Tysons heavyweight resume absolutely dwarfs Usyks though. So in terms of accomplishments that seems like a difficult argument. A H2H debate might be different As far as moving up in weight goes Holyfield had a similar heavyweight resume to Usyk by 1992. I've never heard anyone anywhere claim that his accomplishments at that stage made him a great heavyweight or put him in the top 10.
What more could Usyk do though? That's the issue with "Comparing Eras", Usyk has cleared all challenges of his Era. Usyk's success is down to his ability to be reactive in fights. How many years has he done it now? People question him early in a fight....I remember him being "Outboxed" by Bellew. But then Usyk adapts mid fight, figures out and exploits his opponents weakness, then wins. With a fighter like that, I find it really hard to just believe "Tyson blows him away". I'm not saying that isn't possible, it's just that we've seen no evidence of that happening to Usyk. But we've seen plenty of evidence of Tyson struggling against guys who are really strong mentally....Usyk is as strong mentally as any fighter I've seen. There's no doubts the 80s/90s division was much much stronger, but Usyk's biggest strength is that if his opponent is a 9/10, then Usyk will be a 9.1/10 and edge his opponent. I see no evidence why Usyk wouldn't do the same back then. Especially when you've seen him handle contrasting styles like Joshua and Fury, and then the CW challengers, he's capable of adapting to anything.
No, it really doesn't in terms of the condition of the fighters when he fought them. And, he lost to a journeyman, so...
Its exactly why a lot of people thought Wardley deserved it by beating Parker, as Kabayel had and still does have a thin record for a serious challenger, let alone a champion.
Yeah that was my feelings too. Despite Wardley not being that skilled, he did manage to beat the top mandatory at the time (and honestly, that's down to Parkers team trying to turn him into a Kronk fighter rather than using his strengths).
Yeah it does. Tyson beat like 3x the number of ranked opponents and the gap only gets bigger when you include the sanctioning bodies. Losing becomes inevitable the more fights you have. Several people have retired undefeated with more fights than Usyk but nobody has ever made it to 100-0 without a loss as a pro
Spinks was probably the biggest fight of his career And Usyk inevitably loses if he has more fights. If lack of losses was such a big deal Marciano would rate ahead of Louis and Ali
Say who he would "inevitably lose." That is your assumption. Marciano rates ahead of lots of guys. Losses aren't the only thing, but yeah, they matter.
I wonder if Kabayel is going to fight again this year or just sit about looking at his emailed belt. His motto does seem to be less is more.
Up to a point - as long as they're competitive, absolutely... If a good fighter takes easy fights 99% of the time, they're going to have to be very unlucky to get beat - but fight enough and it can still happen. A fighter being undefeated is a tick in a box... But when you look at that fighter and see one fringe contender win, a couple of gatekeepers, a couple of journeymen and a boatload of domestic level? The context makes it look a lot less impressive than if that resume contains a stack of contenders.