How can anybody be ranked above Usyk pound for pound?

lufcrazy · Jul 25, 2025 at 5:36 AM

GlaukosTheHammer said: ↑

Nice way of reframing your attempt at asking the same question until you get a different answer like a child.

There is nothing weird about any of these posts except your flirtation. The only thing difficult to follow here, if any, are the typographical errors we both commit.

I said the entire history of boxing historians has been corrupted by the unchecked works of Nat Fleischer and cited an instance where even modern writers have failed to check the work before reprinting it.

What's really interesting is first you claim weird but not the entire post, just the bit about Adam. Then it became confusing for you, again not the entire post, just the bit about Adam. When pressed why such interest in Adam given I'm tearing down the entire historical narrative, you say you don't care who I talk about and then proceed to present a mentality that can not understand any criticisms for Mr. Pollack.

If anything, your stalling me on Adam over and over again has just forced me to show the overprotective goon squad fandom aspect of my original criticism in full effect

Hmmm

And you continue to go in circles like as if you do this man a favor.

You want an exact instance to harp on and pick apart? You want something on the nose? How about this:

Here's Adam's book on Sully:
https://www.amazon.com/John-L-Sullivan-Heavyweight-Champion/dp/078642558X?ref_=ast_author_dp

You're welcome Adam

Here's the sales pitch:

"Essentially the last of the bare-knuckle heavyweight champions, John L. Sullivan was instrumental in the acceptance of gloved fighting. His charisma and popular appeal during this transitional period contributed greatly to making boxing a nationally popular, "legitimate" sport. Sullivan became boxing's first superstar and arguably the first of any sport.

From his first match in the late 1870s through his final championship fight in 1892, this biography contains a thoroughly researched, detailed accounting of John L. Sullivan's boxing career. With special attention to the 1880s, the decade during which Sullivan came to prominence, it follows Sullivan's skill development and discusses his opponents and fights in detail, providing various viewpoints of a single event. Beginning with a discussion of early boxing practices, the sport itself is placed within sociological, legal and historical contexts including anti-prize fighting laws and the so-called "color line." A complete record of Sullivan's career is also included."

Not alternations made whatsoever

Seems fine right? Nothing controversial here. "Essentially the last of the bare-knuckle heavyweight champion ... and the so-called "color line.""

Essentially the last of the bare knuckle heavyweight champions. No so called needed I guess.

and the so called "color line" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Was so super hard to prove Pollack falls in line with Nat Fleischer's narrative. It's super hard to show he's taken an academic stance in a fan's debate and allowed his research to be used like ammo for the aforementioned shaming all into agreeing with what is essentially one man's perspective on the time. Super hard to show the way he frames storytelling was lifted by a latent racist. So hard all I had to do was search Amazon, click the first book, and copy the sales pitch for it. Wow zinger boy-o you showed me!

Likewise, super hard, given your historians frame like that, to figure out why the entire forum cries when Greb drew the color line. He just missed that when writing his 3 book series on Dempsey is all. Has nothing to do with an even older corruption or Adam's quality of research. You can write books and miss something as glaring as that and still be the authority so long as little children who call themselves grown have ammo for their cute who is the most knowledgeable know-nothing fights.

Cue luf is confused and struggling to understand basic English. It's been such a super impressive and beneficial tactic so far.

DEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZ NNNNUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTZZZZ all up in yer mouth homie.
Click to expand...

Like i said before, you're very strange.

What is your problem with the claim that John L is the first heavyweight champion?

northpaw · Jul 25, 2025 at 6:23 AM

I'd be more than happy to explain...............IMHO

northpaw said: ↑

Inoue is already number 1 IMHO and has been that. I think it's very difficult to justify anyone being higher than Inoue. I think you can argue back n forth between Usyk and Crawford (I'd personally say Crawford) for the number 2 spot, but I think Inoue is on the iron throne

grabbing 8 belts in two divisions in 13 calendar months is.................that is Pac going up 8 divisions level of accomplishment
Click to expand...

northpaw said: ↑

First, what's funny about having 7 of the same fighters? That means we agree on the majority........I specifically only mentioned 3 that my position is don't belong there at this time.....

2nd: Inoue and Crawford both did what Usyk did.............................before him. And Inoue did it in only 13 months. Crawford did it against a P4P peer that was ranked as highly as him. Both also have 4 divisions under their belts. Yeah I did give it a good try, succeeded too.

Usyk should be applauded for what he's done, he's literally the apex predator of all of boxing (as in there is no boxer on Earth that beats him over 12 rounds). Inoue and Crawford both outdid him though and are both higher IMO.
Click to expand...

Grinder · Jul 25, 2025 at 8:35 AM

eat more offal said: ↑

I think the concept is pretty pointless but I'm still reading people putting the likes of Crawford above Usyk.

Undisputed in two weight divisions (including the most prestigious division by far), every match 'on the road', wins over lots of champions, and especially the fact he is beating men who are tens of pounds heavier than him. He is literally proving his pound for pound worth before our eyes, by beating these mountainous men. This isn't some measly seven pounds difference in a division jump, in which both men weigh in at the same weight anyway. Usyk is probably the best ever representation of this concept.

He's a million miles in front of anybody.
Click to expand...

Even if Crawford beats Canelo he ain't above Usyk. Clearly, a certain demographic will believe otherwise, but that is one of the most bias groups out there in terms of boxing analysis.

jmb1356 · Jul 25, 2025 at 8:57 AM

Him beating Fury left no doubt.

Hanz Cholo · Jul 25, 2025 at 9:35 AM

Usyk gets the nod
But there will always be people that say heavyweights should be excluded from
“ pound for pound.”

Log in or Sign up

How can anybody be ranked above Usyk pound for pound?

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

northpaw Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Grinder Dude, don't call me Dude Full Member

jmb1356 Well-Known Member Full Member

Hanz Cholo Boxing Junkie Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

How can anybody be ranked above Usyk pound for pound?

lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

northpaw Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Grinder Dude, don't call me Dude Full Member

jmb1356 Well-Known Member Full Member

Hanz Cholo Boxing Junkie Full Member