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

Find me another ATG boxer who aged so rapidly that he’s fighting for his life against an old fighter who has no real boxing career to speak of and doesn't even appear in the rankings.

 

I don’t think Usyk having one bad performance effects his legacy

that being said, some of his fans are certifiably insane.

Jimmy Young is easily one of the ten best heavyweights to never win a title. He has legit wins over world class heavies. Young has more boxing skill in his pinky finger than Rico does in his whole body.

Buster Douglas was a massive underachiever. Dude was enormously talented. He was 6’4 with fast feet, fast hands, an excellent jab, powerful uppercut, amazing 5-6 punch combinations . Douglas was a 42-1 underdog due to his lack of dedication to boxing.

Rico does not move anywhere near as fluidly as Douglas, doesn’t throw the amazing 5-6 punch combinations that Buster did, doesn’t have anywhere near as good a jab or an uppercut as Douglas, is far weaker defensively etc. it’s a joke to compare a super talented underachiever like Douglas to Rico.

And anyone picking Rico to beat the best heavyweights of the 60s and 70s. Good Lord. Something is seriously wrong with you.

 

Holmes losing to a guy coming up two weight classes, with massive disadvantage in power and reach.

Ali losing to an 8 fight novice.

 

Michael Spinks was one of the greatest light heavyweights in history and also proved to be an excellent heavyweight.

His brother was an Olympic boxing champion who fought regularly against ranked boxers—not wrestlers or kickboxers, but boxers—prior to facing Ali; he never took a break and kept advancing his career, whereas Ali had clearly been on the decline for some time. Ultimately, the Spinks brothers achieved far more in boxing than Rico ever did; there is simply no comparison.

 

BUT HAD TO COME UP TWO WEIGHT CLASSES TO FIGHT A MAN WHOM HE HAD NO PHYSICAL ADVANTAGE OVER.

Holmes bragged that his jab would feel like a LHW right hand. He hand-picked Spinks to be an easy win so he could tie Marciano.

 

Interesting.

Usyk still won his fight vs Verhoeven also but you’ve dismissed that defining fact several times.

Unlike Fury, Usyk wasn’t knocked down by his cross over opponent - and Fury was allowed a ridiculously excessive 23 seconds to recover from that KD.

Unlike Fury, Usyk didn’t resort to fouling when the going got tough. As he became more desperate, Fury connected with at least one deliberate elbow on Ngannou which should’ve seen a point deduction.

If a point had been duly deducted the fight would’ve resulted in a split draw.

Unlike Fury, Usyk ultimately won his fight against Verhoeven in emphatic fashion - no controversy.

The fight should’ve been stopped after the KD - Rico didn’t respond to the ref’s initial command to walk forward. He was still stumbling badly behind the ref to get his mouth guard replaced - the mouth guard that he himself had spit out.

Even with the extended respite time allowed to him, Rico still couldn’t defend himself when the fight was finally waved back on.

Finally, though it should go without saying, imo, at age 39, Usyk is clearly well beyond his reasonably interpreted prime years at any rate.

So no, the Verhoeven fight doesn’t negatively impact Usyk’s legacy at all.

 

Ofcourse it does, he went for the money and got found out on a bad night. Fantastic boxer, but not the unbeatable adonis he is made out for. No shame in that.

 

No, the obvious point was/is: you stated “But Fury still won….” whilst dismissing the fact that Usyk himself still won -and Usyk won far more emphatically than Fury did as I duly qualified.

Of course Fury is part of the discussion - he provides as the ideal comparison for analysis of a top rated boxing engaging a cross over challenger.

So you believe Fury is overrated? That’s fine but did you already feel same before Fury fought Ngannou or did you base your your belief purely on the Ngannou fight?

It would also be interesting to know if you also already believed that Usyk was overrated before the fact of the Verhoeven fight as opposed to believing same simply based on the Verhoeven fight alone.

 

Well it is actually a point and no small point at that.

You’ve just made my own point again.

To repeat the quote - “But Fury still won…”.

You were trying to make a point re the fact of Fury being awarded the fight - but that very same fact exists for Uysk also and far more strongly so - yet you’re still trying to dismiss/ignore it.

 

Doesn’t matter if you claim not to care about Fury, he is relevant to the topic.

Fury also struggled with a cross over fighter and you made the point “But he (Fury) still won…” but you still choose to ignore the same point re Usyk.

If the Usyk-Verhoeven fight had continued into round 12 Usyk would’ve been up by 2 points on 2 cards and even on the 3rd card - leading the fight going into the final round.

It’s clear that you’re looking to specifically target Usyk, purportedly based on one fight alone and completely devoid of all due context otherwise.

I asked a simple question as to whether you already believed that Usyk was overrated before the Verhoeven fight.

Well?

 

The fact that you don't appear to understand the point does not negate the point.

Moreover, you seem more interested in 'winning the argument ' than seriously debating.

Therefore, explaining the point to you would probably be a futile exercise and a waste of time.

The answer to the thread question for most, is a fairly obvious NO.

Nevertheless some will consider this Usyk win by stoppage a major blot on his resume.

Fill your boots.