2x Fury, 2x aj, 2x Dubois, 2x Chisora, 2x undisputed champion. Is this top 5 ?

No. And anyone that can’t see that this is indeed a very weak era, still has a lot to learn about boxing. But it’s rarely about boxing. It’s the era of feelings.

 

Why are you surrendering? This is very winnable fight. Stand tall, stay strong. You're acting like Usyk KO'd Kabayel or something. Let Usyk beat a 6th HW opponent before ceding ground.

 

The answer is there is no answer. The ATG idea is ill-defined. Is it about resume, is it about head to head fantasies, does personality and popularity figure in, how strong or weak are the eras compared to each other and so on... So you can win any argument by pressing another point than your opponent - and I think that's great fun actually, but there is no definitive answer.

I think h2h usyk has an amazing case. Past heavies would be cruisers now.

H2h but old fighters train with modern methods or usyk can only use and know what they knew, the whole thing changes pretty quickly. But that doesn't really make sense to compare since usyk wouldn't have the same technique or body and everything would change for the old fighters, too.

I think where usyk is lacking through all his accomplishments is drama. Close, shifting fights, coming back from behind to score a ko, losing and redeeming himself, hagler vs hearns, gatti vs ward and so on. And he doesn't talk like Ali, he doesn't hate like nigel benn, he doesnt inspire fear like tyson did. So I think that prevents a lot of people even considering him atg. Ranking someone like this above ali as the atg can be thought of as hurting boxings popularity.

I think usyk could beat anyone h2h who came before him, but it's not quite fair as a comparison. And I do think, that his carreer was cleaner, less advantages and dirty stuff and ducking than we are used to seeing throughout the ages. I love how patterson gave sonny liston the match because it was right and he said at least this way it means something if he has the title afterwards. but he heavily assumed to lose the fight. This category gives a big plus for usyk in my book.

ATG with what i feel should be mixed into that title is Muhammad Ali to me. He elevated boxing more, had bunches of memorable fights and opponents, overcame big underdog status, changed his style drastically and was still unbelievably good and successful.I think that is the most comparable part of the atg discussion and ali wins that hands down.

Anyone having usyk not in the top five should be brave enough to mention 5 fighters higher on their list.

 

Not surrending but the fat lady is signing
I'll keep fighting

 

Completely agreed it's backed up by results not just pulled out of thin air. As soon as Eastern European fighters came we can observe what happened. I am not saying they would be battered the other eras but would have interesting to see them in the mix in the 50s/60s/70s etc etc.

 

Why on Earth would he fight old bum ass Chisora again?

 

He's above Marciano for sure. You can say Louis/Ali/Wlad/Lewis/Holmes are above him quite reasonably. Frazier's up there. Up there with Frazier, never took the Ls Frazier did but wasn't at the top for quite as long. So #6-7 by my count if he beats Dubois again. Furyx2, Joshuax2, Chisora, Duboisx2 amounts to a pretty good top 7 wins. I don't count guys before 1930

 

Imho - Actually any hw champion with more than 5 opponents where only 2 of them were top level on his counter . In boxing history there are a lot of them .

In fact i think we will not Find a hw undisputed with a weaker legacy .

I would not say anything when he would build his legacy , fight title defences and face opponents . But it appears he does not care about fans and the sport and was carried to victory . Not my taste .

 

Yes along with Louis, Ali, Holmes and Lennox

 

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holmes
Demspey
Tyson
Holyfield
Wlad
Marciano
Frazier
Johnson

Resume wise I have all the above. Could probably add more, but that's more than 5

 

This is a bizarre take. You're saying that someone can't be ranked highly because they didn't fight boxers that don't exist?

 

No, what I'm saying is the talent pool is less

 

There's about half as many American boxers today as in 1960. (3500 vs 7000) but surely there's more at HW now proportionally. Despite there being >50% as many HWs, Americans can't field a for sure top 20 hw. Think it's more that an international sport is harder than a mostly American one. America isn't the only big country fielding heavies anymore. Former soviets and UK now too

Pretty sure Americans still have the most boxers. There's just a lot more competition now