The last great heavyweight....!

Usyk, Fury was almost great tho

 

I'm old enough to remember when a lot of people dismissed Lennox Lewis because he was a Brit, and only Americans can be true heavyweights. I think a bit of that same stink comes out regarding Usyk and Wlad and Vitali.

 

Sure there has always been that element. I am not saying it doesn't exist but among serious fans most people are rating on something more objective than were you come from.

 

I don't rank fighters from an all time perspective until a few years after they've retired. I think that's necessary to get proper perspective on their careers and the careers of their key opponents.

The latest, retired, ATG HW, is Wlad.

 

Interacting with "serious" fans over here tells me their ranking are based very much on their subjective standards and vibes rather then any consistent objective framework.

 

Yeah the ranking in itself is subjective. It can easily lack consistency as well and at some point is hair splitting in particular the lower and lower you go down.

Serious being a broad term I mean non casual fans if you know what I mean.

 

Look at Dubois, Dubois beats everyone he fought of relevance besides Usyk. People are out here calling him a bum.
Your scenario of Fury,Joshua,Wilder does not really apply here, because they already lost to the champion. Let me put it like this.

People call Mike Tyson a bum. Why? Cause he beat nobody. Well, all the people that he beat were all ranked opponents. All of them with the exception of Holyfield which that fight fell through when it was supposed to happen several times.

If one guy dominates a division we will never know how good someone is because they never had the chance. When the division is disrupted like it was after Wlad and now you have Joshua,Wilder,Fury now Usyk can swoop in and beat everyone. Had he beat Wlad and these 3 before they ever got a chance at a title, they would be where Dubois is where people say he sucks because he beat everyone but Usyk.

In the heavyweight division it is very hard to establish yourself,because if the champion beats you, none of the opponents below that in the eyes of the fans matter that you beat, because they are also unproven unless you go on a crazy KO spree which, again, Dubois is doing and people still call him ass

 

It was your scenario; I was simply applying my argument to said scenario.

You are moving between two different points. If the claim is that a dominant champion literally prevents contenders from proving themselves, then I disagree. Contenders can still establish a pecking order below the champion.

If the claim is that heavyweights find it difficult to establish themselves because fans often disregard evidence of ranked contenders fighting each other, then that's a matter of fan perception – It is not about whether a résumé actually contains proven wins or performances that can be viewed as exemplary. My argument is about the latter.

On Dubois specifically – His being underrated by some fans does not change the test. The question is still whether his wins are historically strong enough to prove genuine divisional depth, not whether people are being fair to him online.

 

More often than not , a heavyweight can't establish themselves in the eyes of the fans,and fans usually dictate how "good" someone is,even if I believe most of them are wrong. It is not "difficult" ,they can't do it.

Mike Tyson beat all ranked opponents,people call him trash. Michael Spinks broke Larry Holmes 48 win streak, people called him trash. Larry Holmes was only knocked out by Mike Tyson,people called him old and going down hill. Tyrell Biggs, Olympic Gold medalist is a bum,Bonecrusher Smith who KOed Tim Witherspoon in 1 is a bum,Henry Tillman, olympic gold medalist is a bum. You cannot deny any of this ,this is the perception of Mike Tyson as all of those guys he fought were reduced to being scared bums.

Now you have Buster Douglas who only ever did 1 trick in his career,and thus "Tokyo Douglas" was born.

I'm sorry man,but the evidence of any heavyweight establishing themselves just flyes out the window if there is a dominant champion. It is not "difficult" it is impossible.

 

This is still just an argument about fan perception, not about whether fighters can actually establish themselves.

Tyson is actually a poor example here. The man tore through the division at such a rate of knots and reigned for such a relatively short period that his case does not compare to those who were longer-reigning dominant champions.

If anything, Tyson's case demonstrates a separate matter, in that a rapid, destructive run can leave less time for the rest of the field to sort itself out, whereas a long reign gives contenders years to fight each other and establish themselves in contention.

Then again, fans calling Tyson's opponents "bums" does not mean those opponents failed to establish credentials. Sure, the strength of those credentials can be evaluated and challenged, but fans later dismissing them does not erase the evidence.


So, the claim that it is "impossible" for heavyweights to establish themselves under a dominant champion is plainly wrong.

What may be impossible is satisfying bad-faith or casual fan narratives after the fact. That is not the same thing.

My point remains that a championship résumé is assessed by what challengers had proven at the time, regardless of what some fans might think.

 

And you can't prove yourself against anyone in the perception of the fans if you are dominating as a heavyweight. and I feel Tyson works perfectly well as an example.

In my opinion, the fact that you are ranked and fighitng ranked opponents and beating them. Ala Dubois, proves to me, you are infact for real. Just because you lost to the champion, does not mean you aren't good. The problem is,in the eyes of hte fans you are.

I consider Tyson Fury great because he ended Wlads 18 consecutive defense run,and he beat Wilder who was considered teh hardest puncher in heavyweight history who had a 100% KO ratio. but most poeple just consider Tyson Fury a bum because he lost to Usyk.

I consider Wlad who fought some good opponents like Haye,Povetkin and Byrd good and is enough to say he is an ATG even if he only had the defenses he had. But here you are saying his opposition was crap in a polite way.

having Muhammad Ali level opposition is outliers. And beating said opposition is an even bigger outlier and this is unforutnatly what every single heavyweight is compared to. You have a guy, who beat people he shoudln't have beaten and now people make this the standard for every heavyweight.

Hell,even fighters that were considered ATG really weren't proven either. Lewis beat no one. He beat Holyfield who suffered a heart attack, he beat Tyson who was shot to bits and was smoking weed during training camp, he beat Vitali on a cut and didnt give him a rematch. Who exactly did he beat? Yet he is an ATG and a big shot.

This is the reason why I consider Wlad to be an ATG and that his opposition was great and he was a good champion. It is just that people say he is garbage because when 1 man is beating everyone who are those other ones gonna prove themselves against? eachother? what does it matter they already lost to the champion so what does beating anyone else prove?

In the lower weight classes you can gain championships, you can beat champions, there is a wider array of fighters. When different belt holders are there and someone beats those belt holders they established themselves. When a champion in one weight class dominates, people tell them to move up to prove themselvs against another champion. so in lower weight classes, it is a lot easier to make a name for yourself. And quite frankly it is a lot less risky too. If there is 1 thing heavyweights have taught us, it takes next to nothing to get knocked out and because of this,your risk of being "exposed" is larger.

again this is just your opinion my opinion kind of thing. I just believe that at heavyweight, if 1 person dominates, they will be scrutinized as fighting bums. You even say Mike is an outlier because he did it in a short amount of time,what does it matter? From the years 1980-1986 these guys had plenty of time to establish themselves,but in your eyes they don't count.

He beat Henry tillman , Tyrell Biggs, Both Olympic Gold medalists.
Michael Spinks who ended Larry Holmes 48 win streak.
Larry Holmes who beat Ray Mercer at an older age and Butterbean and was only KOed by Tyson.
Pinlkon Thomas who had beaten Tim Witherspoon.

I will ask you this one question as I'm not concerned with your opinion. Give me the name of a dominating champion at heavyweight,whos opponents were proven and Ali does not count.

the cases of domating heavyweights were;
Joe Louis
Wladimir Klitscko (who doesn't count according to you)
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson (Which you say was crap)
Rocky Marciano

If there are more,tell me. But I need to hear from you,show me 1 case of a dominating heavyweight that fought proven opponents

 

Usyk
Wlad
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Vitali
Fury

Are the best HWs since Holmes.

 

This is 100% correct. Think about this - if Ali wasn't banned for over 3 years, he would fight Frazier around 1968/69 and it wouldn't be considered a great win, cause Smokin' Joe wouldn't be able to establish himself as the top dog. Just another contedner. Same with Foreman - George would be an underdog facing Ali just like he was against Frazier, so Ali's second biggest win would be "just another contender".

 

Wlad was still decent when he fought Fury, he proved that v Joshua.
He just didn’t know how to box a man as big as himself who could also box.
Fury emasculated Wlad.
Lewis is the answer, probably Usyk when he retires

 

When it comes to Wlad's resume, his best wins definitely proved themselves to be worthy contenders:

Samuel Peter - after Wlad beat him, he beat Toney & Maskaev, won the WBC belt.
Chris Byrd - beat Vitali, David Tua, old Holyfield, drawed with Golota.
Lamon Brewster - proven but past it.
Sultan Ibragimov - olympic silver medalist, beat Briggs when he was still a Top 10 fighter, beat even older Holyfield.
Hasim Rahman - proven beyond doubt, but past it.
Ruslan Chagaev - beat John Ruiz and Valuev.
David Haye - beat Valuev and after he fought Wlad he sparked out Chisora like nobody else did.
Tony Thompson - beat some fringe guys and sparked out Price who was billed as British next best thing.
Alexander Povetkin - proven beyond doubt.
Kubrat Pulev - proven beyond doubt.

And that's 12 title fights.