Oleksandr Usyk in the 70s

I seriously doubt Usyk lasts very long in the 70's ,I have real doubts he could handle Jerry Quarry so please don't bring in the other monsters of that time. If he thinks Dubois hits hard, welcome to Usyks nightmare

 

Yes a boxer who constantly outboxes and beats up bigger boxers then himself is not going to struggle with smaller boxers, many of whom would be cruiserweights today and none of which have any experience fighting southpaws not a crazy take at all.

 

Yes someone who would be a cruiserweight today punches harder then a big heavyweight who weights 30 pounds more

 

"It's just a hook with the left and cross with the right............"

 

It's crazy to suggest dominating the strongest Heavyweight era of all time based on Usyk having 5 fights at Heavyweight so yes it is a bad take an awful one to be exact.

But yeah I guess losing 4 rounds and looking beatable to fringe contender Dereck Chisora is the barometer to being an unbeatable Heavyweight I guess.

 

You do realize there was no cruiserweight during that time right so his cruiserweight fights would also be considered heavyweight and based on his body of work its crazy to suggest he wouldn't be competitive with the best boxers in the 70s especially since they were all smaller then boxers today. Whether he would dominate is another matter but based on his size, skills and body of work compared to fighters of that era I think its likely.
Name me a single boxer in the 70s who would have a 40 Ib advantage over Usyk like Chisora did. And even then if you watch the fight and not just the highlights it was a clear Usyk victory he only lost maybe 2-3 rounds max. I also love how you ignore all his other fights instead nitpicking one single fight which he still decisively won against someone who there is no equivalent in the 70s.

 

He would probably be 200lbs.
Beats norton and holmes due to styles (how they hold their hands and the angles they punch from specifically)
50/50 post exile ali.

Loses to frazier.
Loses to prime Ali
Not sure how he deals with foremans physicality without modern S&C. Probably loses. Specifically thinking of the kind of shots foreman threw to the body, he doesnt care where he lands, wide sweeping punches to the body, exactly the kind of stuff he hated. Foreman also quite nonreactive to feints and pressured with his feet and unloaded in range when usyk puts his hands up.

 

Becomes one of the top 3 heavyweights for the entire decade, and makes an already great era even better.

 

You do realize a 210 pound David Haye who moved up from Cruiserweight destroyed a younger fresher Chisora in 5 rounds so don't give me that nonsense about size.

No one said anything about Usyk not being competitive you said and I quote "Usyk would dominate the division without too much difficulty". And that's where I took issue with your post because that's complete nonsense.

Watched highlights ? My guy I've watched all of Usyk's fights he didn't look impressive vs Chisora and lost 4 rounds on my card. He also struggled vs Breidis barely winning hence that gives us a clue that an elite pressure fighter could beat Uysk.

Nit pick ? Theres only 5 Heavyweight fights to choose from!!!!!! And hes only beaten one Heavyweight who is considered elite.

 

Why do people do this? If you were to rate fighters based on their worst moments they'd all be ****.

Seriously, why even bother to try and sound objective just to go on a tirade about only BEATING Chisora 8-4 lol, as if better heavyweights than Usyk haven't had infinitely worse performances. By this logic Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Wlad would be ****ed. Forget winning 8-4, they LOST to Chisora level fighters. So what, is Jerry Quarry their worst nightmare too?

 

He didn't look impressive vs Chisora purely because of the size difference between the two which no one in the 70s would have against Usyk so I don't see how you can extrapolate one performance against someone who had an almost 50 Ib advantage and say boxers in the 70s could give him just as much trouble when none of them would have the same advantage.
Perhaps dominate is too strong a word but I don't see anyone who I would favor against Usyk he's too big and too technical for all of them as well as being a good southpaw which none of them would have much experience fighting against so he would have a lot of advantages that I don't think boxers in the 70s would be able to deal with which I think would favor him against any of them

 

Because Chisora is the 2nd best opponent he's ever fought at Heavyweight you do realize that right ? so there's little evidence we have to go on.

My issue is the poster above is claiming Usyk would dominate the 70s division with ease so i'm sarcastically bringing up the Chisora fight to make a point how ridiculous that statement is.

As for the other Heavyweights yeah they had off nights aswell but you know what ? we have far more evidence of them having very good/great performances at Heavyweight so there's a big difference.

I'm sorry i'm not jumping on the bandwagon and claiming Usyk dominates the strongest Heavyweight era in history after only 5 fights and one win over an elite Heavyweight.

Is Usyk a very good talent ? yes. Logically could he compete in the 70s era ? yes. But isn't it a bit early to start claiming he beats ATG Heavyweight's and dominates the strongest Heavyweight era in history with such little evidence at the weightclass ? yes.

I don't think any of the above is unfair to Usyk at all.

 

So much this, it's gotten tiring at this point. Every fighter has had fights where they looked more human than what was expected, whether it was due to styles or just an off night. How come Duran beat Leonard when he struggled with Viruet ? How come Ali beat Frazier, Liston and Foreman when he got dropped by Cooper ? How could Louis beat Walcott and Schmeling when he struggled with Godoy and Conn ? How could Mayweather beat Pacquiao after he went life and death with Maidana ? How come Whitaker got robbed against Chavez when he struggled with McGirt ? How could Mosley beat Oscar after he struggled against Holiday and lost to Forrest ?

People give way too much credit to Boxers after they beat a great fighter, to the point that they forget that the gap between them and other world class fighters isn't wide enough for them to always be demolishing them.

 

Prime Usyk already fought 70's sized heavyweights and he dominated them. That's what his tenue at Cruiserweight was. I'm not sure what an out of prime 34-36 year Usyk's exploits against some super heavyweights tells us about how he'd handle the 70's.

You keep on saying we've not seen enough of him at heavyweight but considering in this hypothetical he'd be fighting people shorter and lighter than him this doesn't really make sense. The "heavyweight" that Usyk struggled with in a numerical sense literally isn't in the same weight class as the people he'd be up against in hypotheticals.

Like, am I supposed to think that a 35 year old Usyk getting floored by the 6'5, 250lbs Dubois is evidence a prime Usyk would struggle against the 6'0, 190lbs Floyd Patterson? I don't really understand your logic.

 

Here's the difference.

Chisora is the 2nd best opponent Usyk has ever fought at Heavyweight. He's only had 5 fights at the weightclass and 1 win over an elite Heavyweight. So as i said there's not much evidence we have in regards to Usyk at Heavyweight.

You're missing the point the other poster is claiming Usyk would dominate the 70s division with ease, so i brought up the Chisora fight in a sarcastic manner as evidence of Usyk struggling against a fringe contender. As it makes a bit of a mockery to suggest Usyk runs through multiple ATG's Heavyweights with ease.

The point i'm making we need to see more evidence of Usyk at Heavyweight end of, and making claims that he would dominate the strongest era in Heavyweight history after only 5 fights at the weightclass is ludcrious.