Rank ATG Usyk, Wlad, and Vitali

I've given context on each of Usyk's and Wladimir's best wins and i don't believe the gap is as big as you're claiming.

Especially when Wladimir has a much more varied amount of world class opposition.

I'll agree with you that Usyk's best wins are better overall but not by a huge margin in my view.

And i think Wladimir's other aspects to his resume in regards of title wins, wins over ranked opposition, decade long championship reign. Is more than enough for Wladimir to be rated above Usyk even if Usyk's best wins are a bit better overall.

The thing is though and i do see you mention this alot so i kind of want to question you on this no offence intended.

You say for example Fury was the best of his era before Usyk come along.

But did the likes of Fury really prove he was the 2nd best of his era behind Usyk ?

To me Fury is more of what if kind of like Bowe who had potential but his career kind of fell short of what the early promises showed.

Ok he beat an old Wladimir which i'll give him credit for because he went to Wladimir's backyard even though the fight was a stinker.

But what should've been the end of Wladimir's era and the start of Fury's era never really transpired did it ?

Fury had a 3 year hiatus after the Wladimir win and didn't really beat that many notable fighters after that.

Fury has only beaten 2 Heavyweights ranked in the top 10 since beating Wladimir 11 years ago which are Wilder and a shopworn Whyte.

So again for me not enough of the notable fights happened in that era to really determine who was the man.

Joshua especially missed out on fighting Fury and Wilder aswell.

If Byrd is objectively better than Dubois then the quality argument that you're claiming Usyk's best wins is a grand canyon gap isn't quite the case.

Yes Joshua and Fury are better single wins overall but Wladimir also has more varied list of opponents under his best wins.

Again i don't see how you can overlook Wladimir beating x2 as many ranked top 10 Heavyweights, having x3 as many world title wins, and the quantity of having a decade of dominance.

And i don't think having 2 better opponents overall in regards to Joshua, Fury, is enough to overcome the sheer bulk of Wladimir's resume.

I think the Ring Magazine Ratings give a better gauge of who are the relevant top 10 fighters are. And is certainly a better indication than the belt organisations.

Whenever anyone does an analysis in regards to a fighters resume on how many ranked fighters they beat. Ring Magazine ratings are always quoted which i think speaks volumes.

I disagree.

P4P achievement's certainly have a barring on a fighters win.

Look at Duran for example he's considered an ATG but he's not necessarily considered a great above Welterweight.

Yet Hearns's win over Duran is highly praised due to the way Hearns destroyed a great fighter.

Again this is purely based on Duran's overall career achievements. Despite him not being a stand out Jr Middleweight which was the weight in which Hearns beat him at.

Usyk would probably only be considered a very good fighter based on his Heavyweight achievements. But his Cruiserweight achievements add another level to his resume and his overall achievements making him a great fighter.

Haye's overall achievements put him on the same level as Joshua in a P4P sense IMO. But i will concede that i agree Joshua is a better win also due to size difference that Usyk had to overcome.

Overall to cut a long story short.

I don't think the best wins argument is the massive difference that you're claiming.

I'll agree with you that it's better overall but i think the more varied list of opponents that Wladimir has on his best wins column should be taken into consideration.

I also think you're a bit unfair to Wladimir simply passing off his decade long dominance as nothing when it hasn't been done since Joe Louis's era.

 

Derrick Jefferson. Jameel McCline. Well, McCline wasn't a huge puncher, but he hit hard with both hands and knocked down a lot of durable guys - Peter, Byrd, Al Cole. The first one who dropped Peter, Brock, stopped Boswell and the only other fighter besides Wlad himself to stop Shufford. He also dropped Briggs himself and pummeled him winning in the very one sided fashion. Both him and Jefferson were significantly bigger than Briggs as well

 

Usyk is arguably the goat, Wlad and Vitali not even top 100.

 

Wlad
Usyk
Vitali

I'm big on longevity and wlad was untouchable atop the division for 10 years, that takes some doing

 

Jefferson was good at all, and McCline not a big puncher at the end of the day.

 

I'd say Jefferson was clearly better than the version of Briggs that got pummeled by Vitali (which is the one we are talking about), and McCline clearly possessed more at the offensive end than old Briggs as well, not to mention he was just better in about every other aspect of the game except of killer instinct. Remember how easily he beat up much younger and fresher version of Briggs?

 

The order you put in the title

 

Gomez and Solis were insignificant fringe contenders. Adamek, sure, but if you're saying the only HW that Wlad missed is Adamek, is not much of a miss. Briggs was washed up and Wlad beat a guy who beat Briggs. If he beat Briggs instead of Ibragimov, you would say why he beat Briggs and not a guy who beat him.

Not to mention Usyk ducked Wardley and Kabayel, which are more important than the guys you listed on Wlad's side.

Plenty of fighters that have losses on their resume should be ranked higher than Usyk.

 

Alot of people sleep on Vitali's resume

Vitali Klitschko - went 15 - 2 in world title fights
Beat
- WBO champion Hide
- Sanders (who was coming off a win over WBO champion Wladimir) for WBC, Ring and lineal HW titles
- WBC champion Peters in his first fight back in nearly a 4 year absence
- Undefeated Arreola
- Former WBC CW champion Gomez
- Former LHW and CW champion Adamek
- Former lineal champion Briggs
- Williams coming off a win over Tyson
- Sosnowski
- Former CW champion Norris
- Hoffman
- Charr who became WBA regular HW champion
- Chisora
- Bean
- Johnson
- Donald

 

Yes some of those names are solid but you need to apply come context aswell.

Like listing Briggs as a lineal champion sounds great until you mention he become lineal champion by getting a gift decision against an almost 50 year old Foreman.

Briggs was also atleast 3 years past it in regards to being a relevant fighter. His last real notable fight was losing a 1 sided decision to Ibragimov 3 years ago.

And in reality Briggs didn't deserve a shot against Vitali at that time.

Hide won a vacant WBO title against an almost 40 year old past it Tony Tucker who was 2-3 in his last 5 fights.

I'll give Vitali credit for the win but again how Hide won the title does need context.

Williams beat a shot Tyson and was never really world class lets be honest.

Norris was 36 years old considerably past his prime.

The other wins against Adamek, Sanders, Peter, Gomez, Arreola, Charr, and even Chisora which aged quite well.

I'd say are a solid list of names.

The other names are just filler and not overly impressive to me atleast.

 

Hide was European level at that stage, and as DP said, won the belt against a washed 40-year old Tony Tucker. WBO belt wasn't a major world title back then too. Sanders (the consensus is, it wasn't for the lineal title, just Ring) and Peter are his best wins. Adamek is a very good win. Arreola, Gomez and Johnson are good wins. Briggs was washed up and didn't have a world level win in over 3 years. Williams wasn't even the best HW in the UK at the time. Sosnowski was a joke. Norris was 36 and not world level at the time Vitali fought him. Hofmann was European level. Charr was a joke. Chisora was kind of a good win. Bean and Donald were journeymen.

All in all, very weak resume, especially for an ATG.

 

You can pick almost any of these things apart
I could say Vitali beat Purity who stopped an undefeated Wladimir, but as you say context, but that also has to be applied both ways. You could say Briggs was only around 25 when he beat Foreman
Foreman was lineal champ and had not lost since becoming champion when beating undefeated Moorer who was coming off a win over prime Holyfield
Is that the same context?

Remember Hide was an explosive fighter (i dont know your age) but was the favourite that Vitali beat in a couple of rounds
If going by your context now. Hide had beaten an older Tucker but Vitali hadn't even done that at that time
Sane context?

 

Sorry
I didn't read through your post properly at the moment but felt with the likes between yourself and Dynamic that it is on the same lines.
Rather than post something similar to the previous response
I have copied the same post
Hopefully it answers somewhat

 

Purrity was a journeyman and lost to another journeyman prior to fighting Vitali. Everybody knew Wlad losing to him was a fluke. What Briggs did in 1997 is hardly relevant to the year 2010 when Vitali beat him. Hide was an explosive fighter, but wasn't world level in 1999.