If your ranking is based on popularity or historical impact, he will never rank higher than those on that list because of the state of the sport today compared to other era's. With that said, make no mistake, he beats most heavyweight champions in the history of the sport. He is as skilled as anyone and most of those older champions never fought anyone like Uysk let alone southpaws in general.
Are you making the argument that if a fighter (active or retired) has serious health concerns that it shields them from criticism (which in this case appears accurate)?
Yeah but that's two different categories though in H2H sense I agree hes up there but resume wise no just enough fights or filler to be in top 10 for me.
So if he had fought 20 creampuffs and tin cans first, then had 7 great wins, he's a candidate for top 10 because he'd have "more wins!!!" But replacing those 20 creampuffs with a GOAT Cruiserweight run isn't a viable alternative for you.
p Considered around 70/80% of fighters use and used PEDs. Who would you save or better who would you rank higher? A juicer boxer with no health problems or one with serious health problems that with his heart and will becomes a 4 times HWs world champion ducking none in his career?
NO, he did not. His first at HW was heavily criticized, his second fight against Chisora also. Just look at how/what people were saying. Then suddenly he beat AJ and everyone was hyping him. Firs, let's see how he can beat 4 champion level boxers, like he did at CW.
You’re actually doing Usyk a massive disservice here. Pound 4 Pound he’s great. At Heavyweight his record at the moment is 6-0-0(2ko’s). A total of 64 rounds. He’s clearly achieved a lot in a short time at Heavyweight but what an insult to Louis, Lewis, Ali and co to rank him with them at this stage.
My question really has nothing to do with the ranking of fighters, part of the point I was trying to make is that I believe in fair criticism of fighters' decisions or behaviors (even if many other fighters do it too) despite any health concerns they might have, redeeming qualities they might have, etc. In any event Evander Holyfield has provided much incredible entertainment for me and overall, I have much respect for him.
I wrote that post to make some members reflect a little bit before saying they dont rank or even consider a true warrior like Holyfield because he was supposed to be a big juicer.
After Ali and Louis, it becomes very subjective. Arguments against a lot if these guys.... Holmes- Lack if quality opponents. Openly ducked fighters. Did not unify, but divided titles. Lost to LHW. Wlad- Early losses and lack of challenges. Split the era with his brother. Tyson- Front runner. Was essentially washed up in his 20s. Holy- Evan Fields. Losses. Cheating in the ring. Age of best opponents. Foreman- resume after a few top wins is very thin. Marciano- Size. Age of opponents. A couple of either-way decisions. Dempsey- Didn't fight black fighters. Was he even the best of his era? Johnson- Losses. Also turned around and pulled the color line against his own. I am no saying your top ten is wrong, but all of these guys would not be on mine.
I’m going to wait until his and the other top dogs careers are over to judge where he’s at. There’s just too many moving parts rn. He might lose his next fights and end up with a HW record of like 6-2. We also need to see what Joshua and Fury do the rest of the their careers as most of Usyk rating is tied into how posterity views those guys.
What a great post ..... until your last sentence. You did a fantastic job in showing that almost everyone has flaws in their resume if you look for them and you realistically pointed them out. They you said none of them would be in your top ten. The lesson of your thread should have been that there would not be enough fighters qualifying for a top ten if you are only including flawless resumes.
