There is a basic definitional issue here & no obvious way to decide the right one to choose. First off, in terms of how great a boxer Usyk is, even though there are FAR MORE divisions than just weighing the HWs, it is possible very Usyk is top 10.Especially when you do not disqualify his amateur career, AND give more credit for advances in sports/science/training/international pool/nutrition, so that we consider someone this century ikely faced much better competition than say mid 20th-thus factoring that in H2H... Methinks he makes that very rarefied air, amongst ALL boxers. But if you go by *literally* what HW is, then he is not likely not near top 10, given how many he fought & how good they were as HWs. BUT: & it is a big ole But(t)... Do we give him credit for fighting & beating & not losing against soooo many excellent CWs-whose rehydrated/ring weights tended to exceed what good & great HWs weighed until about the late 20th century? Let us also have less hostility & reflexive denigration between the modernists & traditionalists. Although the extremes on either side can get absurd.
Why would people rate Usyk below guys like Crawford and Mayweather based on nostalgia though? These are guys that competed very recently
Usyk is officially a locked-in Top 10 All-Time Heavyweight. He isn't just a modern great - he is a mathematical certainty for the Top 10. There is no legitimate argument to keep him out.
Since the 1960's, anyone with two functioning eye sockets can see heavyweight boxing is in the gutter. Todays heavyweights are trash, Joshua has been on his back more than Madonna and Fury is an obese slob.
The problem here is that all comparison of eras is speculation. We all do it, sure, but it is speculation. And I think that anyone has to objectively admit that if you are talking about head to head fighters, this era is pretty good. These 6'6"-6'7" athletic giants would trounce most eras, or at least be competitive. 2010s- Wladdy and his brother teaming up to beat a bunch of guys who were talented, but comparatively midgets? Haye, Povetkin. Sultan, Byrd, Ibragimov? This was a great era of some sort? 2000- Lewis beating on an ever declining talent poll, and then giving over the division to Ruiz, Byrd, Brewster, Toney....this was a great division? 1990s- yes, or course. No arguments. 1980s- Half Holmes and a bunch of fat drug addicts not fighting each other, Holmes gets beat by a LHW coming up two division, and then Tyson squashing the fat drug addicts? This is a great division? 1970s- yes, of course. Very high quality, but it is worth mentioning that Usyk has a higher fighting weight at heavy than prime Ali or Foreman. This is a better division, but there is some comparative advantage. 1960- Started with Patterson continuing to duck anybody any good. Liston looks like he is going to restore some order, but loses in humiliating fashion to Ali, who squashed retreads before being stripped. Frazier begins his march, but can't fight Ali until the 70s. This is a magical era? 1950- fighters are diminutive by today's standards...not even on par with the cruisers Usyk beat. etc. All subjective. I think we all agree that the 70s and 90s were pretty special...the rest...meh.
It is extremely difficult to call, as this discussion covers ~100 years of the sport where different eras have seen peaks and troughs in the talent pool. For instance I would argue things are quiet in the HW division at the moment prior to a frantic scramble by up and comers for ascendency as the aged champions cash up prior to retirement. Undoubtedly Olexsandr would have held his own at HW in any era, but he would likely have lost the zero in the losses column in some of them. Ali, Tyson, and a couple of others would have tested him more than he has been by his contemporaries.
The most amusing and ironic thing is not only hasn't anyone been able to do this even though they have a million fighters and all of boxing history to trawl though but even the boxing paleontologists and nostalgists who hate on Usyk (all of whom gave him zero chance of even becoming world HW champion prior to their revisionism) and brag about how long they've been around excavating dinosaur bones can't do it either
Such a lazy excuse. I find it hard to believe that a sport where you can make a 9 figure payday in a night has "trash" boxers. Usyk is exceptional and has beaten great / very good fighters.
Usyk should've fleshed out his title reign with ATG killers of the calibre of Scott Frank David Bey Lucien Rodriguez Randall Cobb Scott LeDoux Lorenzo Zannon Leroy Jones Alfredo Evangelista Then the boxing nostalgists could wax lyrical about him having fought 14 HWs, 17 fights at HW, and being 15-0 in HW world title fights instead of 7-0 But he's only fought 6 HWs had he fought Scott Frank, David Bey, Lucien Rodriguez, Randall Cobb, Scott LeDoux, Lorenzo Zannon, Leroy Jones and Alfredo Evangelista that would make it 14 and his title reign so much more impressive And if we combine his CW career because every man he fought at CW was a HW by the old standard ie. the standard many of his fellow ATG HWs fought under he's being directly compared to - having fought 30 HWs, had 33 fights at HW, and been 22-0 in world title fights