Is Usyk a Top 10 Heavyweight of all time?

People seem entranced by the P4P concept, yet when it's applied at HW it is dismissed.. Usyks HW opposition average weight is 252lbs.. yet he's a natural CW.. Terence Crawsnac gets deified because he beat a 168lb Alvarez despite weighing over 180lbs between camps for YEARS..

Also, the great Larry Holmes weighed 210lbs as a young HW coming through the ranks (so I'd say he was naturally a little bigger than Usyk) yet his average opponent weight is 216lbs..

So whatever you think of Usyk he is a giant slayer and his statistics are impressive.. & yes I know weight & statistics aren't the be all and end all but they do add to the story.. & size does matter otherwise boxing wouldn't have divisions or a P4P discussion.

I'd also add Usyk mainly fought in enemy territory wheras many past HW greats had the luxury of home advantage.

 

Yes. Dominated his time.

 

That would be a more compelling argument if these guys didn't keep struggling with much smaller opponents

Like Joshua losing to Ruiz
Or Dubois getting dropped three times by former cruiserweight Lerena

 

Only if Fury beats Joshua or Joshua beats Fury. One of them has to have a win over the other and it will increase Usyk's stock.

 

IDK, I'd say top 15.

 

Yes, Usyk at 38 was in much better condition at that age than all the greats of the past, but if we want to be honest, he didn't have anything close to the battle scars of most these fighters, so it's hard to judge isn't it?

 

But the technical ability is generally more advanced now as well. For example, I would pick most top LHWs of today to beat the majority of heavyweights from the 60's-early 70's.

Lerena, Nistor and Ruiz and so forth are still stocky (and maybe "supplemented" too) guys with some power.

 

How is technical ability more advanced? I personally see the opposite. I see modern fighters less complete than previous eras as far as what they employ technically in a fight.

 

If it's lazy it's because it's so easy to see.

 

Oh dear, oh dear.

 

Nobody has answered it, but then it's not in any way a fair comparison.

Surely you know this.

 

Guys like me aren't questioning his greatness.


The question is this:

Had he have fought a 40-50 fight HW career, where he'd have fought 3-4 times per year, consistently for around 15 years, and against mostly world level guys, then how would that have affected him?


Under those circumstances, he may have retired earlier.

He may have faded much quicker.

It's also not beyond the realms of possibility, that he could have had a loss.


The sport throws up huge surprises when fighters fight so consistently.

Tiberi would never have beaten Toney on his best day.

The same applies to Tyson-Douglas and Lewis-Rahman etc.


We've just seen the struggle with Rico.

Why?

Because of styles?

A lack of real motivation?

Both?

Something else?


It happens.


Now you keep saying that what Usyk is doing is amazing, and that there's no 39 year old HW's in history, who were as great.

Yes, that is absolutely true.

However, how many great HW's turned pro at Usyk's age, where they'd only fought 26 times at his current age?


He has wear and tear from the amateurs. 100%

But he could have obtained more through having more pro camps and fights.


You are simply making unfair comparisons here.

 

And even the 90's were seen as shyte when they were happening.

 

You can't seriously think this era is worse than 1900's, 1910's, 1920's or 1930's. It would be hard to argue it's worse than 1960's and 1980's. Klitschko era was also considered very weak.