a split or majority decision against Norton and Witherspoon and then just turning the page.

He has a chance to fight Kabaeyl. Hopefully he sees the light.

He should have fought Parker. No argument there. None whatsoever. I think I was lobbying for it before anyone. BUT, at least he gave up the belt. It is not quite the same as Larry who never unified and had no belt to give up but instead, had to help create a third to accept.

And to be fair I think Norton and Witherspoon were good fighters that really add something. Norton was up there in age, and Witherspoon not in his prime yet, but you can put those kind of asterixes on anyone.

Especially Parker. Missed opportunity.

Fair enough, but in context, these were the hot guys coming out of the amateurs that people wanted to see. They were certainly better than Ledoux, Bey, Rodriguez, Cobb, etc.

But they were better than most of the guys that Larry did fight. You do a good job of picking out Larry's best below, I see, so let's wait until we get there.

So we agree that Dokes and Page would have been nice, and he should have fought Witherspoon rematch and Thomas.

I would also say that Tubbs would have been a hell of a lot better than most of the guys he was fighting. Would he not have been better than Rodriguez, Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier...

If comes down to this...Uysk had six fights against the best his era had to offer. How many did Larry have? I'd say I'll give him Norton and Witherspoon. Hell, I'll give him Berbick. I think he should have fought some of these other guys.

And Witherspoon...

Now, some people openly talk about Larry being the third best, or occasionally even second, of all time. We've seen it. Take an honest look at the list you made, with fresh eyes...is that the resume of the third best heavyweight of all time?

And don't get me wrong, it isn't his fault that his era was awful, but the point is, he could have added some names to that. He could have bumped a few of those with better names.

Primarily, he was trying when he had the IBF belt. He had already swerved (note: didn't say duck...I said swerved) Page and contributed to title proliferation.

1. And lost to a guy jumping up two weight classes
2. He got plenty of credit for the Mercer fight. That is what re-vitalized his reputation.

I think there is a LOT of room. There was no aggressive push to unify until he had already accepted a nothing belt and gave the IBF instant credibility, thus further splintering boxing.

And I agree Holmes is great. My only point is that there is comparative advantage in what they accomplished. Holmes had his long reign....Usyk did some things Holmes didn't in aggressively pursuing series of fights with the best.

That is how most people see it at heavy.

Agree with Lewis, who I have at #3. Disagree with Larry a bit.

And this hits the nail right on the head.

But not as official as undisputed.

I would say that on one level it is very well lacking depth.

Against who, though? I am sure was can agree that guys like Scott Frank, Lucien Rodriguez, Scott Ledux, Leroy Brown, Tex Cobb, David Bey...well...let's leave it at that.

At the end of the day, not a problem. I don't care whether people want to label Usyk as great at heavy, or as a great pound per pound fighter who fought at heavy...as long as they recognize.

Yes, and sorry again.

 

I think the Berbick fight in 1981 proves that Ali would have clearly beaten even a regional level opponent at the end of the 70s. He would have deciminated someone like Rico even in 1982 or 1983.

For all the talk about how Ali lost a step when you lowered his level of competition and fed him Dunn and Coopman the clock turned back and Ali looked amazing again.

 

catchwtboxing,


Part 1:

The fighters that get ranked the highest, are the ones who have the most overall things in their favour.

Again, we have: Overall ability, resume, quality of wins, defences/reign, accomplishments and longevity.

If a fighter lacks/lacked one or two of the above, they can/could make up for it in other areas.


Joe Louis is a lock in for the top 2 by most people.

However, his list of wins aren’t that great. For example, I’d say that Lennox has a better resume/group of wins. But Joe is based there upon other factors. Such as: his unique skill set, and his defences, dominance and longevity.


Larry never became undisputed, but he’s there because he has lots of other things in his favour.

I understand. But you can’t do direct comparisons, from different eras, where the fighters had a different set of circumstances surrounding them.

Usyk was a CW. He then had the opportunity to move up and fight the best 2 HW’s of his era.


In Larry’s era, he beat Norton, and then he fought most of the best fighters out there for 7 years, where he fought between 2-4 times ever year.

There wasn’t guys like AJ and Fury to fight, who were seen as being the best 2 HW’s to beat.


Larry was ‘The Man’ in his era.

It’s not like there were other champions with impressive reigns/wins, who he refused to fight.

Nobody in Larry’s era put a run together like AJ and Fury, where the fans were desperate for Larry to fight them.


Regarding Tubbs, I’ve already said that Larry didn’t need to fight him. And again, you can’t fight everyone.

Now if he’d have fought Tubbs, Dokes and Thomas etc, but missed a few of the others, you’d now be questioning those.

Again, he also tried to unify with Coatzee.


Usyk hasn’t done more to walk in Ali’s shoes. And he’s only been fighting once per year for the last several years.

It just shows that each fighter chose the path that they thought was best for them at the time.

Again, Larry tried to unify. Again, the landscape was also completely different. We don’t know what Usyk would have done in that exact situation.

Agreed.

But they weren’t better than many of the other guys who he fought, and he didn’t specifically choose to fight the guys that you listed instead.

With hindsight, yes. But go back and look at the landscape. Tubbs turned pro in 1980. And he didn’t fight a world level guy until 1985, which is when Larry was winding down, fighting Spinks.

From 1980-1985, Tubbs wasn’t in the mix at all. Yet within that period, Larry had fought: Witherspoon, Bey, Berbick, Smith and Cooney etc.

Which means that he should receive zero criticism for not having fought Tubbs.

Tubbs would have been nice. But he wasn’t ducked, and it isn’t a significant omission.

 

catchwtboxing,


Part 2:

Again, Larry fought the best of his era. The guys he missed would have been nice, but again, it could have come at the cost of fighting others, and the ones he missed wouldn’t have enhanced his ranking. Again, his circumstances were completely different.

Again, Usyk had the opportunity to fight the best HW’s of his era. Whereas Larry himself was the best HW of his era. He did however fight almost 20 times in 7 years.

He isn’t there because he has an amazing list of wins.

He’s there because he had exceptional skills, a good list of wins, as well as dominance, a reign and longevity etc.

The whole package.


As well as having a good reign, he also gave a prime Evander Holyfield a good fight, and beat guys like Mercer whilst being in his early 40’s.

He had a 75 fight, 20 year career.


That’s why he’s there.

Due to many factors.


Again, Joe Louis isn’t 2nd just because of his resume.

His era wasn’t awful. Yes, with hindsight, his resume could have been better. But you can say that about any fighter in history. Even Greb missed names.

So he tried. And you also had King in the thick of things. He didn’t swerve Page out of a fear of fighting him.

Look at who he fought instead.

He fought the guy who people wanted him to fight. He may have taken Spinks lightly though.

I don’t think there is a lot of room. Again, the landscape was very different back then. There were guys to fight. But nobody with a long reign, where people were desperate for them to fight. Larry was the main guy. He didn’t have a great rival. It wasn’t the same as where Usyk moved up to face the best HW’s. Again, completely different circumstances.

There is. But again, Larry has many things in his favour that Usyk doesn’t possess. And again, you can’t do direct comparisons between 2 different eras. Usyk had the opportunity to move up fight the 2 best HW’s of his era. Larry did not. I can’t help but repeat that. You cannot do direct comparisons between 2 eras, which were 40 odd years apart.

Okay. I’m not sure who’d be ahead though.

Okay. But again, Larry has many other things in his favour: The depth of his resume at HW. The longevity. The official reign, the number of defences, including lineal.


Now let’s look at being undisputed:


Larry and Wlad were never the undisputed champions.

Yet James Douglas was.


Floyd Mayweather was never the undisputed champion in any division.

Yet Terence Crawford was the undisputed champion in TWO weight classes.


So??

As above

Larry didn’t fight any prime ATG’s, but neither has Usyk.

What Larry has, is a solid list of very capable fighters.

Against who?

Against ALL of the world level fighters who he fought during a 20 year, 75 fight career.

Usyk is an incredible fighter. I think that after he’s retired, he’ll rank very highly on any credible P4P list. But specifically at HW, he won’t be able to crack the top 5 under traditional ranking criteria.

No problem.

I’ve really enjoyed the debate.

 

Ali couldn’t speak properly in 1983/1984.

He should never have been licensed to fight against Berbick.

I doubt that he could have fought anyone capable between 1982-1983.

 

The insecure Ali fans coming out. Ali is the goat when it comes to global impact, boxing skills it’s Usyk. Or are we going to pretend like Bob Cousy is more skilled than Kyrie Irving?

 

You might be interested in this.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/deeper-resume-lennox-lewis-or-joe-louis.744313/