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

"Please show me where Earnie Terrell lost "only" 10-5 in rounds."

You are confused, I was talking about his fight prior to Ali where he didn't beat Jones by an impressive margin on the cards. And I see no reason why a nonentity Jones would have been getting the rub of the green from the officials against the champ. Post-Terrell and Post-Ali, Jones and Terrell lost their next fights to Thad Spencer in lopsided fashion. Ali apparently outlanded Terrell 202-113 over the first 12.

"no reason to believe it would have been as close without his broken up mind."

The fact that Forman (who was just under 15 months inactive) got off the floor two times to win suggests that his mind was anything but "broken up", it required huge fortitude to do that. Nor was his mind "broken up" when he smashed Frazier for a second time the fight after. He approached Young more cautiously than Ali because he GASSED OUT against Ali, resulting in his defeat. But Young was a good boxer and mover so the slower Foreman was running into similar difficulties. He tried to take Young out twice but it didn't quite work, then Forman GASSED OUT late and got dropped again, losing the fight. Foreman was more physically and mentally mature against Young than he was against Ali, as well as much more experienced.

But you only brought up Foreman and Terrell to distract from the fact that Ali had a significant size advantage over most of his opponents. I'm not concerned with your excuses, speculations or discussing the ins and outs of these fighters and I will not reply to you further on these points. Usyk and Ali is the debate, not Foreman, Terrell or whoever else.

"You cannot even show anything I "ramble""

He says while writing a rambling, irrelevant paragraph.

"Most important is that I credit you with virtues like"

You're intelligent but I think you're an obscurantist.

"And making the structurally most extreme claims such as a sick toddler..."

This is an outright lie. I've compared Ali's chances against Usyk to Chisora's against Fury multiple times now, stating that Chisora would have a vastly better chance in relative terms than we (presumably both able-bodied men) would but a miniscule chance in absolute terms, as is the case in many matchups as can be ascertained from bookmakers odds. If you continue to ignore that and distort the facts by dishonestly claiming that I was comparing Ali's chances to old women, sick toddlers or autistic children, I will block you.

"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."

It's hard even to credit you with intelligence when you say things like this when I've refuted the point multiple times now. I will state my basic reply once more and if you continue to persist I will ignore you on this point.

Even if Ali had a few months to study Usyk using his 60's methods as he presumably did Mildenberger, he could never know as much about Usyk as Usyk knows about him. This puts him at a massive "unfair" disadvantage because time only goes one way. Ali's style was obscure in the 60's, not today. Likewise, 1966 Ali could never know anywhere near as much about a 1980 Holmes as Holmes knew about him due to the years of sparring with 70's Ali and observation of Ali throughout Holmes' career. Therefore a fair fight is impossible, Holmes has a vast structural advantage. Likewise, Ali cannot access 2018 PED's, so chemically he's at a huge disadvantage to Usyk.

"Symmetrical with old-timers who baselessly say"

False equivalence. If I was to say that Michael Phelps would beat a top swimmer from the 60's, I'd objectively be correct.

"Citing academic & empirical experts in the field & their near unanimous opinions"

1. These "boxing experts" are not scientists and often have an axe to grind

2. I'm sure that some "boxing experts" would at least privately concede that Ali would have a minimal chance against Usyk but given Ali's political cult status in the West, you won't hear them saying it in public

3. The majority of scientists have been wrong about many issues in the past, especially when the truth clashes with some popular political agenda

 

Imagine being smaller, slower, less technical than Usyk. Impossible to win. That's why he beats Louis, Marciano, Dempsey. I think he probably boxes Frazier up and outworks Norton. The others are too much for him. Walcott would be cagey but I favor Usyk. 6-10 isn't bad if you're comparing him to these greats! I think Norton is a close one. I think he could box Tyson maybe. And also maybe do the Holyfield 2 strategy vs Bowe. He also could outpoint Big George and maybe frustrate early George too. He's big for the historical heavyweights and fast/technical as well. I'll be able to tell more after 29 fights if he ever gets there, but after 19--he looks really good. I don't put as much stock into the "southpaw" thing. Most guys don't get confused and stop throwing punches just because it's an open stance clash. It just opens up some different opportunities. That being said, I think Usyk's movement, size and smarts are really unique compared to HWs from way back.

 

Against Muhammad Ali: He Gets stopped within 8 rounds.
Against Joe Louis: He wins by UD or late stoppage.
Against Larry Holmes: He either loses by SD or gets a draw.
Against Rocky Marciano: He wins by mid to late stoppage
Against George Foreman: He gets stopped early.
Against Joe Frazier: He loses by UD or gets stopped late.
Against Lennox Lewis: He gets stopped within about 7 rounds.
Against Evander Holyfield: He either wins by SD or gets a draw.
Against Riddick Bowe: He gets stopped within 10 rounds.
Against Mike Tyson: He either gets stopped late or he scrapes an SD.
Against Jack Dempsey: He wins by either late stoppage or UD.
Against Jersey Joe Walcott: He gets a mid to late stoppage.
Against Sonny Liston: He gets taken out within 9 rounds.
Against Ken Norton: He gets an early or mid stoppage

 

Louis had the same hand speed as Usyk.

 

Especially a peak Muhammad Ali from 1964-1967 as champion. That version of Ali weighed around 212 lbs, had great footwork, stamina, speed and reflexes, not to be confused with the Ali of the 1970's who laid on the ropes and was flabby, that version of Ali was constanltly gassed late in a fight.

 

He has a shot against any of them, he’s a very good fighter who possesses top skills and a very strong mentality to go with it, and of course on top of that being a southpaw makes him even better.
I think Ali is his hardest task because in this one he’d be at the speed disadvantage which he’s not used to. I’m Ali’s biggest fan but I couldn’t say with 100% confidence that Ali beats him and I can’t say that with many.

 

Muhammad Ali earned his stripes as champion from 1964-1967, nine title defenses before he was stripped of his title for not entering the U.S Army when drafted in 1967. On Sept 10 1966 Ali stopped German southpaw Karl Mildenberger, TKO 12, so Ali has faced off against southpaws.

 

That’s cool.

That’s what makes for a great debate.

What exactly are you disagreeing with though?

Again, the guy is a genius. But again, it doesn’t matter how great he is, everybody has a stylistic issue with someone.

Yes, I’d have given him a chance against anybody. But against some guys, with certain styles, I wouldn’t have given him a great chance.

Regarding Briedis, that surprises me. Many people had it very close, including the judges. Many people wanted to see a rematch. I think he clearly won it, but only just. Certainly not handily.

I think that guys like Tyson and Evander would have been very tough match ups for him. Joe Frazier too, despite Usyk being technically much better.

 

STFU you absolute clown.

You are completely incapable of having an honest debate.

You have to invent things to push your biased agenda.

Nobody but you thinks that Ali would have had virtually a ZERO CHANCE of beating Usyk.

Again, if the Mildenberger fight’s the fight that you’re hanging your hat on, then based upon the Briedis fight, Usyk would have had a ZERO chance of beating a prime version of Mike Tyson.

Log off.

Let’s hope that Usyk wins again tonight.

Otherwise you’re going to need some deep therapy on Monday morning.

 

He couldn’t have been shot because he fought on for another 8.5 years?

Roy Jones fought on for nearly 10 years after losing badly to Joe Calzaghe.

Look up the definition of the word ‘context’

 

I have laughed at some of the predictions on this post that favour some of the old guys over him.

Yes, the man is an absolute class act.

He’s one of a kind, and the sport would be much better off with more fighters like him around.

Yes, I don’t believe that any of the other greats could have gone undefeated had they have fought everyone.

I don’t think that anyone could have gone undefeated.

There’s too many great fighters who all possessed many different styles and attributes.

 

It's Ovah,

For me, it would have been a great fight. I think they’d have gone feint for feint. A very intriguing chess match.

I don’t agree. I think this is a gross exaggeration.

There wouldn’t have been much of a size difference.

Louis had trouble with a very fast Conn, who would probably have been a SMW today.

Usyk wasn’t as fast as Conn, and he has a very different style.

Louis had a decent enough chin, and Usyk also only has respectable power.

He wouldn’t have known what to have done with him?

Louis was one of the most technical HW’s of all time, with fast hand speed, extreme accuracy and huge power in either hand.

He was a ruthless finisher.

Usyk is so great, I could envisage him winning. But I don’t think that it would have been the mismatch that you think.

A dream fight for me.

Usyk has better footwork, but Byrd had better upper body movement.

I’d have loved to have seen Vitali fight Usyk.

Not for me.

Three to five round amateur fights, against non great HW’s?

His skills aren’t in doubt.

What’s in doubt, is if he could have overcome the skills and styles of every other ATG HW of the past.

 

It doesn't matter if they were Heavyweights and moved down to Cruiserweights, the fights took place at the Cruiserweight so they add to Usyk's Cruiserweight resume and not his Heavyweight resume. My point about Moorer and Byrd having better Heavyweight resumes than Usyk, is based on purely based on what they achieved at Heavyweight regarding their records not how they match up H2H. So no your point about H2H sense is actually irrelevant in that case when were talking purely about achievements.

Ok if you want to get technical lets say "a faded" Holyfield, i certainly was not impressed by any of Holyfield's performances vs Ruiz or his technical decision against Rahman. But if you want to use them fights to further your argument, for his loss to a Southpaw Byrd then go ahead but i'm sorry i don't agree.

And also i forgot to mention and i know your say i'm making an excuse, but i think your find Holyfield had a rotator cuff injury vs Byrd. And to go slightly off topic i'm actually wondering if Byrd's slick awkward style caused that issue, as Vitali also got a shoulder injury vs Byrd makes me wonder.

Your right i can't pin-point exactly how bad Holyfield's heart problem was, but it was clear watching the fight that Holyfield was in distress and not his usual self. And if you look side by side and compare Holyfield in the 1st Moorer fight to their 2nd fight, it's night and a day difference or to any of Holyfield's usual performances for that matter.

My argument is that it wasn't so much Moorer's southpaw style, it was the fact that Holyfield was lackluster and couldn't summon up the energy like his usual self. And i don't think it was primarily Moorer's Southpaw style like your portraying, it was more so that Holyfield was very lackluster with whatever health issues he was having.

Well there you go your basically saying what i've been saying in your first sentence "Holyfield was in decline" and that's all i've been trying to say pretty much. You have to take into account Holyfield's wear and tear aswell as his age vs Byrd, and not just primarily focus on the "Southpaw" argument. His loss to Byrd as i've pointed out was not primarily Holyfield struggling because Byrd was a Southpaw, it was more due to the fact that Holyfield had declined alot. And the losses to Toney, Donald, the point i'm trying to make with those fights. Is that those fights also show how far Holyfield had declined, and those fighters wern't "Southpaws".

And one last comment yes i agree Byrd might of give Holyfield a good fight in his prime aswell, but i think a younger Holyfield would outpoint Byrd.

Moorer never had a great chin at Heavyweight though, he'd been hurt and floored numerous times before Foreman fight, and his loss to power punching Foreman didn't seem to effect his chin as he won back the Heavyweight title. And defended it numerous times without being on the deck.

As for Holyfield being a "light puncher" i would argue that point, as Holyfield was the first man to drop a prime Ray Mercer, and was also the first man to heavily drop Riddick Bowe and almost stop him, aswell as dropping Mike Tyson with one uppercut. I'm not saying Holyfield was a devastating puncher, but i think your slightly underrating his power he could hit with respectful power.

If you want to be fair lets just say this for argument's sake then, Holyfield was definitely improved in the Moorer rematch. And maybe Moorer had slightly eroded since their first encounter.

Punchstats are misleading though and i think you and i both know this, for example ODLH vs Trinidad was a wipe out in punchstats yet it's considered a close fight. Whitaker vs Trinidad the punchstats between them was only 278-234, which isn't a huge difference in 12 round fight, yet Whitaker got dominated for the most part and lost a very wide decision.

Me personally i didn't think Holyfield vs Moorer 2 was that competitive, maybe for the first 2 or 3 rounds if i'm being generous. But after that Holyfield put a beating on Moorer rocking him in nearly every round and flooring him 5 times. So i don't really see your argument for a competitive fight in all honesty.

Yes i agree Holyfield's heart issues very well could of been down to his steroid use, you won't get any argument from me there. We all know of Holyfield's suspect weight gain along with his "Evan Fields" controversy. As for "serious heart problems" lets just say whatever the reason clearly Holyfield has issues in the 1st Moorer fight. Whether it was down to steroid abuse effecting his heart, or whether it was something else i don't know and as you stated earlier it's speculation. But i do think Holyfield was lackluster because of it and as i said earlier, my argument is that Holyfield lost the fight more down to his lackluster performance, rather than the issue of the Southpaw style.

As i said before i respect Usyk alot i watched his 2nd fight vs Joshua today and scored it 9-3 for Usyk, and i really enjoyed the fight and Usyk's performance. He's actually one of the few Heavyweight's i actually like in this era, due to the fact he's actually skilled and isn't sloppy like most of the Heavyweights now.

All i'm saying is that's it's a tad premature to say he beats Ali and etc, because he hasn't been tested enough at Heavyweight. Where as fighters like Ali have been tested numerous times against all different styles, and have been pushed to the limit and came out on the top against many elite Heavyweights.

Would Usyk be a stylistic nightmare for alot of Heavyweights ? probably yes but i just want to see a bit more evidence of his skills against other top Heavyweights.

And lastly as for Holyfield vs Usyk could Holyfield lose to Usyk ? absolutely that's a very possible scenario. But i just don't think necessarily saying because Holyfield is 1-3 vs Southpaws that makes it so. Because your missing out context with them stats, because 2 of them losses were as i pointed out when Holyfield was 40+ with alot of wear tear. And the other loss was due to a lackluster performance, down to some type of health issue that hindered his performance. It's like saying well Roy Jones Jr lost 4 times to Tarver x2, Calzaghe, Lebedev, so that must mean Roy Jones Jr had alot of issues vs "Southpaws" but again that's missing out context as Roy Jones Jr was clearly past his prime.

PS i had to delete some of your comments when quoting you, as apparently when i quoted you combined with my reply it was over the limit. So apologizes for that i wasn't trying to reply to you out of context.

 

I have to reply here for similar reasons.

"My point about Moorer and Byrd having better Heavyweight resumes than Usyk"

For the sake of argument I'll discount Briedis, Hunter and the rest, who by historical standards were heavyweights (even pretty big ones) and have good wins/performances at heavyweight (Charr, Bakole, Kuzmin) or against heavyweights (Huck, Perez).

Who has a better HW record depends on which factors you give most or any weight to, it's not an objective thing. I listed a number of ways in which Usyk has a superior heavyweight record to the other southpaws, including being undefeated, never being dropped, never getting a highly controversial decision and beating the best opponent in conclusive fashion (now x2, as the B-side). How much weight people ascribe to these factors is subjective. I believe there's more than enough evidence to say that Usyk is the best southpaw heavyweight of all time, considerably above whoever is 2nd H2H.

The whole argument about Holyfield, Moorer and Byrd is highly speculative: how severe were Holyfield's alleged health problems (he also looked a completely different fighter in Lewis 1 and Lewis 2, much better when older, more worn but more experienced against Lewis) how much had he slowed down when he fought Byrd (when he was still good enough to get the better of 2nd tier contenders in his two previous fights) how much did the shoulder injury against Byrd, the extra 250+ punches taken, the denting of confidence and further aging/inactivity contribute to his subsequent decline, to what degree did the extra southpaw experience help Holyfield in the Moorer rematch, was Moorer now significantly above his optimal weight and how much had Moorer's chin declined following the KD's, 68 rounds of fighting, sparring etc.

The bottom line to me is that he lost badly in 2/3 of those fights (I don't pay as much attention to the Sultan fight as Holyfield had been in poor form for a while, same with Jones against Lebedev or whoever) and even the rematch with Moorer was a war, with Moorer's horrible chin being a big factor in why he lost the fight. Byrd's evasiveness may well have been the reason why Vitali and Holyfield sustained injury (Byrd was a 1/2 favourite over Holyfield going in) and maybe why Vitali didn't seek a rematch with him. Holyfield's record against southpaws (prime and post-prime) is bad before we get into the subjectivities which is evidence that he had problems with them and it's not a secret that they are more difficult opponents than orthodox fighters, other things being equal. Joe Louis for example said that he wanted nothing to do with them after apparently getting schooled in the gym by a LHW southpaw.

"Holyfield, light puncher"

"Light puncher" may be overstating it in fairness but his power was on the lighter side at the level he was operating at, which is represented by his KO record and some of the less durable guys he didn't stop.

"Where as fighters like Ali have been tested numerous times against all different styles"

In his day yes but there have been important styles that have come into existence since then: SHW's, snipers and world class southpaws, as well as hybrids of these types. European champion Mildenberger was the best southpaw Ali faced, southpaw world champs didn't exist until the 90's. How would Ali deal with the enormous size along with skill and athleticism of the post-90's SHW's, which have been the dominant force ever seen coming into existence? It's speculative but seeing as they supplanted the old heavies, probably not well. Ali's opponents were also (with a few exceptions) no bigger than Usyk's cruiserweight opponents and all were smaller than the SHW's he beat in the WSB. Ali's experiences against Foreman, Liston, Frazier and Norton would not prepare him for Usyk's style or attributes, so they aren't that relevant when it comes to a debate on Ali vs Usyk H2H.

 

Not going to get into details but he beats them all