Yes, it annoys me when people only come after and say that the win was nothing since Fury was obviously shot. If it was that obvious they would of course had said so going in. And I don't remember anyone saying that, despite the N'Gannou shambles. Of course, there were those, including me, who had Usyk as favourite, but that was due to Usyk's qualities, not that Fury was badly declined. Those that didn't call that supposed big decline then, and I can't remember anyone, shouldn't go on about it now.
Evnader fought better opposition. Fury was shot to bits because of Wilder , Joshua was not really that good to begin with and Dubois was okay.
Both are brilliant, brave, determined warriors. I can’t split them and don’t want to. Love both fighters for their willingness to fight anyone and test themselves against the best. Usyk’s cruiserweght run had much better opposition than Evanders and Holy faced and beat better heavyweights than Usyk did. There’s nothing between them and a fight between them would have been a momentum shifting, high level classic. I can’t pick a winner.
Holyfield's resume at Heavyweight blows Usyk's out of the water - but this has to be counterweighted by the fact (or contention, if you're not inclined to consider it a fact) that Usyk has performed better at the elite level than any heavyweight pushing forty ever has. This is the first time ever a heavyweight that age has established himself as pretty clearly the legit top guy, and I don't think quite the same could be said even of Archie Moore. Foreman, Holmes, Vitali, Lewis, Walcott, and Holyfield himself all showed impressive ability at an advanced age, but nothing quite like this, against the very top guys of the time.
I'm not sure. Perhaps 'quicker' was the wrong descriptor. More educated? More efficient? I think Usyk is a far, far more polished boxer than Evander. But as I suggested, I believe Evander beats him. Clearly. Quite brutally. He's just too much too much....