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

Thanks, for the correction.

To be honest, Frazier was the last one I added in. I haven't watched much of Frazier but I knew it seemed off to leave him off. And I wasn't really sure about Chuvalo. Classic talk about how he might have the greatest chin ever, he is in the BHoF, and a glance at his record on boxrec told me he fought a lot of the great fighters of the era. I must admit I just assumed he was top 10. I'll correct that one.

Have you got a suggested replacement? I guess Ali is a good place holder. It doesn't really matter too much to the general pattern of the data.

 

That is more of an excuse, though, than a reason, wouldn't you say?

I could be wrong here, but I don't see where you have corrected the OP. So far only Reg has pointed out an actual mistake in the summary. You might have seen one and thought you mentioned it.

Please let me know which you think are wrong, I am happy to change them.

edit: combined the replies

 

You of course raise a good point about fighter's primes.

However that is a very hard thing to define, but it can still be a consideration. If an opponent is too young to make the top 10, he is probably pre-prime for example.

The point of the above is that if your opponents are guys only a couple of years younger than you or you are only fighting guys a lot older than you. It then follows that you aren't really the one taking the risks over fighting young guys in their prime.

Which is clearly what a lot of the the ATGs did.

edit: sorry, just to touch on your point about Itauma. Itauma is currently nowhere near the top 10. If Usyk does indeed fight Itauma when he is generally regarded as a top 10 opponent, then yes you are correct it would indeed massively increase Usyk's range. Deservedly so.

 

That is a bit of a bad faith response.
But of course, I agree, fighters hit their prime at different times.

But, let's say someone (not mentioning names) was arguing the last few days that they thought Usyk right now is in his prime. Then there is really no excuse for him not to continue and challenge the next generation, wouldn't you say? Just as there is no excuse for his peers to do/have done the same.

 

He is a notable fighter, not a great. As the title of the grouping says, it includes both.

But isn't that also the point, if a non-ATG is achieving similar feats to the previous greats, then there is less of an excuse for the current generation

 

I am not arguing that Usyk isn't already an ATG. He is considered by many to by the WC GOAT. He will also be ranked very favourably on P4P ATG conversations. This thread is talking about Heavyweight ATGs, and how I would like to see him do more. I understand what you are saying about Klitschko, but to suggest you don't improve your standing with a deep resume, doesn't seem to play out in ATG standings. It is in part why Ali and Louis are considered 1 and 2. But taking the last undisputed champion, Lewis, as an example: it is also a large part of why he is regarded in the top 5 by many.

Eventually Lewis (born 1965) chose to retire, but he fought multiple notable up and comers, after becoming Undisputed against Holyfield: Grant (born 1972), Rahman (1972), Tua (1972), Vitali (1971). So, regarding Usyk (born 1987), I don't see the argument for not fighting the likes of Hrgovic (born 1992), Parker (1992), and Kabayel (1992).

Maybe Lewis got lucky that Vitali went on to dominate the division, but he earnt that luck by how many of the next generation he took on. In contrast, for the Undisputed and new Lineal champion to not even try to fight the next generation would be a cop out. Plus, as time passes and more fighters come along, it will be far easier to dislodge Usyk in say the top 10 or top 15 Heavyweights, than previous fighter's with deep resumes. I can understand him retiring if he feels he has achieved all he wanted to, but as a boxing fan I want to see him prove his greatness by taking on the next generation like those before him. And, honestly, I think this is why Usyk has mentioned he wants to fight until he is 40.

 

Bit of an overly emotional response to facts regarding the current generation barely having tested themselves against the next.

Again, I recognize Usyk as an ATG. But I would like to see him (and Fury/Joshua) do more. Usyk is the best of his generation. An ATG achievement. Let's see him take on the next

 

I understand your point, but in fairness I explained Povetkin’s inclusion directly after the post you are responding to. However, I apologise if what follows here, isn’t exactly what you meant by “the fighters used here only weaken the argument further” – I can only assume it is in connection to Povetkin and his wins, so let me address my thinking on that:

So, Povetkin is included because he won Olympic Gold, he was seen by some as the heir apparent to Klitschko, but he fell at the final hurdle (demonstrating Klitschko’s greatness). However, he lost in a manner to Klitschko that a lot of boxing fans still feel uncomfortable about. He was also swerved heavily by Wilder, before being given another title shot against Joshua. Finally, he was already the wrong side of 40, when he turned back the clock to beat top 5 rated, Whyte.

Regarding Chagaev, the reason I think he is still a relevant and notable UD win for Povetkin is because it ties into the narrative that this generation has partly been built upon. The win over Chagaev by Klitschko is when people define the start of a new lineage under Wladimir. So, we can’t present Fury as an ATG because he became lineal champion whilst undermining Chagaev, who in turn is a notable win for Povetkin. The same applies to Povetkin’s win over Whyte.

Basically, if we undermine Povetkin and his connected wins, we undermine the current generation’s standing.