Can we straight up say Usyk is the 2nd greatest Cruiserweight?

Briedis, Gassiev, Huck, Hunter and Glowacki are some really good names. Holy is my favourite fighter so pains me to say it, but I'd maybe put Usyk at number 1, because simply, the cruiserweights in Usyk's era are better than the 80's (even though I'd Pick Holyfield to beat them all).

But I can't see Usyk coming close to Holyfield's legacy in Heavyweight

 

Yeah from what read somewhere before Letterlough really turned his life around when he got into boxing. He could hit like a truck for sure. Those two fought there hearts out that night. Friday night fights was so good back then. Gonzalez, Verno Phillip's, Kassim Ouma, Mickey Ward, Jirov, Concrete Davis all were on Friday night fights a lot in those days. Good tough fighters that didn't have the drawing power to be on HBO or Showtime.

 

You could make an argument that Usyk defeated better opponents at cruiserweight, but Holyfield beat Hall of Famers Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe, Mike Tyson (twice) and drew with Lennox Lewis at heavyweight.

And, frankly, a thousand decisions over Gassiev and Breidis isn't going to equal that.

Holyfield was the best fighter to ever hold the cruiserweight title.

Usyk accomplished the most in the division's history by unifying four belts

Just because Bernard Hopkins unified four belts and has the most defenses doesn't make me rate him the greatest middleweight of all-time.

I'd put Holyfield #1 at cruiserweight because he was clearly the best fighter to ever hold the cruiserweight title.

 

Haye had only two world title fights at cruiserweight:

- Faded Mormeck, who knocked him down and was winning until Haye got him with an illegal rabbit punch
- Notoriously chinny Enzo Macarinelli

Haye avoided the best cruiserweights at the time, namely Steve Cunningham, Marco Huck and Tomasz Adamek.

Haye was knocked down by super-middleweight Lolenga Mock and stopped by a 40 year old Carl Thompson.

 

So your logic for Holyfield being a better cruiserweight, is that he was a better HW? What the ****?

 

My logic is he was the best fighter to hold the cruiserweight title, so I rate him #1.

The guy who unifies all the belts isn't rated #1 all-time in all the other divisions, is he?

 

No, but by your logic, I should have Durán as my #1 MW, since he is the best fighter to fight at MW. Doesn't matter that he has a patchy record and was tiny for the weight.

I mean, I don't doubt Holyfield is the best fighter at CW, hit surely just watching his fights at cruiserweight is enough to say that. His achievements at HW should be completely irrelevant, imo.

 

Duran has been rated as the #1 Lightweight of all time (or right at the top) BECAUSE of his run after he left the division. Not because of all the GREATS he beat at Lightweight.

Nobody is saying Usyk sucks. But Evander Holyfield is the best fighter to ever hold the cruiserweight belts.

 

What? Duran is the best at lightweight, or near there, because he was that good. He beat great LWs too. It's even said going into the first Sugar Ray Leonard fight that he could well be the greatest lightweight ever. It had next to nothing to do with his other career.

I agree.

 

https://media.gettyimages.com/photo...-on-the-cover-picture-id159922701?s=2048x2048

The first time I recall Duran being up for discussion as the top-rated Lightweight all-time was after he moved up to Welterweight and beat two of the last three WBC Welterweight champs - Palomino and Leonard.

I have that issue of Ring (September 1980). It's sitting on the shelf across from me.

The Palomino and Leonard wins were the two best wins of his career to that point. They played a big role in him getting recognition for the top spot at lightweight. Hell, he didn't even unify until his last fight at the Lightweight. He was just a WBA champ before that.

After the No Mas fight, he dropped in most all-time ratings, at lightweight, too. It took him years to recover from that quit job.

In fact, I just checked, and in the Ring article, most of the old-timers at the time who were asked say Duran shouldn't be considered the best lightweight because he didn't fight any great lightweights.

So, in Duran's case, what happened after he left the division played a HUGE role in his ranking at lightweight. (Glad you brought him up.)

Don't pretend what happens outside the division doesn't count in how guys are rated in divisions. We do it all the time. Every day.

For Usyk and Holyfield, we're supposed to make exceptions now? C'mon.

 

No one cares who the best cruiserweight is let alone 2nd best

 

I know but I'm going more on eye test. It's a worse measure of course.

 

Didn't know about the ring mag. Good stuff!

I mean, DeJesús and Buchanan are excellent LWs. Not to mention 12 title defences and demolishing everyone at the time. Throw wins over Bizzarro, Viruet, Ortiz, Villa, Guts, Lampkin ect. in there and you have an ATG LW career. Added him being the best ever there.

Although, of that's the first you've seen of it; you're making me question if I had the vid I use for the fight with Leonard has its original commentary.

I have Usyk #1 at CW because he accomplished more than anyone else at CW. So no you shouldn't.

And even if I did rank things how you did, No. You shouldn't do it with Durán. You shouldn't do it with Leonard. Or Hagler. Or Hearns. Or Holyfield. Or Usyk ect. I rank Durán #2 at LW for what he did at LW and how good he looked. Not above it. Same with Usyk and Holyfield.

 

Moron

 

Please! Those dudes are not A+, just stop the stupid sh it!