CMV: I think Usyk beats any version of Ali

I think it's quite clear a boxer with mediocre power is going to struggle against an elite swarmer that's just stylistically a bad match up for a boxer type unless they concussive power which Usyk does not.

I don't see Usyk being able to Frazier coming forward when Ali couldn't and I think Ali has shown better feats in regards to stoppages against notable Heavyweights.

 

Usyk not gonna stand in front of Frazier like an idiot he has something called footwork which I'm told he's quite good at......

 

But you’re often condescending, insulting and try to take digs - so if you receive that in kind you shouldn’t be surprised or complain about it - and you have complained of same previously.

It doesn’t worry me to return in kind as and when appropriate but it’s not a good read for other posters who find it disconcerting and damaging to the flow of an otherwise good thread.

Re Foreman quote. People often only quote fighters IF 1) the quote marries up to and supports their perception of the vision OR 2) blind acceptance of the quote simply serves their broader argument even though it doesn’t actually marry up to their perception of the vision.

Nothing was taken out of context. Someone simply said that Ali beats Usyk 10 times out of 10. Your reply was that Ali couldn’t beat Norton 10 times out of 10.

Ali was a clearly diminished version of himself after his return from exile - if interested, see my previous post re proof of that fact.

Atop that, Ali was also poorly prepared and unfocused for the first Norton fight. Lastly, Ali was an even more notably diminished version of himself for the Norton rubber match.

Whoever said Ali beats Usyk 10 out of 10 was obviously referring to peak Ali vs peak Usyk. It’s obviously pointless to refer to anything but those versions.

I didn’t and am not now necessarily comparing the related degradations between Ali and Wlad - and I didn’t have to compare same to simply and correctly state that it was disingenuous on your part in the first instance to factor a non best version of Ali.

The hypothetical proposition for P4P isn’t the exact science you’re trying to suggest that it is.

Some actually measure a fighters absolute P4P worth by their performances contested at that their most natural, optimal weight - not so much if at all by their performances north of their best weight.

Fighting beyond their natural weight their skills etc. relative to their weight can actually be calculated to have diminished - but in moving up, they are also often fighting opponents who generally have that much less skill and stamina than those they engaged in their previous lower division.

That’s exactly why Usyk could have his toughest and most competitive fight against a guy like Breidis but have relatively easier fights against guys like the larger but much less skilled and stamina limited Dubois and AJ.

Atop that, Usyk stopped Dubois and came very close to doing same to AJ in fight 1 - not anywhere nearly so when he fought Briedis.

The first Louis-Conn fight is often used as a false positive to suggest that if Louis struggled against a man the size of Conn, he would therefore see that much more trouble against larger opposition….but Louis OWN career proved that was clearly not the case - and it can be easily rationalised as to why.

And that’s not even touching on the fact that it was clearly not a best performed Louis on the night anyway.

Labelling Louis as an outlier doesn’t hold - ALL ATGs fit that profile, of course, BUT, atop that, relatively smaller guys like Sharkey and Baer also defeated Carnera with relative ease - Louis being a GREAT or that much a GREATER fighter simply did it that much better than they did.

I have not read one person on this forum suggest that size doesn’t matter. Why do you keep repeating that falsehood?

Size simply isn’t the be all end all conquering factor that you frame it to be - you’re simply trying to project your own extreme view on size onto those who disagree with you….whilst also ignoring that greater size obviously also comes with its own greater disadvantages - disadvantages that have already been referenced and supported many times before.

 

Cheers Loud. Yes, I can see Mike being a worse problem in several ways - but, and just me, the more rounds in the bag, perhaps the tougher fight it becomes for Mike - but Mike could just as easily moot that concern in just 5-6 rounds.

 

And I thought that there wasn't any way that I could hate Usyk. He's basically dragging his name through the mud.

 

Frazier is an elite swarmer and unless you have considerable power to stop him coming forward he's going to be a very tough nights work for anyone.

Frazier also has amazing stamina and gets stronger as the fight goes on I don't see Usyk being able to stop Frazier coming forward. And Usyk has been fighting Super Heavyweights who don't have the cardio levels to deal with him in the 2nd half of the fight. So it shows that whilst size can be an advantage it can also be a disadvantage aswell, is it surprising that a Cruiserweight gave Usyk he's toughest fight and not a Super Heavyweight ? Styles make fights which people don't take that into account enough.

Movement never bothered Frazier he caught up the likes of Ellis who had very good movement and was fleet footed Frazier excelled against boxers in general.

I see the likes of Lewis, Tyson, Liston, being bad style match ups for Frazier but against Usyk I think Frazier matches up very well against him.

 

Yes, Frazier’s style, durability and power were integrated successfully to negate any deficits in pure boxing skill that Joe might’ve been at the short end of otherwise.

 

I know I've disagreed with you before DP, but I'm all in here.

I think that Usyk reaches his peak at the heavyweight charts just above Holyfield, but just below Frazier and Tyson. He's still a great fighter and would give a tough fight to many of the men up there, but past a point, he just doesn't necessarily match up well with all the champions of yesteryear.

 

I’ve only responded that way to people who dismissed my arguments outright and refused to engage with my reasoning. When you try to debate in good faith but get condescension or outright dismissal in return, frustration builds. At times, I’ve given certain people a taste of their own medicine. That said, I have no problem debating in good faith when others do the same, and I appreciate that you're engaging in good faith now.

Dismissing fighter quotes only when they don’t fit a certain argument is selective reasoning. I brought up Foreman’s quote because it provides insight from someone who fought Ali directly. If we’re going to disregard all fighter opinions as biased, then that standard should apply across the board—not just when it’s inconvenient.

The point about Norton was to highlight that Ali wasn’t untouchable. If a fighter like Norton—who had a clear stylistic edge—could push Ali to the brink multiple times, it’s reasonable to suggest that someone as skilled and well-rounded as Usyk could also cause problems. This isn’t about saying Usyk = Norton, but about questioning the assumption that Ali dominates Usyk without difficulty.

As for Ali’s condition in those fights, I’ll grant that he was more faded in the third fight. But for the second fight, he was in great shape, yet it was still razor-close, with many believing he lost. And for the first fight, it seems like you’re making excuses for Ali when the reality is simple: Norton’s style gave him problems, and Ali struggled to adapt.

P4P debates aren’t an exact science, but the claim that fighters automatically diminish when they move up in weight does not apply to Usyk. If anything, he has shown that he has maintained or even improved his skill set at heavyweight. His footwork, defense, ring IQ, and adaptability remain elite, allowing him to outbox larger opponents despite their size advantage.

I also disagree that Briedis was Usyk’s toughest fight. While competitive, it wasn’t as grueling as Usyk’s second fight with Joshua or his first fight with Fury—both of whom were significantly bigger, physically imposing, and harder punchers. Joshua made key adjustments in the rematch and was much more competitive, and Fury was able to push Usyk physically and even win consecutive rounds. If Usyk’s skills had “diminished” at heavyweight, he wouldn’t have been able to navigate these challenges and continue win

Maybe no one outright says "size doesn't matter," but I constantly see it downplayed whenever it contradicts an argument. When a smaller fighter wins, it’s used as proof that size is irrelevant. But when a bigger fighter wins, suddenly size is a massive factor. That’s an inconsistency.

I’m not saying size is everything—bigger fighters can have disadvantages like stamina issues or slower foot speed. But size, when combined with skill, is a huge advantage—especially in a division with no weight limit. That’s why modern heavyweights aren’t 200 pounds anymore, and why fighters like Wlad and Lennox dominated. And that’s also why Usyk’s success is so impressive—because most smaller heavyweights in history would have failed where he succeeded.

 

It's nothing to do with "i don't consider other people's arguments" I've had plenty of debates on here in which I disagree with people we make our points and we move on.

You on the other hand have an "elitist" attitude where you think that you're better than people on here and have bragged about how you "prove people wrong" and how "people run away from you in debates". I mean look at you in the recent Ali thread "why should I respect my inferiors".

So basically you're showing what your intentions are you're not interested in a casual discussion you're interested in "winning".

Which is why anytime anyone discusses anything with you they clash with you on here why is that you ask ? Because you don't have a normal discussion you're constantly looking for an angle to disagree with any little petty aspect to drag out conversation. And then in your eyes you're winning when a person stops replying ? I mean my goodness who wouldn't ? Why would anyone in their right mind waste their time with that nonsense ?

Remember when I told you this a few months ago ? And then low and behold you're still doing it. You clashed with @Pugguy awhile ago and then went to gloat in another thread to bait him into an argument saying "he run away from the debate".

I mean why would anyone want to debate with you ? You have an elitist attitude and your sole intention is to have a competition of winning debates and trying to prove people wrong.

Is it any wonder you clash with most people on the classic forum ? Gee I wonder why ?

 

All valid points you bring up. I think Usyk would be right at home against Ali, for all the reasons you mentioned, but at HW Usyk is used to trading punches with the behemoths like Chisora, Fury, AJ, even Joy Joyce. Ali would be more on even terms with Usyk, so that constant big man pressure those other guys could put on Usyk would be null and void, which if anything would just bring out more aggressiveness and offense from Usyk.
Also, who has Ali ever faced that had the stamina of an Usyk? Ali is used to guys fading on him in the later stages of the fight, not getting stronger. This would be a new wrinkle that Ali would not be used to dealing with.
Also the mind games and bully tactics Ali was famous for would likely have no effect on Usyk. I mean even Fury couldn't get under his skin, Usyk id just too focused. Those Easter euro guys of the modern era are just different, I hate to admit. They are all business. Even more so, I get the sense they kind of see American fighters as clowns. Always busy yapping and looking mean for the cameras, but once the bell rings none of that matters. I think someone like Ali would play right into that. He would be busy trying to 'win the press conference ' and do his little rhymes and poems, meanwhile Usyk would just be on that 'i must break you' time.

Anyways, it would be one hell of a fight. I could see it going either way, but you certainly laid out a very clear and feasible game plan for Usyk

 

I'm just about to get to sleep, but I think it's very apparent that Ali faced many men with just as good as, if not BETTER stamina than Usyk, even going into his final fight as a boxer. First off, Ali faced men in the era of 15 rounders, so everyone was typically prepped to take it a step further than Usyk is, bear minimum- But even beyond that, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Ernie Terrell, even men that didn't make the championship distance like Ellis, Patterson, and Quarry were KNOWN to flourish amongst the closing rounds. Futch's protege especially made Ali have to be tough all the way to the bell, they ALWAYS got better as the rounds progressed- Saying that Ali is used to guys fading on him as they got near the finish is just wrong.

 

Well, I obviously disagree with your first paragraph, but anyway….

I always debate in good faith.

You see, the point I made about you contrarily calling in a diminished version of Ali was a sound refute - but you’re still trying to run with it.

You clearly haven’t taken on the evidence for Ali’s obviously deteriorated state (relative to peak).

Ali literally came in out of shape and unfocused for the first fight vs Norton.

That isn’t an excuse, it’s plain simple fact. Ali came into the 2nd fight in as best as possible condition (as you’ve already attested to).

That doesn’t change the fact it was still a deteriorated Ali at best nor does it factor Norton’s improved confidence and knowledge going into the rematch - therefore, an overall improved Norton.

I didn’t apply selective reasoning. I highlighted that you did. So you’re j equivocally wrong.

You’ve just repeated what I already wrote about quotes back to me - that people can selectively accept quotes. That is exactly what you did. Not me.

I never use fighters quotes to wholly back/support my point - you did - you used that quote as the primary basis for your reasoning just to serve your argument..

You see, you’ve already jumped out of gear, trying to flip the narrative, applying a false assumption to deflect from the err of your ways being pointed out.

Further, do you yourself blindly accept every opinion/claim offered by fighters to completely form your opinion? You did so in the case of Foreman with no deference to the actual vision of the fight.

A poster clearly and simply said Ali beats Usyk 10 out of 10. No mention of Ali necessarily being untouchable (that’s your fixation, no one else’s) but superior enough to achieve that.

You responded stating that Ali (using a deteriorated version of Ali) couldn’t (even) beat Norton 10 out of 10.

You tried to make whatever point you were trying to make using a deteriorated version of Ali and now you’re trying to unreasonably “talk up” that deteriorated version - a version that was a far cry from the 60s version of Ali who displayed limitless stamina and mobility.

No, Usyk hasn’t improved since moving up - but he has naturally experienced some decline.

However, the skills of the opposition he has faced (since moving to HW) have been that much less than what he contended with at CW and at a younger age - a fact not to be diminished.

AJ and Fury weren’t young when Usyk first engaged them either, and they were that much older second time around - they’ve aged right along with Usyk so Olek’s performances have to measured relative to that also.

AJ closed the gap a bit second time around against Usyk.

For ALL you claim Usyk to be (including the claim of no decline and even, inexplicably, possible overall “improvement”) that shouldn’t have happened. You tried to unsuccessfully extricate yourself from that obvious conclusion previously.

So, as you try to claim, AJ, of all people, somehow made necessary adjustments to make his rematch against the master boxer and adapter Usyk (that’s your profile on Olek) to somehow closed the gap against Usyk??

That’s quite a dodge from the more obvious and likely conclusion that Usyk, already advanced in age, had declined from fight 1 to 2 - his decline being a fact that you are trying to avoid so as to not corrupt your broad argument.

The majority of pundits agree that Usyk has clearly lost a step or two, so much so, many would like to see him retire - you’re in relative isolation believing otherwise.

You’re ignoring the age of Usyk’s marquee scalps and the fact that they’ve aged right along with him though Olek is that bit older then them.

You’re also ignoring the clearly stated disadvantages that the larger sized fighters carry in contrast to Usyk’s similarly sized CW opposition. You might acknowledge them on the surface but you don’t genuinely factor in those disadvantages.

No, you accent on size far more than those who, while they do factor it in, don’t factor it in to the unreasonable degree that you do.

Now remember, you’re trying to equivocate on your orig. and actual claim that people have dismissed size altogether - no one has done that - and that has been clearly illustrated to you previously.

So, you’re wrong making that claim but persist in making that claim. Pure and simple.

These are the type of corrections that people aren’t inclined to have to repeat time and again.

It’s also simply another error on your part to believe that people recede from discussion due to you having “won”.

The reality is that you have often been soundly refuted but you simply refuse to acknowledge it and just keep posting and posting, trying to equivocate on the fact that you have been proven wrong and have the last word with everyone.

With age, Usyk has slowed and his tank isn’t quite what it used to be and just for those facts alone, besides anything else, his fights have naturally become more gruelling.

Briedis fought a far closer fight than anyone else against a prime Usyk who has, since that time, experienced decline.

 

All I see is a loser coping that he got reked at the same game he plays with everyone but when he gets a taste of it himself he whines. Cry more your tears are hilarious!

 

Not directed at me, but must say you talk big for someone who can't answer what fighters, unlike Ali, typically get **** for beating an old opponent.

After several tries I got you to finally confess that you talked out of your ass when you said Norton had done nothing at HW and if you're so unafraid to take a discussions I think it's time to you to make a Mea Culpa in that other thread as well. Unless you can show all the abuse for example Marciano has taken for KO'ing Louis.