A comparison of Liston and Usyk's best opponents

This is exactly right, and pretty obvious, but well stated.

 

Not trying to ambush you, here, but in light of Matt Donnellon's excellent post, I actually would like to pick this up a bit further.

I will let the answer that I already gave stand on this one...you can start with the number of likes some of my posts on the matter have gotten. You can continue with those who have openly agreed with me on the thread. You can continue by looking at over the internet at the large numbers of people who feel similarly.

I mean there is obviously a contingent that agrees with you, and a contingent that agrees with me.

But the point is that he bested a heavyweight champion at heavy...so he is someone that adds something to the heavyweight resume, regardless. Even if he fought Usyk at cruiser, he has the frame, the power, the ability and the chin to be a good heavy. It's a good win.

The point is, that regardless of the fact that the cruisers Usyk beat would be strapping heavies in Liston's era, some of them are also men who have heavyweight cred.

You don't see it that way...I get it. You want them all to be wins against heavyweights fighting above the cruiser limit when Usyk beat them. I don't agree. I think they are good wins. As Matt Donnellon said it, maybe beating #9 cruiser is not the same as beating a #8 heavy...but that #9 cruiser would beat a lot of heavies and its a good valuable win that adds something. Bellew is a cruiser who has a pair of good heavyweight wins.

Well Haye lost to a LHW in his career, but was good enough to become a heavyweight. Kind of shows my point. Guys jump classes all the time. Again, I get there is some differential, but yes, beating a ranked guy of a lower weight is good win.

I will change my language to say that Spinks was a "career LHW." The point was not to impugn Holmes, but to show that a good fighter made a much bigger jump and beat him. LHW to heavy is 25 pounds. The Cruisers that Usyk beat would only have to jump a couple of pounds, and because the rules are different now with rehydration, entered on fight night well over the heavyweight limit.

Michael weighed just under 200 pounds:

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/1286

And no, he didn't become bad at all, THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT (emphasis, not shouting). He was a great fighter at LHW, and a very good one at heavy.

Believe I have already answered this.

Would you agree with Mr. Donnellon's post...yes, there is a differential when a fighter moves up, but he is still a quality fighter who constitue a "respectable" win?

 

"I take they wins over the top cruisers as respectable, adding something to Usyk's resumee and were a decent indication at the time that he would be a formidable opponent for most heavyweights, especially with his WSB accomplishments."

This is exactly what I am saying, so...

Really, that is funny? Even if he is on "your side," how is that funny? I think he has said right intentionally, or unintentionally. Though he doesn't consider it to be the same as beating a heavyweight of a similar ranking, it does add to the resume--which I think is entirely fair and right.

So that is funny?

 

I don't think he is saying that it adds "something" to his cruiswerweight resume, when those fights made him the greatest cruiser of all time. That is not "something." If the man wants to come in and clarify, then he can. If he flat out says that he does not agree, then I will represent what I felt he was saying as my own: whereas it is not a 1 for 1--a win over Glowacki does not equal a win over Fury--it is not nothing.

I thought it was a good post and can agree with the part that is clearly critical. He is well spoken.

But I will ask..

Does Joe Louis' win over Billy Conn count for nothing because Conn came in at 174?

Does, say Joey Maxim's win over Robinson count for nothing at all because Robinson came in under the middleweight limit?

Did Jack Johnson's victory over Sam Langford count for nothing because Langford weight 156?

Did Gene Tunney's 1925 victory over Greb not count because Greb was under the LHW limit? Or how about his 23 victory over Greb when Greb did not exceed the middleweight limit.

Again, there is certainly a differential, but the fights mattered towards Louis' heavyweight resume, Maxim's LHW resume, Johnson's heavyweight resume, and Tunney's heavyweight and LHW resume, respectively.

 

Except that I don't think that I did and am still waiting for clarification. What is more, I agreed to the part that was critical of what I was saying and have taken a couple of stabs at explaining it in different ways because, based on that post, I think it is fair.

 

I have impugned Holmes for ducking guys and bragging about it--which he did, but I have not done so here. I was merely pointing out that he lost to a career LH--which he did. I have never impugned Spinks--the fact that he put on 25 pounds and beat Holmes proves my point.

But let's stick to fights in which the challenger came in under the champion's weight class limit. So, if Usyk's wins at cruiser count for nothing towards being a great heavyweight...

Does Joe Louis' win over Billy Conn count for nothing because Conn came in at 174?

Does, Joey Maxim's win over Robinson count for nothing at all because Robinson came in under the middleweight limit?

Did Jack Johnson's victory over Sam Langford count for nothing because Langford weight 156?

Did Gene Tunney's 1925 victory over Greb not count because Greb was under the LHW limit? Or how about his 23 victory over Greb when Greb did not exceed the middleweight limit?

Did Jack Johnson's win over Stanely Ketchel not mean anything because Ketchel came in under the LHW limit?

Did Max Schmeling's victory over Mickey Walker not mean anything because Walker came in under the LHW limit?

Did Tommy Loughran's victory over Walker not mean anything because Walker came in under the middleweight limit?

My position is that all of these fights matter, and some of these wins are amongst the best of the winning fighter.