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

He's much smaller than Jess Willard, who Dempsey pulverised in one of the most one-sided title bouts ever seen. Dempsey gave away about 6 inches in height and about 4 and a half stone in weight. Firpo was no midget either.

Most modern boxers are much heavier than the older boxers because they are either: 1- carrying a roll of lard over their trunks, or; 2-excessively muscular. Being fat and/or overly muscular is not good for a boxer. The fitter boxer will almost always win when the skill level between the two boxers is close.

That being said, size is largely redundant when you know how to punch correctly, which Dempsey did. Knowing how to box =/= knowing how to punch. Think of the size of a brick. It's not that big, you could hold it in one hand. It only weighs about 5 or 6 lbs. Now think of the damage a brick can do when in motion.

 

I also mentioned his KO loss to Douglas which most people would agree is around the time of Tyson's peak.

 

Why must a fighter have a huge record to be considered any good? Huck had 45 fights on his record when he fought Usyk in Usyk's 13th fight. How did that go?

Since turning pro Usyk's fought a murderer's row of opponents in his last ten fights and is already the clear consensus number one HW on the planet. The fact he's achieved that in under 19 fights should actually be a point in his favour.

 

Any Ali you like, though let's take his generally agreed upon best form, '66.

Because Louis would have no idea what to do with him, would be the naturally smaller man, and had proven struggles against boxer movers. He also didn't have the greatest chin, so there's no guarantee he makes it to the final round.

Yes agreed.

Agreed again. Byrd isn't a perfect map of how Usyk fights, but he's about as close as you can get with his in out movement and general tickiness to land on.

No they aren't. They're based on his entire pro and semi-pro career, including his WSB fights. That's a big enough dataset to go on.

 

Tyson was in his late 30`s when he lost to Williams, Bruno hit harder than Usyk and Williams, Douglas had an 83 reach and didn`t punch as hard as Ruddock who also hit harder than Usyk does, no fighter with a 78 inch reach could have beat Tyson including Ali.

 

Willard and Firpo were far slower than Usyk and Dempsey never met a southpaw as clever as Usyk.

 

We're talking about size. You said, "Usyk is bigger and better than most of the fighters Dempsey stopped, he`s far bigger than George Carpentier was." You were wrong. Both Willard and Firpo were bigger than Usyk. You've now resorted to goalpost shifting, making mention of stance and ring intelligence. I can't be bothered having a discussion with you if you're going to behave disingenuously. Cheerio.

 

"Usyk beating Cruiserweights don't add to his Heavyweight resume, regardless if they moved up or not"

The likes of Briedis and Hunter were HW's before they *moved down* to cruiserweight. They were HW's in the ring, the same size as many prominent heavyweights in the 70's and 80's or even bigger. They were essentially small but fast, agile, skilled and disciplined HW's who either had and/or went on to get good wins at HW. In a H2H sense this is obviously relevant.

"the fact is Moorer, Byrd, have a superior resume at Heavyweight"

Not by a wide array of relevant metrics, unless losses don't count, KO defeats don't count, KD's received don't count, fighting on the road doesn't count, beating the best opponent isn't weighted that highly etc.

Holyfield was dirty against Rahman but he was winning the fight after 8 rounds when he got the TD. The 3rd Ruiz fight was Holyfield's best performance of the Ruiz trilogy, I was not saying that it was a great or even a good performance reletive to his best. But these fights proved that Holyfield still had something left, as a genuinely "shot" fighter would have been destroyed by Rahman and Ruiz.

41.5 year old Povetkin against Whyte in the rematch was outlanded 55-9. 40 year Holyfield conversely outlanded Rahman and Ruiz 3. Relative to Povetkin, Holyfield was near-prime. There is no hard definition for "shot"; it's a real though vague concept and often used as an excuse, or to hype up a performance.

If you have a serious "heart problem" in the ring then how do you go 12 rounds, throw 42 punches a round and absorb 341 from Moorer? You have no way of knowing how serious the alleged problem was or how much it affected his performance. It's an excuse and speculation to discredit a loss.

"And just keep focusing on the Byrd fight because he was Southpaw"

I believe I acknowledged that Holyfield was in decline and he had been for several years. The Toney and Donald fights were almost a year and two years and more wear post-Byrd though, which should be taken into account. I also do not believe that Byrd would dominate a 31 year old Holyfield. But I do believe that Holyfield would have had a lot of trouble with Byrd at any point in his career, especially as the Holyfield who fought Byrd had one key advantage over a much younger Holyfield; 20 pro rounds with Moorer and a lot of southpaw sparring.

"A narrative your trying to spin of Moorer's chin suddenly going to glass based on what ?"

Based on getting dropped multiple times, including a brutal KO defeat to Foreman, another 3.5 years and 68 rounds of punishment, plus God knows how many in training camps, and then going down 5 times against a relatively light puncher in Holyfield. Sure it's speculative how much Moorer's chin softened in that time, just as it's speculative how much Holyfield's alleged "heart problems" affected his performance in the first fight.

Point scoring isnot the only metric to judge the competitiveness of a fight, or even always a relevant one. The punch stats for Moorer-Holyfield 2 were something like 150-180 and Moorer won 2-3 rounds of the 8 on eyeonthering fwiw. Moorer's chin let him down badly in the fight, maybe minus all of the additional wear he would not have been knocked down/hurt as frequently and would have won the rematch as well. Or maybe Moorer fought a dumb fight in the rematch by trading too much with a now more experienced Holyfield and sacrificed some of his advantages by coming in overweight.

Holyfield's "heart issues" were likely due to being a walking PED factory and being beaten up in the first fight, I also suspect that Wlad's loss to Brewster was down to not getting his cycle right but that's on him if true. If Holyfield had serious "heart problems" I don't believe he would have come back rejuvenated and smashed Tyson, or continued fighting to 49 or whatever. It's just not a credible story.

I'm happy to end our correspondence on this issue if you are.

 

[QUOTE
[/QUOTE]

You are making some good points about how good Usyk is, things I never contested.
But you are making a bunch of mistakes or misconceptions.
Sometimes it involved cherry-picking; stressing or completely omitting facts that are necessary to get an accurate & honest view of what a likely correct conclusion is.

There is an expression "extraordinary claims require extraordinary conclusions".
This is used to express how to be scientific in a method of analyses & what evidence constitutes a rational conclusion.
So I will address your beliefs in order, except lead with a most extreme belief that betrays an overarching bias.

1) I told you many times that it is not a rational way to consider how close a fight is based upon how many punches are landed. You do not & cannot contest this.
If it made any sense to use this strategy then numerous fighters who won & should have won fights would have lost: again contemplate the FOTC. Ali landed more punches. Although only down once briefly, not 3 times nor also stopped like Mildenburger, he lost more rounds-& was well down in points under the 10 point must system-due to a few factors, including ring generalship, effectiveness & force of punches, etc.
So it is NOT being objective to use only punch count as an idea about how good Ali was or performed.

2) Usyk lost a bunch of rounds against certain competition-not nearly ATGs, including at HW-whether because he like Ali was feeling a guy out or due to legitimate challenges & difficulties.
To then say that based upon say his 3 HW fights & how & when they were not dominant Ali would definitely beat him would be similarly irrational, cherry-picking, partial analyses.

3) It is absurd & irrational for you to build this House of Cards upon sand...Then even though only YOU have the extreme position that your man would have almost no chance to lose, say I am an Ali fanatic.
Literally anyone here-many extremely well-versed in boxing-will readily confirm that the man who gives Ali (or Chisora vs. Fury) a "statistically minuscule" chance against "your" fighter, when I give Usyk a decent chance against Ali even though not favoring him can easily see how he might win...

Everybody & all logic should tell you that if you give another World Class fighter almost an imperceptibly greater chance to beat Usyk than say a preschool dwarf with one arm & one leg...
YOU are the only fanatic around.

4) You have absolutely no cause to say I know nothing about Usyk.
Why would you even assume I do not know most of what you already wrote?
I am a fan & told you so. Also that I admire him as a man & a fighter.
This betrays a similar, tribal lack of objectivity.
And supplements the evidence that you are not merely a fan, but a fanatic on the subject of Usyk.

5) "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
While Ali relied on athleticism-like Usyk must rely on his chin, all fighters should depend in part on natural abilities-there are plenty of videos where you can become educated about how Ali used unconventional methods to his advantage. One of many examples is how holding his hands low enabled speed agility & better perception.
You are minimizing & distorting Ali's developed skills, adaptability, evading his courage & toughness...
While I never do the same about Usyk's.

6) Usyk may well have an iron chin-but saying he took some flush shots (like everyone does) & knowing how good he is on defense does not tell me how good it is.
But this is a small quibble; it is at least very good & Usyk is great.
Although Ali did not have more "A side" ruling advantages than other champs; Usyk had less.
Ali went to other fighter's countries for bouts, had a tiny soft ring against Foreman, folks thought he was crazy against such a great slugger & a superb ring cutter...

7) It is unfair to say Ali was a "weight bully" when he did not drain in an unlimited category, was not even heavy for his height for his time, was not a power fighter...
Reminding me how you seemed to devalue Ali for winning the LHW gold medal not the gold.
When he only fought there to make way for another fighter, & given the way these bouts were scored, a bigger stronger slower opponent might have been easier.

8) Terrell & Foreman.
You should have been as fair as possible & admit that you were

This content is protected

about the figures you used for the upper limits of the height & weight of some top opponents Ali fought.
Instead of citing their stats but not acknowledging your mistakes.
But more importantly I credit usyk for beating bigger men sometimes, but this is a far cry from establishing that usyk, Ali's size would even likely, let alone almost certainly as you somehow believe, defeat Ali.

9) It is again cherry picking to cite losses by opponents Ali fought after their bout.
Many ATGs beat guys up so badly, physically or psychologically, that they did WORSE, declined markedly, after their bouts. Marciano is one big example...
But you should know that everyone says & Foreman freely admits forever how Ali broke him down-his confidence degraded, style became over-cautious, he was a basket case who did not fight for long periods & needed the Montreal 5 man extravaganza to salve his wounded Ego...

Usyk & EVERYONE had good victories against guys who did not do so well before &/or after they fought.
Except for Joshua Usyks only 2 other HW fights were not against guys with nearly as good records as many of Ali's greatest-Frazier & Foreman (40-0 w/37 KOs) are just 2 examples.

10) You owe me an apology with your puzzling & irrational assumption that English is not my first language.
And that what I wrote was "gobbledygook".

You should have been polite & said it was unclear-if you failed in the more sensible means of not assuming denigrating facts not in evidence-a simple Google search would have shown you what category error (or mistake) means:
noun
Logic
noun: category mistake; plural noun: category mistakes; noun: category error; plural noun: category errors

1. the error of assigning to something a quality or action that can properly be assigned to things only of another category, for example, treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location.

This was not just another error, your ignorance of a term is fine, but you did not know enough to either check it out or ask me or be civil.
Ironically you lacked knowledge to even know that a basic logical concept (although most unfamiliar with it, it was easy as pie to research it) expressed in the English language.
So should I act similarly & call you an imbecile or defensively say you do not know English well?
NO. That would be stooping to a lower level.
That would be mean.
That would also be irrational & alienating, since we clearly both

This content is protected

(ironically phrased in case you are inclined to again assume the worst absent good cause).

11) You seem incapable of comprehending the matter of H2H & fairness between eras.
Again the modern fighter has many more advantages, those cannot be eliminated when considering how good they would be on equal footing.
Which would make an Ali or SRR beating a later ATG especially impressive.
But I keep referring to what is a fair MATCH of them as is.
And not letting an earlier fighter even see film of the newer man when we magically transport them both to the same temporal plane with an equal rule set is NOT comparing how good they are & were.
It would be like asking the modern guy to do as well against long gone opponents when never getting scouting or video on them-like the old guys did.

12) I grant you that part of what I & most all who are more expert than I (& you) define as an ATG (resume, accomplishments, historical factors & impact...) does not prove who would be best H2H & why.
I was just giving part of what makes up ATG.

What is part & parcel of your extreme & fanatical view is that the main reason Ali & Usyk are downgraded as ATGs is their relative lack of size against other opponents, actual & potential.
Usyk's is more pronounced vis a vis boxers getting larger today/who he fought.

It is unfortunate that someone who recognizes the value & impressiveness of a highly skilled & non-traditional great (smaller than most, how he came up, not being very powerful for the division)...Cannot recognize how similar & great Ali is for other & overlapping reasons.
*********************************************************************

Look man put Ego aside---> you act like I am taking radical position & demeaning the other guy or tribe, when in fact anyone & everyone who is not numbed to our debate will tell you the opposite:

I recognize Usyk's greatness, like & root for him.
You take an extraordinary, for most all laughable position where you not only minimize his accomplishments & cherry-pick analyses instead of even recognizing greatness...

But are inventing indefensible arguments because they are supporting an almost impossible to exaggerate absurd conclusion:

That an exceedingly accomplished, tough, resourceful, creative, arguably most impressive (including via record) HW ever around the same size as your man, & with even some native abilities greater than him-would have only marginally more chance against him as say...
a profoundly mentally handicapped or lobotomized, severely autistic, muscular dystrophy & cerebral palsey laden, 1 armed toddler.

 

My reply to the other post combined with your essay exceeded 10,000, so I'll reply here instead.

"again contemplate the FOTC. Ali landed more punches."


According to Compubox this is false: Frazier outlanded Ali 285-257, including 274-141 in power punches.


"So it is NOT being objective to use only punch count"


There are other factors but punches landed is pretty fundamental. It says a lot that a 60's Euro level southpaw like Mildenberger landed 144 on Ali to Ali's 154 over 12. Had you given Milde all of the objective advantages that Usyk has over him, the fight wouldn't have just been "tough" and "awkward" for Ali but totally unwinnable and a severe beatdown.


"Usyk lost a bunch of rounds against certain competition"


B-side Usyk in Britain officially beat Joshua and Chisora 15-9 in terms of rounds (more like 18-6) and outlanded behemoths AJ and Chisora by much wider margins than Ali outlanded the diminutive Mildenberger.


"say I am an Ali fanatic"


As soon as you said that the Mildenberger Ali would have a good chance against Usyk "even if he knew nothing about Usyk" it was clear that you were an Ali fanatic masquerading as someone impartial and objective.


"While Ali relied on athleticism-like Usyk must rely on his chin"


The difference is that Usyk, while he is bigger than 1966 Ali and is extremely athletic in his own right (likely more than Ali as Fury was measured as equal defensive reflexes to Ali, despite being 5 inches taller and 4 stone heavier) he is also far more skilled than Ali. Usyk has to be supremely skilled to beat much bigger men, whereas Ali was overwhelmingly beating smaller men.


"Although Ali did not have more "A side" ruling advantages than other champs; Usyk had less.

Ali went to other fighter's countries for bouts, had a tiny soft ring against Foreman"


It depends which champs: not more than Valuev but I would say more than the vast majority. Dwyer (massive Ali fan) said many times that Ali effectively started fights with a two round lead, as he says Canelo and Joshua do today.


There's a big difference between "other countries" and being the away fighter, which Usyk is religiously. Ring claim that the Ali-Foreman ring was 19-foot, which is only slightly smaller than average. In any case, Ali was typically the privileged A-side superstar.


"It is unfair to say Ali was a "weight bully""


Ali was more of a general size bully: greater height, reach and weight and also very fast for his size, like Fury.


Off the top of my head I said Foreman was 215. In his lightest bout he was 212, against Ali he was 220, which was just 3.5 lbs heavier than Ali. He also had a marginal height and reach advantage of 0.5 inches against Ali.


By contrast, Usyk was 221 to Joshua's 240, at a 3 inch height disadvantage and a 4 inch reach disadvantage. No sub-HW had ever conclusively defeated a SHW champion with such a size advantage, let alone in the A-side champion's backyard.

 

Continued,

"declined markedly, after their bouts"


Terrell was coming off a 10-5 win over journeyman Doug Jones, despite Jones being at a 22 lbs weight disadvantage at 187.5 lbs. Ali landed 202 punches on Terrell, 42% of which were jabs and as we've already noted Ali was a relatively light puncher. It seems unlikely to me that 27 year old Terrell was "ruined" as a fighter, carrying on for another 6.5 years and 11 bouts. The more likely explanation was that he was no great shakes.


"freely admits forever how Ali broke him down-his confidence degraded"


Yet this "basket case" post-Ali Foreman had enough confidence to KO Lyle in a brutal war and smash Frazier to bits for a second time before going on to get schooled by Young. The problem for Foreman was clearly STYLISTIC. He was more cautious against Young than Ali but this was not due to being "mentally broken", it was because he was concerned about GASSING OUT as he did against Ali. He tried hard to get Young out of there on two occasions but failed as Young was slippery and tough and then Foreman gassed out and got dropped, as he did against Ali.


"You should have been polite & said it was unclear"


You have a habit of rambling and going off on long tangents. It honestly doesn't seem to me like English is your first language, whether it is or not. Your English isn't bad but your style is not the most comprehensible. It doesn't do your case any favours or make you seem more sophisticated though, postmodernist charlatans deliberately make much of their writing unintelligible (not that you are one of those).


"You seem incapable of comprehending the matter of H2H & fairness between eras.

Again the modern fighter has many more advantages, those cannot be eliminated"


The contradiction here is so stark it's unbelievable. If the modern fighter has "many more advantages that cannot be eliminated" then the fight is not fair.


As I said previously, even if Mildenberger Ali had used his 60's methods to study Usyk instead of Mildenberger for a couple of months, this can never bridge the gap in knowledge that Usyk has over Ali. Prime Holmes would always have a massive advantage over 1966 Ali due to his years of sparring and observing Ali, whereas a young Ali wouldn't have any knowledge of Holmes. A fair fight between them is thus impossible.


"It is unfortunate that someone who recognizes the value & impressiveness of a highly skilled & non-traditional great (smaller than most, how he came up, not being very powerful for the division)...Cannot recognize how similar & great Ali is for other & overlapping reasons."


Ali and Usyk are only alike here in their lack of relative power, in terms of relative size Ali was a giant for his era. I also never denied that Ali was great in the 60's/70's, only that he would have virtually no chance against Usyk.


You were the only one who mentioned autistic toddlers, making some silly reductio ad absurdum argument. I claimed that Usyk-Ali was a similar mismatch to Fury-Chisora. Obviously Chisora has a vastly better chance in relative terms than you or I would but it's still a miniscule chance in absolute terms.

 

[QUOTE="ShortRound, .[/QUOTE]


Let's start again with the absurdity that I am an Ali fanatic-where you project your own huge bias in favor of Usyk upon me.
Impossible to contest is that when I grant Usyk a decent chance to beat a commonly ascribed GOAT of similar size that is not remotely "fanatical". Especially when I grant that Usyk's chances go up if only he gets scouting & videos of the other man.

Also you should know that either man with their boxing intelligence can do more of what they normally did anyway-feel a man out early & adjust for their style, strengths & weaknesses.
Oh by the way there is a thread in General suggesting Joshua go to Usyk's "soft body"-& a montage of him going down from body shots-some did not look impressive. Ali even sometimes went to the body as against Williams...

But mainly it is Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs to seriously claim that Ali has a statistically & practically meaningless chance against Usyk-meaning exponentially less than say what anyone sane would say Frazier has against Foreman.
You give Ali basically the same odds as a human of any size, condition, physical disorder or injury.
That is Madness & as most anyone here will tell you-many experts who will differ about many things...
Fanatical.

A cursory[url] Google search[/url] revealed that Frazier lander more punches.
The difference is obviously much more pronounced when considering body shots-Frazier landed only 13 jabs.
So assuming that compubox is correct, then you are RIGHT & I was wrong.
Which you should

This content is protected

when you are proven wrong.

So that is not the best case for me to use-however the overall point that Frazier being the effective aggressor, landing more power shots, winning more points under the ten point must system & dropping Ali means most of my points for the analogy to Ali-Mildenberger is correct-since in both cases just counting punches does not tell who won OR by how much-especially when a man is dropped in 4 rounds before finally being stopped.

Also the numbers I listed above-from compubox-are

This content is protected

than yours.
Again feel free to link your source as requested.


Your assuming Usyk deserved more rounds than he was credited for against 2 fighters is unsupported, but they he & Ali clearly won. Although you must know Usyk had much closer fights.
It is reasonable to tout that he beat bigger men, but size is only one advantage-& not always.
Ali like Dempsey & Louis had the styles & chops to be BEST against bigger men & were.
They like Usyk actually were more challenged by smaller men!


Usyk being better in no way shows that a fight that was NOT nearly Life & Death would mean Usyk wins.
Although it is rational to believe he might. Or Ali might adjust & do even more as he & Usyk & most everyone do against better fighters.
Frazier is way better than Chuvalo, who at most won 3 rounds out of 15 against Ali.
That does NOT prove that Frazier would beat Ali.
He did once out of 3 times. But when unlike the first Ali-Chuvalo fight, Ali was past his prime due to looong inactivity, still rusty, & much slower, at least of foot, & unable to dance for 15 rounds.

Usyk was NOT as fast as Ali. I am aware of the Fury measurement-actually Fury may well be faster of HAND than Usyk. And you can deasily discover that elsewhere Ali's jab was measured as significantly faster than the likely P4P GOAT SRR-& as you will see in "When We Were Kings", an Ali punch was measured at 2/1000's of a second.

Usyk is only thus far under 10 weigh trained lbs. more than Ali, very fit but a bit of fat above the waist, has a shorter wingspan-they are comparable.
I also never said Ali was light hitting, he was NOT.
Relative to the biggest boomers like Foreman Wilder Joshua yes.
But he often sat down on his punches, landed high volume in his victories, & hit harder than an average HW at least.

I credited Usyk with the fight conditions he had. But I cited some disadvantages Ali endured-& the advantages Ali got including often holding (but properly minimized sometimes like in Manilla) were overwhelmingly in the 1970's when he was past peak.

You are totally wrong about the ring size in Zaire.
At best you have mistaken what Ali's camp asked for, 19', with what they GOT: a 16' ring.
With rings famously made for a larger size-but as this article notes, it did not make them dramatically looser, & the condition of the ring, so soft, ave Foreman a huge advantage playing to his strengths.
[url]This article[/url] cites sources including an original media report from 1974, & discusses 3 myths of the bout, so when you realize that you were mistaken & cannot LINK contrary evidence, I hope you are psychologically able to admit a mere mistake.

Now you modify your claim to say that Ali was more of a general size bully-shifting the goalposts.
However he still did not have large average advantages in overall size including what you cited weight.
And you cannot deny how like with Louis & Usyk & Dempsey & you & I can name more, smaller fighters (above a certain size of course) gave them more trouble.
Lastly I know you are just using a conventional term, but there is nothing invalid or suspect about being larger than your opponent in an unlimited division.
It is not like massive de/rehydration where having more muscle ALLOWS you to shed more water & get a dubious, although legal, advantage over your opponent.

I will address your other reponse next.

 

You have been mistaken about some factual matters, as when I happen to check I have detected.
Thus I ask you to link sources now when you make statistical or official claims.
For example, although 10-5 is not prima facia a close fight-& you would not say some Usyk fights that were closer in round percentages won as you already described were close...
Please show me where Earnie Terrell lost "only" 10-5 in rounds.

Did you note the system that the fight was actually scored under?
Or consider that there were no knockdowns nor penalties that could plausibly get the actual judges' scores to 10-5 as even an unofficial reckoning?
Here are the [url]official results[/url] of what virtually everyone describes as a lopsided decision or a "one sided beatdown" of the WBA title holder, 1965-1967:

Official Judging
Jimmy Webb 148 - 133
Harry Kessler 148 - 137
Ernie Taylor 148 - 137

So your premise you base arguments around is again mistaken.
Also while I did not say Terrell was completely "ruined" by Ali, he was declined: you should have checked-in his 2 fights after their bout he lost UDs to such luminaries as Thad Specer & Manuel Ramos: whereas before Ali over a bunch of fights for 5 years he was undefeated, including against some clearly better fighters than those guys.

Also by definition Jones was not a "Journeyman" when he faced Ali OR Terrell-although after the latter he delcined, losing 3 of 4 & retired.
You can start a thread & see that Jones was easily better than:

"In boxing, kickboxing and mixed martial arts, a journeyman is a fighter who has adequate skill, but is not of the caliber of a contender or gatekeeper".

You can check anywhere & see that a BIG part of the problem-as Foreman himself freely & frequently described-was his psychological state post-Ali.
Those matches were not merely stylistic matter, he did worse due to strategy issues & lack of confidence.

Against Lyle WAS "Life & Death". Foreman had no official bout for ~ 16 months, was clearly rusty, & while pulled out all the stops to victory, no reason to believe it would have been as close without his broken up mind.
Frazier he has the well-recognized stylistic advantage, so caution was fine & he won again albeit not as suddenly.
Young ADMITTED he was almost gone; said something like he could have been knocked over with a feather, if Foreman was not in part due to bad advice not going aggressively for the finish more often & when hurt, Young was dead.
Also you think Foreman who "saw God" was not due to being severely dehydrated?
He must have come into the RING not adequately hydrated, since Saddler infamously prescribed such a self-defeating strategy.

You were not Big Enough, to put it politely, to admit that you were WRONG to cite as the sole reason for part of my post supposedly being nonsensical that you did not even KNOW, let alone CHECK, what a "Category Error" is.
My English is excellent; while I may be profusely detailed, my points come around to systematically deconstructing yours-while you often as above repeatedly ignore inconvenient evidence.
You cannot even show anything I "ramble" (not usually a sign of language facility anyway) about that is not relevant-or incorrect-& while if I was literally writing an essay I would tighten things up, no reasonable person would say English seems not to be my first language lol!

What I write is eminently comprehensible with the patience I have shown....You.
Most important is that I credit you with virtues like (usually) civility, good intentions intelligence...You never do the same, despite being manifestly *wrong* about some factual matters.
And making the structurally most extreme claims such as a sick toddler would have almost precisely the same odds of beating Usyk as Ali.

That a modern fighter has some marked advantages does NOT mean an older won might not be better enough to win.
For reasons such as less "scientific" training sometimes is at least about as effective or more so.
Because they may have advantages born from fiercer competition, fighting much more often, tougher life conditions, lost or neglected training methods...
In any event it is FAIR to pit similar sized men together.

But it is unfair & indefensible to not allow a neutral RULE set: which includes if you magically reincarnate a man, you gotta allow him to see his opponent fight if they say him.
That is not altering who he basically was one iota.
You will never comprehend the point I keep making about historical H2H match-ups, so please let's forget it.

My reductio ad absurdium point about it being Madness to say Ali has as much chance as a crippled toddler to beat Usyk cannot be refuted.
The way you weigh factors reflects a huuuuge bias.

Symmetrical with old-timers who baselessly say guys both much smaller with less distinguished records would clearly dominate or destroy the best modern fighters.

While what is POPULAR being correct is a basic logical fallacy...
Citing academic & empirical experts in the field & their near unanimous opinions is rigorously logical.
So for example this shows that climate change being man made, & evolution existing & being the bases for whole branches of the physical sciences, are almost certainly correct.
Just like atomic "theory" describes how some energy & nuclear bombs are produced.

Similarly, you will find likely no support amongst experts here or elsewhere that Ali has no realistic chance against Ali.
That is almost as insane as the opposite charge-either way BOTH notions are Crackpot fanboy level delusions.

 

He's live against anyone IMO. But I wouldn't favor him in every match-up, especially other fighters who were fleet of foot or pressure fighters. I think both of those types give him problems, like a Tyson, Frazier, Young, or Ali. I also think Vitali is awkward enough to give him problems and Lewis is big and skilled enough to beat him as well (although I think he admittedly said he never fought a soutpaw as a pro). I do think the pure boxers would absolutely lose to him, like a Holmes or Norton.

But some of the fighters mentioned in this thread would maybe even boil down to LHW or Cruiserweight and I don't think any of them beat him (save for Holyfield). I'd only take legit HWs to beat him.

 

I'm replying here.

"I grant Usyk a decent chance"

You said that Ali would have a "good chance" even without knowing anything about Usyk. Given Usyk's massive, objective advantages over southpaw Mildenberger, that makes you an Ali fanatic in my eyes. Ali doesn't need to have any southpaw experience, doesn't need to know anything about Usyk and can struggle badly with his first southpaw (small, chinny, light punching, Euro level) but would still have a "good chance" against 2018 Usyk. It's ludicrous.

"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 an elite world champion and "P4P No.1" 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."

If I claimed that Fury had a "decent chance" against Mike "The Giant" White then I should rightly be suspected of being a Fury hater or a Mike White fanatic.

"Ali even sometimes went to the body as against Williams"

Ali was a pathetic body puncher in addition to being a very light puncher, I can't believe you would make this argument. Usyk has been dropped twice by body shots in his 375 fight career, three times if you include SHW power puncher Majidov's quasi-low blow. Usyk hasn't been dropped by a body shot since 2012 and it was the murderous body puncher amateur HW Beterbiev who did so.

Ali on the other hand was dropped by chin shots twice in the previous 4.5 years/15 fights by men averaging 188 lbs pre-Mildenberger, so if anyone has punch resistance problems in this hypothetical contest it's Ali.

"meaning exponentially less than say what anyone sane would say Frazier has against Foreman"

What chance would you give Frazier against Foreman? 10% would be generous in my opinion, stylistically it was pretty much unwinnable. But at least you could argue that Frazier was a decent puncher, maybe a slight puncher's chance existed. Ali on the other hand would not have a punchers chance against Usyk and Ali lacked the ability to outpoint a southpaw master like Usyk, so in the absence of a bizarre injury, Ali loses to Usyk every time. It's not unusual for fights to be mismatches where only man can plausibly win. When the difference in levels or stylistic advantage is too great, that's what happens.

"So assuming that compubox is correct, then you are RIGHT & I was wrong."

Whichever figure is correct Frazier landed more. You are right that your figure gives Frazier an even greater edge than mine.

I know there are other factors in who wins a fight as I've said already, I'm arguing that southpaw Mildenberger was vastly inferior to Usyk yet pushed Ali hard. 154-144 is competitive whatever way you want to spin it and someone with Mildenberger's stance who was vastly better could be reasonably expected to do vastly better. Watch the fight for yourself, Ali isn't trying to get hit in the face repeatedly.

Minus the KD rounds, the judges (British, American, German) gave Mildenberger 2-3 rounds and Ali 3-5, with 3 rounds even.

"Your assuming Usyk deserved more rounds"

Usyk is nearly always the foreign fighter and in Britain, the B-side. Ali was the superstar A-side. Most people believed that the Chisora and Joshua fights were officiated questionably, which is common sense.

"Ali like Dempsey & Louis had the styles & chops to be BEST against bigger men & were."

The optimal size for HW's in Ali's day was about 6'2, 210 lbs: men around that size dominated in those days, bigger men were significantly less co-ordinated. This was the case until the 90's, where Bowe and Lewis came along and the standard was about 6'4, 240 lbs. With the Klitschko's the dominant heavyweights got even bigger: 6'5-6'7, 245 lbs. And now with Tyson Fury we've seen a 6'7.5, 255-270 lbs lineal champion. There were no Bowe's, Lewis's, Klitschko's or Fury's in Ali's or Louis's much smaller eras, in fact THEY were the elite big men.

Ali was one of the biggest men in his era but like Fury he had the speed and co-ordination of many of the smaller heavies. Had Wlad fought Valuev and beat him with ease, this would not have proven that he fared especially well against bigger men. No one fares well with men who have similar athleticism, similar skills and a big size advantage.

Arguably 2 of 3 of Usyk's toughest fights have been at HW and he's only had 3 heavyweight fights compared to 16 at cruiser. It's therefore very inconclusive to state that Usyk has more problems with smaller fighters. And in Ali's case, relative greenhorn Ken Norton wasn't really a smaller man (3 inch reach advantage) yet he had Ali's number.

"Frazier is way better than Chuvalo, who at most won 3 rounds out of 15 against Ali.
That does NOT prove that Frazier would beat Ali."

Unlike you I'm not ignoring the styles matchup. Chuvalo and Ali have nothing in common really, whereas Mildenberger primarily gave Ali problems due to his southpaw stance.

It's also a terrible comparison because when Frazier and Ali were both closest to their best, Frazier beat Ali handily.

"actually Fury may well be faster of HAND than Usyk"

The measurement referred to reflexes, Fury apparently has equally fast defensive reflexes to Ali while being vastly bigger, which in a P4P sense means that Fury has much faster reflexes than Ali. Whatever the case, any speed advantage Ali may have possessed over Usyk didn't prevent him from being hit a lot all through his career. If Mildenberger can make it 144-154 over 12, Usyk would land a hell of a lot more and Ali would land a hell of a lot less.

"Ali hit harder than an average HW at least"

Ali was regarded as a light puncher in his day when fighting MUCH SMALLER heavyweights. He'd be a very light puncher today against these behemoths.

"You are totally wrong about the ring size in Zaire."

It really just depends which source you want to believe. I've seen three different numbers claimed by various sources and I've barely looked into it.

The reason you mentioned that fight was to distract and deflect from the FACT that Ali was a major A-side fighter like Canelo or AJ who frequently got the rub of the green from the officials throughout his career. Ali would have had double the losses without A-side advantage.

"there is nothing invalid or suspect about being larger than your opponent in an unlimited division."

Of course not but the fact remains: Ali was big for his era, whereas Usyk is small for his. Ali was a size bully, Usyk is a giant killer.