Does Usyk's last performance affects his ranking on an ATG heavyweights list?

He moved up to become the best heavy of the era by beating #2, #3, and #4 twice each. It is a jaw-dropping accomplishment.

 

In the P4P category, yes—but as a heavyweight, no. Rico and Francis set the benchmark for the current heavyweight division.
I still consider him a top 10–15 heavyweight of all time. You're right; it's an incredible achievement for a cruiserweight.

 

At heavyweight, yes. Repeat: he beat the #2, #3, and #4 heavyweight years 2015-2016 twice each. No claim can be made for any heavyweight in an 11 year period being in his league. Remarkable. I've not seen anything like it.

 

I agree. Between his struggles vs Rico and Fury vs Ngannou it brings the whole era down substantially. So while it was looking like the best era since the 90s it now looks like it was just a collection of evenly matched opponents rather than an elite era.

 

Usyk finished him .
Foreman in his prime lost to featherfisted journeyman jimmy young. Can’t imagine Usyk in his prime getting outboxed by young. Ali was already shot when he was Usyk’s age. Tyson?hahahah he lost to bums in his prime!! And was younger than usyk when bums like danny willians and kevin mcbride finished him.

 

There’s been no new techniques invented/implemented for years.

Technique, balance, leverage, timing and accuracy, are exactly the same today, as what they were decades ago.

The sport has evolved from its roots, but there hasn’t been any continuous evolvement.

The sport and the fighters don’t keep getting better.

There’s tons of fighters as well as entire divisions from decades ago, which were superior than today.

Many fighters of the past would have been able to have beaten many guys of today.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that today’s kick-boxers would have reigned at HW back then. Nothing.

 

Mike never lost to a bum in his prime.

Let’s not exaggerate.

 

Then you must not have followed combat sports because they constantly evolve as a new diverse array of fighters enter the sport, new defensive and offensive techniques are honed, new peds evolve to speed up recovery and strength (I'm not a proponent of peds, just pointing it out), sports science evolve, etc, etc. Any honest person can see how Boxing has evolved between Jack Johnson's era, Ali's and today.

It's the same thing in MMA where fighters, on average, keep getting more skilled and knowledgeable, even though the sport has only been around less than 35 years.

And no one who knows team sports would suggest a soccer team, football team or basketball team from the 60's would beat a modern team. Those sports, and the players, have gotten faster, more agile, stronger and better (on average) with each passing decade.

To not think 6'5-6'7 athletic freaks like Rico Verhoeven, Roman Kryklia and other Kickboxers would have a chance against the top of the crop in the 60's-70's is a bit naive, imo. If we're talking the 90's with Lennox Lewis and so forth it gets a bit more complicated, but not the 60's-70's.

 

Usyk tarnished his legacy, and that’s a fact; no champion in history would have struggled against a kickboxer—imagine Lewis fighting Hoost and struggling; it’s unthinkable...

 

ubareem,

I have been studying the sport and its history, for well over 30 years now.


I didn’t say that it hasn’t evolved.

I said that there is no CONTINUOUS evolvement.

And that is correct.


There has been no offensive or defensive advancements for decades.

The sport reached its peak a long time ago. And since then, every era has been the same, as in - it’s just ebbed and flowed.

In some decades, certain divisions have been red hot, with great, great fighters. In others, they’re average. And in others, they’re weak.

There’s been great fighters in every era. And any truly great fighters would have been able to have fought and had success in any era. And looking at things logically, they’d all have had mixed results, simply depending on who they’d have fought and how they’d have matched up on the night stylistically.


No, there is no continuous evolvement.

The evidence is staring you in the face.


Today’s fighters aren’t the best fighters of all time.

Today’s WW’s are not on the level of the WW’s of the early 80’s, from 45 years ago.

Today’s HW’s are not better and on another level to the ones of the mid 70’s and early 90’s.

Today’s group of MW’s are nowhere near the level of MW’s from the 80’s and 90’s, from 30-40 years ago.

Today’s WW’s and JMW’s, aren’t better than the crop from 20-30 years ago.


That’s just a few examples.

We could go division by division, and further back in time.

That’s entirely different.

You cannot compare a sport that is 35 years old, to one that is over a 100 years old.

Also, there is only a low amount of techniques/punches used in boxing.

Whereas in MMA, you have striking, wrestling and submissions etc.


So of course that has evolved.

In the early days, there was no rules or weight classes.

And you had guys from different arts competing against each other.

This just shows your ignorance.

No team game can ever be compared to two fighters pitting their skills and styles together in a boxing ring.


However, let’s use your 60’s analogy:

Would a football team/basketball team from the 60’s, be favoured over a modern team?

Probably not.


However, there are many, many fighters from the 60’s and earlier, who would absolutely have been able to have beaten many of today’s guys.


Let’s start with the 60’s:

There is no logical reason why Muhammad Ali couldn’t compete and beat today’s HW’s.


Despite the Rico fight, Usyk is still the best HW today.


Now Usyk is the EXACT same size as Ali.

Same weight. Same height. Same reach.

Like Ali, he isn’t winning fights on size, power and strength.

He’s winning fights on his great mobility.


Now although their styles were very different, Ali was even faster, with great technique, timing and accuracy.


We can go back further:

Give me logical reasons, why Joe Louis couldn’t beat a modern day HW.

Joe Louis was one of the most skilled fighters who’s ever lived.

With great two handed power, where he was a ruthless finisher.


Give me logical reasons as to why Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles, couldn’t compete today at LHW.


If you want, we can come forward:

Now I’m sure that you’d say that there’s no chance that a football team from the 70’s or 80’s, could have beaten any of today’s best teams.

Okay.


Now look at the fighters from the 70’s and 80’s across all divisions:

Now if I put my mind to it, I could literally name you 100 of them.


Here are just a few:

Carlos Monzon
Bob Foster
Michael Spinks
Ray Leonard
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Roberto Duran
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Thomas Hearns
Marvin Hagler

Again, I could go on and on.


Now this is where you theory falls apart.

You wouldn’t pick a 70’s football team to beat a modern day team.

Yet any KNOWLEDGEABLE boxing fan, KNOWS that those guys listed would have been able to have beaten SOME of today’s guys. Many of them even.


There would be no logical reason to suggest that they couldn’t have.

Not only that, many of those guys would actually have been FAVOURED over many of today’s guys, across their respected divisions.


Your analogies simply don’t stack up.

1. They wouldn’t have had a great chance of beating the best fighters of that era.

2. Lennox himself could have fallen to guys of that era.

He was beaten by lesser fighters of his own era, who were no bigger.

 

Tyson Fury struggled with Ngannou.


Yes, you couldn’t imagine Lennox having struggled with Hoost.

But he had the size, strength and power that Usyk doesn’t possess.

So it would have been a different stylistic match up.


Fury struggled with Ngannou, but then AJ wiped him out.

Again, a different stylistic match up.

AJ has different attributes.


Then there’s the psychological aspect.

Tyson looked disinterested, whereas AJ looked motivated and wanting to make a point.


I don’t think that we can be too hard on Usyk.

He looked unmotivated.

He’d already climbed his Everest.

It was Turki who wanted to see the fight.


So I get your point.

But we don’t know what would have happened if an unmotivated Lennox had been put in a similar position.

And at the end of the day, people could say that they could never envisage Usyk losing to a B level Hasim Rahman like Lennox did.


Everyone’s circumstances are different.


This fight may affect Usyk’s reputation, but it shouldn’t affect his overall legacy/ranking.

Also, the fight should have been made as an exhibition.

 

Everyone picked Joshua and Fury over him. Especially Joshua. Even Usyk fans picked Joshua.