A very young Usyk tells Wladimir and Vitali he’ll have to take those belts from them :D

Yes you are being a bit crazy.

The argument was used for Holyfield, was used for Toney, was used for Haye.

Whenever you have a new HW who's had great success at CW the argument will always be used.

Once the fighter gets more than ten or so HW victories the argument becomes less needed.

 

There's a lot of factors involved but Galento was a genuine top 10 contender in his day. You're going back to H2H.

 

I am certainly not a fan of retrospectively measuring past eras by todays rules.

However it is a valid thought experiment to take guys like Holyfield and Usyk, and ask what their record looks like if teh two divisions were combined.

Or you could simply look at the number of ranked contenders they beat and compare that to other greats.

 

No you're mistaken none of their prior wins at different weightclasses have anything to do with how they're ranked at Heavyweight in a all time sense thats P4P ranking which is different.

I've never heard anyone say "Toney's resume is enchanced because he beat Heavyweight sized Jirov at Cruiserweight"

But I'm not getting into a back and forth with you about it because you like to drag out conversations and frankly I'm not interested.

 

I didn't intend to converse with you, apologies if that's how it came across.

I was just pointing out that in this instance you are indeed being crazy.

 

Same to you good day to you.

 

Usyk currently fights in an era where those men are now called Cruisers, and should be ranked as such, not by old time standards where every LHW could move up, weigh 180-185 lbs and be called a HW. It's not as if CW is an infant division, it's been here for 45 years, those men are Cruiserweights. Again, if you want to call Cruisers Heavies, then call Calzaghe a Light Heavy, Gomez a Featherweight, and the likes of Chocolatito, Estrada, Rungvisai etc as Bantamweights. But most primarily do this with Usyk because he's the big name everyone wants to suck off to.

You misunderstood the cherry picked comment. I was reffering to the cherry picked amount of fights chosen by the majority of posters in their arguments. AKA them saying ''Usyk did that in X specific amount of fights compared to X fighter'', with the clear purpose of making the other fighter look bad. Nobody does this with Muangsurin, who won the title in his third fight like Loma did, and actually beat opposition of similar quality to Loma's when comparing their first 14 fights (see what I did ?). If people want to give Usyk brownie points for beating many good fighters in only a few fights, then go for it, but when that is considered genuine criteria for greatness that pushes Usyk over fighters clearly greater than him in people's minds, then that's a problem.

 

The "logic", and I use that word loosely, that supports Usyk's CW fights contributing to his HW resume, on the basis that his CW opponents would be HWs in previous eras, is exactly the same logic as ranking GGG at LHW historically because his MW opponents would have been LHWs in previous eras.

It's relevant from a H2H perspective, but not from a resume perspective. The sport changes, but until now the basis for ranking fighters in each weight division historically has always been what they actually did in the weight divison they're being assessed at.