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

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I guess

 

I think that is the issue for me, the current gen aren't in much of a hurry to make those fights. Hopefully Usyk isn't struck down by the WBC curse and starts to make some of those fights.

I agree with you about coming through CW first. If the opportunity is there it is a good platform to get some level of support, plus the WBO rules don't hurt should you wish to transition to HW in the future. I also agree he would be competitive in any era, I suspect if anyone could go 15 rounds + it would be him

 

With all due respect that's not the argument I was making. The part of the OP that is emphasized in bold is the youngest opponent faced. The age range is of only secondary interest as it may show someone who was only fighting fighters close to their age - not necessarily a bad thing (see Usyk) - but it may also show a guy who only has notable victories over older fighters (see Wilder).
The young lion is meant to replace the old, I don't see that as clear mark of greatness, merely the natural order. That's why challenging the next generation (to me) alongside depth of resume (as others have rightly brought up) would be important.

Now, my own problem with the argument about frequency of fights is, often for this generation, it has been a choice (and sometimes a choice inflicted upon them) for the fighter. Wilder for all his flaws was actually active champion (his quality of wins is the issue), but the other three have clearly prioritised money and personal goals (which is fine) at the expense of activity and keeping the division moving. This criticism applies to Joshua, Fury, and Usyk (to differing degrees). Until Usyk came along, Joshua was among the least active unified champions (maybe the least) in the modern era. And Fury hasn't exactly helped get things moving (or is he still).

This is why I see it as an excuse rather than a legitimate reason for now not having the time to fight the next gen.

 

Thanks, that's my mistake. I was doing things in reverse order and copy pasted Holmes info to save some typing time. I changed it to 18 years in line with how I approached the others.

 

The argument against, is not that the pattern doesn’t exist. It obviously does. I would think the argument against would be that correlation does not equate to causation. Which opens us up to the discussion.

I didn’t work from the data, look for a pattern, and try and form an interpretation. Basically, I had an idea, an inkling (let’s call it a hypothesis): ATGs standing improves based on fighting the next generation. Okay if we must, let's formalize it: High ranked ATGs in the modern era on average fought significantly younger notable opponents than the current generation of fighters.

Then, I picked out most of the modern ATGs that Usyk would be competing with to enter the overall top 15. Povetkin who belonged to the Klitschko generation and also fought some of this generation was included as a bridge. That gave me 9 fighters. I wouldn’t try to run statistical tests against such a small sample (plus as you say it is a boxing message board), but we can certainly see there is a pattern that has emerge which correlates.

Notable admissions would be Bowe (4th best of his generation), Norton (4th best), and Vitali (arguably best), but I think it is fair to say they don’t rank in the top 15. However, we can look at them.

Bowe (1967) we can say is the exception to the rule. He fought Golota (1968) twice before his career petered out. He is among five (?) heavyweights to hold a victory over every man he faced, he also held the title of undisputed and Lineal champion. However, he isn’t ranked very highly, though he is considered a H2H monster.
Vitali (1971) basically ended his career making defences against much younger opponents, the problem was they weren’t notable scalps. Similar to Bowe, he is considered a head to head monster.
Norton (1943) gave his first title defence to Holmes (1949), now granted he didn’t win, but he continued to test himself against younger guys. But how high is Norton ranked?​

I would expect Usyk to already be above those three.

Actually, something you might be able to answer, as I don’t know enough to argue history. How highly do people generally rate Gene Tunney? His achievements, though of a different time, don’t look so different from Usyk’s.


But, all that is to say, I think the most valid argument against is correlation does not equate to causation. I haven't been convinced as yet, as I don't think there has been much of a convincing argument for this generation not fighting the next to improve his standing

 

Aha, so now you admit a pattern does indeed exist! It just doesn't mean much to you personally..........yet.
But, it's a step in the right direction. A few dozen more posts and I think you'll see the light.

Or you know, we both get bored and leave it to our future AI overlords to decide what was right. Which ever comes first.