How does Usyk do against these past great heavyweights in their primes?

"the vast majority of boxing experts think is the best heavyweight ever"

Source needed. Manny Steward for example didn't believe this. Freddie Roach claimed that Fury is probably the best heavyweight ever. So-called "experts" (usually some American "historian") are often biased in favour of their own fighters and they threw a hissy fit when they lost control of the division. Even Lennox Lewis was regarded as a glass jawed journeyman-bashing hypejob by these American experts back in the day, with a post-prison, post-Douglas Tyson regarded as the saviour of the divison.

"by a boxer who had three HW fights"

By modern standards Ali didn't really have heavyweight fights. Ali was fighting men who were smaller than Usyk's CRUISER opponents for the most part.

 

You refer to me as being biased but then you repeat points that I've already refuted that you never replied to, such as:

"With the lack of resume that Usyk has a Heavyweight."

Aside from Joshua and Chisora, Usyk has pro wins over fighters who have good performances and wins over HW's. Hunter stopped Bakole, schooled Kuzmin and got an unfortunate draw with Povetkin. Briedis schooled and KO'd Charr cold, schooled Huck and outhustled Perez. Post-rehydration these cruisers are small HW's anyway, about 15 stone, which is bigger than most of Ali's opponents.

Joshua, Briedis, Hunter and Chisora all on the road is a very good top 4. Compare Wlad's: Byrd 1, Peter 1, Haye, Pulev, none away. Is that a better list? I personally think it's weaker, and Wlad had three losses to fringe contenders and another two to champion level fighters. Usyk is unquestionably an "ATG" in his own right anyway at cruiser and realistically speaking he's the GOAT cruiser and southpaw HW.

"when Holyfield was completely shot"

He couldn't be "completely shot" when he was coming off a win against Rahman and his best performance against Ruiz, with another 11 fights and 8.5 years left in the tank. Holyfield's loss to Byrd was so wide that it suggests any version would have had serious problems.

"Despite Moorer being floored 5 times and rocked in almost every round"

Moorer had a glass jaw by that point but still made the fight a war, landed plenty, won multiple rounds and clearly outboxed a less experienced Holyfield in the first fight when Moorer's chin was weak but not glass.

"to try and spin a narrative that Holyfield struggles vs Southpaws"

1-3 suggests that Holyfield did struggle against southpaws but there is no shame in that, it's pretty universal.

 

We are in an Alternate Universe, Alice in Wonderland "Through the Looking Glass" when you claim that Ali would have "virtually zero chance" against Usyk.
Now you say 2018 Usyk: either way, only one of us is saying it is reasonable to make an argument for one or the other----> those who have "extreme bias" or anything like this for older fighters would claim USYK has virtually zero chance.

Structurally you must know that we are not making equivalent, mirror-image arguments.

Your saying that a fighter who is commonly called the Greatest of All Time with preternatural physical skills who was the same size but a few less pounds built up pounds than a current great fighter-with 3 fights at HW-would have about

This content is protected

statistical chance as say...
Jerry Lewis or the notorious RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) or Queen Elizabeth or Betty White or Mini-Me or Stephen Hawking or any random pre-schooler or a one-armed misshapen dwarf with advanced Cerebral Palsey...To win?!?!?


I hope you do not mind the appropriately profligate use of emojis: I am good-naturedly mocking the claim, not you-who appreciate shows more than good intelligence & civility-especially in association with the

This content is protected

OK now for addressing your supporting points: all both quite debatable but reasonable to argue---> but for them servicing the profoundly untenable belief that Ali or any ATG of similar size & at least nearly the greatest H2H accomplishments would have no chance.

1) You are honestly mistaken about the notion of what constitutes a fair & reasonable test of who is greater when you permit the thought experiment of one fighter reincarnated to face the other...But deny only HIM the ability & knowledge to know anything about the opponent or study film.
That is completely different from say letting one opponent cheat, transform his body via steroids, bionics, bringing weapons into the ring...
The older fighter

This content is protected

has the handicap most accept of not having the benefit of modern science & training.
You can in no way reasonably not let him have equal conditions before the fight-it would be like dictating a nutritionally deprived diet for Usyk.

2) "Life & Death" is an evocative metaphor, of course it does not specify how many knock downs etc.
But all rational interpretations of it-& any definition or description you can find-show it mean a fighter has not n=only an extremely hard fight, but he is in

This content is protected

of losing!

That is the minimum most everyone would agree upon, & words & phrases are either officially defined, or/& shift meaning because of consensus opinions.
You could possibly argue an extremely close decision where nobody is even close to being knocked out meets the criteria-although nobody being hurt would be unusual for "life & death"...

3) But it is NOT reasonable to cheery-pick some statistics & ignore major other ones that are involved in all scoring of the professional sport!
Thank you for the explanation of where you got your statistics.
I already provided the hyperlink to what a Google search will show-that your notation of Ali's amateur record is the lowest wins & the most losses I can find-although still excellent.
Yours may be correct, I dunno, & neither do you.

But again you ignoring 3 rounds where Karl was dropped, not counting the last one where he was stopped, & measuring the rounds equal in terms of who landed more-with Ali a few more landed overall...

Is a highly misleading assessment of how close the fight was!
Even if you gave Mildenburger half of the rounds, under any normal points system, Ali would have four 10-8 rounds.
And no rounds where Ali was knocked down, even hurt, or you could plausibly argue Karl deserved a 10-8 round.
So you can see that even WITHOUT anyone scoring the 12th round where Ali stopped him, the closest

This content is protected

in "Eye on the Ring" scored it-with a single exception-was 106-101.
Now MANY scored it 10-12 points ahead for Ali, again without counting the last round.
It is FAIR to claim that shows some bias.

Not that the fight was close or that it was remotely "Life & Death".

I accept that Ali was not 14 or 15 when he had those measly 2 losses out of at least 100 fights to southpaws, & it IS reasonable to wonder how much not fighting a southpaw might reduce Ali's efficacy.
Oh incidentally-southpaws have a natural advantage in being unusual, so they get a non-skill related bump...
But it is not tenable to claim that Ali had such serious struggles against Mildenberger when it was only competitive in many rounds but ALi put him down or away in 4 others.
Nor that limited experience against lefty's is more than one factor among many, especially with such as adaptable & creative fighter.

Lastly Ali would have a BIG chance to either decision or score a KO.
If the latter, more likely a TKO; but through attrition, accuracy, targeting the same area etc. Ali had stopped the vast majority of his opponents before & through his peak years.

You do not challenge me to cut & paste & tailor this content to a thread;, likely largely because almost nobody else would agree with the completely ludicrous idea (to quote a favorite word by Tyson, who you just murdered & put in his grave he is now spinning around in thanks to your prediction + insistence) that Ali would have the same chance as say us against Usyk).

Please show the rare Internet virtue of putting Ego aside & acknowledging error.
NOT in picking Usyk, but in the accidental intolerance of deluding yourself that Ali could almost certainly not win.


If I said the same about USYK: who I admire very much as a boxer & a man, & will be rooting for Saturday & hopefully against Fury eventually...

Then kindly please send

This content is protected

to the Funny Farm.

 

"those who have "extreme bias" or anything like this for older fighters would claim USYK has virtually zero chance."

To claim that Mildenberger Ali would have a good chance or would be a virtual dead-cert against 2018 Usyk are both nonsense positions. If I was to say that Chisora had a "good chance" to beat Fury or would "almost certainly" beat Fury I would be totally wrong and delusional either way. Chisora would have a much better chance than you or I but still a miniscule chance.

"commonly called the Greatest of All Time"

Media and hype has a very powerful influence.

"ATG of similar size & at least nearly the greatest H2H accomplishments"

Highly subjective and a flawed premise. Firstly, there is no such thing as an "ATG"; fighters are specific to a given time. I do not believe that any fighter is necessarily competitive in every era, which includes far away into the future. Secondly, Ali's H2H accomplishments did not for example include wins over a 6'5, 245 lbs master boxer KO artist, a 6'3, 220 lbs iron chinned master boxer southpaw or a 6'7, one punch, beam you across the ring sniper. Ali's best wins were over men in the 5'11-6'3, 205-215 lbs range. He is therefore unproven at the top level by modern standards.

"You can in no way reasonably not let him have equal conditions"

No equal conditions are possible between a boxer from 50+ years ago and a modern boxer. Ali doesn't have access to modern PED's, the Ali we see against Mildenberger is the only Ali who existed at that time. Even if Ali had a little while to study Usyk with his 60's methods, Usyk knows all about Ali, every top boxer post-Ali does. When Larry Holmes was in his prime he had vast experience of sparring Ali, whereas Ali in 1966 had zero knowledge of Holmes. Therefore a fight between prime Holmes and Ali would always massively favour Holmes in that respect and nothing can ever change that, it can never be "fair".

"Not that the fight was close or that it was remotely "Life & Death".

154-144 after 12 against Mildenberger, Ali admits it was a tough and tricky fight. Now let's say that instead of being a Euro champ, Mildenberger was a world championship level fighter, 1.5 inches taller, with 5 inches more reach, 20 lbs heavier, with an iron chin, a 79% KO ratio (against bigger fighters) rather than a 31% KO ratio, intimate knowledge of Ali, modern "nutrition" and training and 356 amateur and semi pro bouts, with an Olympic gold medal at 200 lbs rather than 64 amateur bouts and a gold in the German championships at 178 lbs...

How do you think those punch stats would change? How many KD's would Ali have scored then? Ali's stoppage record was greatly padded by all of the small fighters he faced, his chances of stopping Usyk (iron chin, engine, heart, skills, speed, size) would be close to zero. The facts clearly suggest that Ali would get schooled, battered and probably stopped on exhaustion.

 

I appreciate your Good Will, & the last couple paragraphs are a good if one sided argument & case for Usyk.
But none of it can rationally be used to support the notion that Ali would have next to no chance.
That is before we get to Ali's advantages in things like speed, reflexes, rallying to win when past his prime...

I do not know if Usyk absorbed enough punishment to say he has an "iron" chin, but you are correct about his virtues, even without being a big modern HW or having great power.

Ask anyone else about some of your mistaken facts & beliefs though-such as if his best wins were over some with height or weight over what you claim. Terrell-& you cannot dismiss a World Class fighter for not being a prime ATG, this is RARE, & some of Usyk's best wins were against similar past peak & at least as flawed fighters-but Foreman was over 215 in ever pro fight I have heard of-230 as an amateur-& the former when he was lean & dehydrated.

Similarly it is a Category Error to consider things like transforming the body with science & experience not available as at all the equivalent to each fighter being able to see or study videos of the other!
It would be like saying that if a fighter was 20 years older than another great, but died while still great or champion at 37, that since "in real life" he always could beat the latter-since he was from a baby to 17 years old-that he was VASTLY superior to the other.
Nah, maybe the youngster was better.
It is a historical accident of birth, if we are magically considering head to head capacities we are analyzing who they were as fighters, NOT the information they have.
If one guy got away with loading his gloves or poisoning people it also would need to be discounted.
We allow PEDs, but SHOULD reduce their greatness for who they would have been without cheating.

Although Ali would still have a good chance never knowing anything about Usyk, not permitting one guy to study the other would be as insane a practice as reincarnating Ali for a fight where Usyk is primed & ringside after a long great training camp, & Ali has to fight after he is transported in his bed at 3:00 AM & start the fight within seconds after emerging from the deepest stage of sleep.

ATGs are subjective but it would be foolish to say that fighters like Usyk are not one. Which you do.
Also ATG also means accomplishments & how dominant you are relative to an era.
But you mean according to still highly speculative H2H matches.
It would be hypocritical to accept one standard & label & dismiss the other.

But I freely admit that an ATG from any time is *not necessarily* good enough to be an ATG in every other one.
Like say George Mikan was incredibly dominant for a short while, likewise for other sports in their infancy in terms of developed skill, number & range of types of participants, competitiveness, etc.

Ali clearly had the physical prowess to be at least a prime candidate for GOAT.
To say that even entertaining someone who beat so many top ranked fighters over several eras is hype & media...Betrays BIAS.
Just as if someone argued that Ali never got away with too much holding or an undeserved decision (all well after his prime), betrays BIAS.
Without great size or power: and Usyk has LESS of both than most of his real & prospective HW opponents.
Does not mean they both cannot be great.

Lastly as you know virtually everyone will confirm if I make a thread about it via judicious cut & pasting...
It is utterly reasonable to say Usyk would be favored. Or of course Ali.

It is not at ALL sober & dispassionate reasoning to say Ali-or Usyk-would have no virtually better chance than the most lame, weak, old, crippled people.
That is Magical Thinking.

 

"That is before we get to Ali's advantages in things like speed, reflexes, rallying to win when past his prime"

Such great speed and reflexes that he got hit 144 times by Mildenberger, only hitting him 154 times back. Ali lost 5 fights officially in his career and unlike Usyk was a big A-side fighter, he'd have lost a lot more without those privileges.

Ali was very crude compared to Usyk, a size bully and overdependent on athleticism, which was great relative to his era. He was like a far less skilled Tyson Fury in the 60's: no fighter had ever been so tall while being so fast. Usyk by contrast is a relatively small man who defeats and even dominates much bigger rivals.

"I do not know if Usyk absorbed enough punishment to say he has an "iron" chin"

Usyk has never been verifiably knocked down with a head shot in 375 fights, almost all of which have been at LHW, CW or HW: divisions where fighters punch very hard proportionate to their size. In his post-amateur career, Usyk has fought the likes of Majidov, Nistor, Joyce, Glowacki, Bellew, Hunter, Briedis, Gassiev, Chisora and AJ: all of whom have serious offensive capabilities. If Usyk didn't have an iron chin someone would have knocked him down or had him seriously hurt, so far no one has and that's not because he hasn't taken flush shots. Ali by contrast was KO'd in his relatively limited amateur career and was dropped twice with chin shots within 4.5 years/15 fights of Mildenberger, once very heavily, requiring a "creative corner" to survive.

"Terrell"

Lanky but without much power, 212.5 lbs, lost his next two fights against uninspired opposition.

"Foreman"

6'3, 220 lbs when he fought Ali. Lowest weight was 212 lbs when he was 21. Schooled and dropped by 20-odd percent KO ratio 20-5-2 Jimmy Young just over 2 years later.

These are the biggest credible opponents you can mention and they are barely any heavier than Ali, Foreman is marginally any longer. A far cry from some of the behemoths that Usyk has beaten, while being the much smaller man in terms of height, weight and reach.

"Similarly it is a Category Error..."

From here on it's a load of gobbledygook to me. English isn't your first language so you need to be more precise if I am to understand you.

The error is to assume that a fight between champions who are 50 years apart could ever be fair. Even Ali-Holmes is totally unfair because prime Holmes had several years of sparring experience with Ali, whereas 24 year old Ali had zero knowledge of Holmes. But Holmes without the vast Ali sparring experience wouldn't have been the Holmes who actually existed.

"Although Ali would still have a good chance never knowing anything about Usyk"

And finally he reveals himself to be a delusional Ali fanatic. If Ali could prepare for Euro level southpaw Mildenberger and go 154-144 punches landed over 12 then you are living in la la land if you think that Ali would have a good chance, let alone a good chance without knowing anything about Usyk.

"Also ATG also means accomplishments & how dominant you are relative to an era."

Then it's not necessarily got anything to do with H2H abilities, which is what this thread is about.

"would have no virtually better chance than the most lame, weak, old, crippled people."

I did not say that, I compared 1966 Ali's chances against 2018 Usyk to Chisora's chances against Fury. Chisora has a much better chance than you or I, even if it's statistically miniscule.

 

Usyk beating Cruiserweights don't add to his Heavyweight resume, regardless if they moved up or not. Were speaking simply what Byrd, Usyk, Moorer, have done at Heavyweight. Not what his opponents have done after, and the fact is Moorer, Byrd, have a superior resume at Heavyweight. So your claim that Usyk is superior is Heavyweight with 3 official fights at Heavyweight is wrong, could he have beaten them H2H ? possibly i don't know for sure i want to see more evidence of Usyk at Heavyweight, but his resume at Heavyweight certainly isn't as good.

Holyfield won a "Technical decision" over Rahman headbutting him to oblivion causing a hematoma. If you want to try and spin that as some type of impressive win then ok.

Best performance over Ruiz ? you're actually having a laugh right ? so fighting to a draw against Ruiz, and having one of the worst trilogies of all time is impressive to you is it ? ok then.

Again you keep repeating the same stuff over and over about Byrd, so let me repeat myself again for the 3rd time. Holyfield lost one sidedly to Toney and Donald right after losing to Byrd who wern't "Southpaws". Suggesting that Holyfield had deteriorated because of his age and all the wars he had and not your "Southpaw argument", but yet somehow you seem to dismiss that entirely. And just keep focusing on the Byrd fight because he was Southpaw. Yet Holyfield also got dominated by Toney and Donald who wern't Southpaws, do you think a prime Holyfield would get dominated by Larry frigging Donald ?

And finally the "8.5" years you keep spouting all that means is Holyfield carried on far too long, what was his record ? like 6-4 ? 5-5 ? i can't even remember. And 2 of those wins against fighters just as shot as him in the wrong era Savarese, Botha.

Let me repeat myself again, how can a fight be competitive if Moorer was on the floor 5 times and rocked in every round ? 2 judges had Holyfield 9 points infront at the time of the stoppage, you do realize your comment makes absolutely no sense right ? But yet Tony Bellew who was ahead on points vs Usyk on judges scorecard, i bet you won't say that was a "competitive fight".

A narrative your trying to spin of Moorer's chin suddenly going to glass based on what ? Moorer was on a 4 win streak going into the rematch vs Holyfield, including winning back world title and making 2 defences and was not off his feet in any of those fights. Moorer's chin was always suspect but he had a great fighting heart.

Again it was nothing to do with "Holyfield getting southpaw experience or Moorer's chin suddenly going to glass" Holyfield clearly had health issues in the 1st Moorer, which is well documented and i've told you there's articles/documentaries on it. And it's evident in the fight with Holyfield having no energy and looking like an old man. Holyfield was clearly in much better health vs Moorer the 2nd time, he was able to fight 3 minutes of a round that's clearly obvious.

No it doesn't because all your doing is saying stuff without context, Holyfield had health issues vs Moorer the 1st time. Which every boxing fan knows about aswell as it being well documented. Holyfield destroyed Moorer in the rematch, and his losses to Byrd and Sultan were when he was in his 40s and past his best.

That's like saying Muhammad Ali struggles against swarmers, because he lost to Leon Spinks and Trevor Berbick when he was shot, your not taking anything into context. It's like your just looking at a piece of paper reiterating the samething over and over.

I have nothing against Usyk he's very talented, and he has very likeable personality. I just think your so fixated on this Southpaw argument. That your not looking at all in the intangibles and context of your claims.

And that's the last thing i'm going to say on the matter, because i don't feel like this debate is going anywhere. And it's just going to be the samething being discussed over and over, if you want to ignore the context of Holyfield's health issue vs Moorer, and being 40+ vs Byrd, Sultan. And just want to look at the stats of 1-3 vs Southpaws, then that's entirely up to you but i don't agree.

 

Usyk would have done far better v Holy than Briedis would have.

 

Knocks out Tyson?!

 

Usyk is bigger and better than most of the fighters Dempsey stopped, he`s far bigger than George Carpentier was.

 

Dempsey was too small to punch as hard as AJ.

 

Ali was not the greatest heavyweight ever but most experts rate him above Fury, if not than rate his resume far higher.

 

Plenty others managed it. If Douglas and Williams can get to Tyson, then surely Usyk can.

 

Bringing up his loss to Williams really ? Hell lets bring up Ali's loss to Berbick to further an argument that Usyk beats Ali aswell.