The problem with this generation of Heavyweights and their claims to greatness

My problem is that if you compare the amount of ranked Heavyweights Fury and all them have beaten it pales in comparison to yesteryear.

Fury has only beaten 3 ranked Heavyweights Wladimir aged 40, Wilder, Whyte, and that's it.....

Usyk deserves alot of credit because he has beaten the two most notable Heavyweights of this era with considerably size disadvantage, but still that's the only 2 ranked Heavyweights he has beaten.

Louis for example beat 33 ranked Heavyweights, Ali beat 30, Holmes beat 15, Lewis beat 13.

So as I keep saying no Usyk is not an ATG Heavyweight and neither was Fury a great Heavyweight even before the Usyk loss.

Is Usyk an ATG based on all of his achievements ? Absolutely. But people have gone a bit OTT as i said claiming hes an ATG Heavyweight and the GOAT when he isn't.

If Usyk wants to become an ATG at Heavyweight he needs some more filler to his record beat Parker, Hrgovic, etc. Unfortunately Usyk is getting on now and I don't think he has many fights left to achieve that so I'm not blaming him if he does retire. But I would like to atleast see him fight two more times.

 

That's just cause its fresh. Usyk has a case for GOAT CW (Holyfield and Haye would have a word, among others) but few people have Usyk beating Lewis, Klit brothers, Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Liston, Holmes, etc.

That's not a diss on Usyk its just that he has a small body of work at HW and he's shown he can be hurt multiple times. He's also won every HW fight somewhat clearly but its foolish to pretend his opponents now are representative of eras w several ATG HWs.

FWIW I dont think Usyk goes to HW in the 70s or 90s

 

Having more fights also ties into recognizability. Usyk is probably the least recognizable Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of all time. Only people that watch boxing know who he is.

You can’t be GOAT if no one knows who you are.

 

Usyk is the same height as Muhammad Ali, has the same reach as Muhammad Ali, and is currently fighting at 7lbs pounds heavier than Ali usually did. He's the same size as Ali, the same size as Norton, the same size as Holmes.

Also, cruiser didn't exist in the 70's, and prior to '79, I believe heavyweight was 175+. Not a chance Usyk would have been anything other than a heavyweight in the 70s.

 

Considering Usyk's cruiserweight division was around the same weight as many heavyweights in the past people underestimate how small he really is. If he was around in a previous era he would be a pretty large heavyweight and all his fights would be at heavyweight.

 

I'm not sure I get the age argument, and Usyk has the Dubois win regardless. There is definitely a lack of depth for both Fury and Usyk. AJ has the most depth wins, but he's clearly inferior to Usyk.

 

Try asking the average person on the street who Ingemar Johannson was. Greatness isn't a popularity contest. The average Joe has absolutely no clue who Sugar Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Sam Langford, or Henry Armstrong are, despite all men having a considerable claim to being the GOAT. The vast majority of the general public can only name Ali and Tyson, that's it really.

 

I think in his time the average sports fan did know who Sugar Ray Robinson was.

 

That's true but also boxing was a significantly more popular sport back then. Most American champions from the 20s were probably more recognised nationally than even Floyd was at his peak. Boxing's popularity (at least in the US) has declined remarkably since its peak in the 20s, so holding up modern boxers to a standard they have no hope of reaching seems pretty unfair to me.

 

I'm not sure I buy into the age range thing tbh - you would have to account for freak boundary cases - like Foreman winning the HW title @46 and he had TEN years away from the ring.

Iron Mike started insanely young so was always going to have a big range because of how young he was.

I know it's highly unlikely but Usyk could be matched up with Moses Itauma and change his 'age range' massively in a single fight.

I think you can look at resume - who they fought and when the fought them without any kind of patterns - and usually the criteria there is folks give props for the following:-

Prime ATG - a win against a prime ATG is going to give a resume the most kudos
Prime Champion - beating a prime champ is probably next
Prime HOF - probably next
Prime Contender
Non-Prime ATG
Non-Prime Champ
Non-Prime HOF

etc etc - it's subjective, but that's where I really think the age thing should be viewed with caution - when exactly is prime does it vary by fighter? When is too young too green? When is too old too past it? etc etc

It's maybe interesting as a thought exercise but don't think it holds any really weight IMO

 

Chuvalo wasn't ranked top 10 in 1967 when frazier beat him, had a poor amateur background and his best win was Doug Jones 3 years prior.

Not really holding everyone to the same standard here.

 

Careful, you're thinking - making too much common sense for this forum

The OP seems to not realize that fighters these days - especially HWs - simply don't fight as often as they usually did in past eras. Apples to oranges in his age range of opponents comparison.