Do you consider Usyk's amateur and/or WSB accomplishments to contribute to his legacy?

Usyk's World Series of Boxing fights should certainly count on his pro record. They were professional fights. They were sanctioned. They boxed according to pro rules. They had officials scoring the fights. Official winners were announced. Everyone got paid. There was nothing "amateur" about them.

Usyk's pro fights at heavyweight early in his career should count, too. I don't know why people don't when talking about him.

Usyk's amateur wins enhance his legacy BECAUSE he was successful. If you're rating his all-time pro rating, acknowledging he was a fighter for much of his life and that he successfully boxed around the world as an amateur is just being honest.

On the flip side, if you are a relatively average or even an unsuccessful amateur, it's not important to your all-time pro rating if you were wildly successful as a pro. Rocky Marciano wasn't a stellar amateur. Neither was Larry Holmes. It doesn't detract from Holmes' all-time standing that he lost to Duane Bobick, and it doesn't detract from Marciano's all-time standing that he lost to Coley Wallace. People acknowledge they were young and hadn't yet become the fighters they would.

Yet, at the same time, those amateur wins kind of give a boost to the legacies of Bobick and Wallace.

Basically, amateur success only helps your legacy. Amateur losses tend to be forgiven. But you still have to deliver as a pro. Usyk certainly has.

 

I want to say a little bit. But that doesn't really fit any of the options here.

 

Right. That's basically what I meant. Amateur success helps a little bit.

If you fail as a pro, most people tend to forget all the great amateur accomplishments. But there are still fans who say, "He was great as an amateur, though. Should've seen him then." I do that all the time.

 

In the same vein, Filip Hrgovic's World Series of Boxing matches should be included on his pro record, too.

He competed in at least 30 of those fights. Went 27-3, I believe.

That would put Filip Hrgovic's pro mark around 45-4.

They were all pro fights in every regard. Hrgovic's WSB wins are more legit pro "wins" than old-timers claiming wins via "newspaper" decision, when there were no judges present and nobody's hand was raised at the end of those.

And a 45-4 pro mark (against a number of fairly accomplished names) certainly puts Filip Hrgovic in a different light. There's nothing shady about it. They were pro wins. There's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be counted.

 

No.

I mean he is the #1 cruiserweight of all time and a top 15 all time heavyweight. What more do folks want?

In the old days, most pro fights were at least 10 rounds. We can't compare amateur bouts to pro ones.

I mean Beterbiev is 1-2 vs Usyk in the amateurs and you can make a legit case that he won at least 1 of the 2 fights where Usyk was awarded the decision.

That would make Beterbiev a top 50 all time p4p fighter if we start going down that route.

We have always kept pro and amateur accomplishments seperate.

 

I don't think you've looked at a lot of old-timers' records in a while.

I don't think amateur fights should be included on pro records, because often the rules were wildly different than pro scoring.

But for every old timer who fought the occasional 25 or 40 rounds, he's got a bunch of three, four or six-rounders sandwiched between them, too, that count just the same.

I think Jack Johnson fought Joe Jeanette seven times, and two were scheduled for three rounds, three were scheduled for six rounds, one was 10 rounds and one was 15 ... something like that.

They all show up on his actual pro record. Nobody says wins and losses scheduled for less than 10 shouldn't count.

 

Sure. Regardless however, we judge post 30's fighters by the standards that only their pro records count. We can't throw out 80-90 year precedence just because old timers in the 1900's had 4 round fights from time to time.

 

I agree. Only the pro fights count. But today there is even some disagreement on what a pro fight is.

Michael Hunter lost last year in a pro fight. It's not on his pro record. On the flip side, Usyk (and Hrgovic,, among others) have WSB fights that aren't on their pro records that should be there.

Consistency would be nice.

 

The answer is self explanatory :

No boxer gets or ever got a record for his pro career for fights he did outside the official sanctioning bodies . When moving up in weight classes it must also be taken into account what achievements were done in what weight class .

So the clear answer is NO for any pro boxer in history

 

I have no idea what you mean by that. What official sanctioning bodies are you referring to?

 

I think you're wrong. Americans never gave much credit to a pro fighter for what they did in the amateurs. I don't think I ever heard anyone try to justify Ali, Leonard or ODLH's greatness by using their amateur accomplishments. I think the Loma fans use the amateurs to justify ATG status because the Loma's and Beterbiev's of the world are in their late 30's with combined 40 fights between the 2 of them. If I'm wrong, tell me what great amateurs with a mediocre to poor pro career or less than 25 fights are in the IBHOF.

 

Overall personal legacy? Sure. Professional? Nope.

 

Plain and simple : pro boxing is a regulated , sanctioned fight for a purse with an official record on a boxers statistics . Currently we have 4 major sactioning bodies . It is stricly fenced off from amateur / non contest fighting.

No amateur / non sanctioned fight is or ever was counted in an official pro boxers,s statistic for good reasons .

Usyk has a total of 23 fights as a pro , as a heavyweight pro he has 8 fights against 5 opponents and nobody questions this , including usyk himself .

 

I don't have anything against it but I don't do it.


If anything in all time terms it does make stuff more congruent. The old timers had a lot of pros but few ams. Usyk has a lot of ams and a few pros. It's fine really. I just never naturally think about anything but his pro record, pro accomplishments etc.

 

Very well spoken.