If Usyk beats Dubois, Hrgovic and Zhang, is he a HW ATG?

How long is your list of HW ATG's?

 

How much do his five losses count against him? Puritty, Sanders and Brewster were all wide or enormous underdogs and Joshua (who many believe was there for the taking against Wlad) has since lost to Ruiz and Usyk x2.

How much do his foul tactics and A-side antics count against him? The Povetkin fight being the apex of that abomination.

Do wins over Leapai, Mormeck, Pianeta, Rahman and even slightly or somewhat higher quality ones like Austin, Brewster 2, Peter 2, Thompson 2, Byrd 2 and Wach count for much? That's over 50% (10/19) of Wlad's reign.

I don't mean to pick on Wlad but I'm more familiar with his reign and it's the directly previous era rather one far removed in time, making comparisons simpler.

Wlad has five losses, Usyk has zero.

Wlad was a very dirty fighter, Usyk is very clean (and has consistently been willing to forgo home and A-side advantage in dangerous fights at heavyweight).

Say what you want about Dubois (who may well be the weakest of Usyk's three mandatories), he's almost certainly more dangerous than the ten names I listed four lines above on account of his size, power and athleticism combined with 16 years of experience. He's also very likely more dangerous (especially if he's aggressive) than most of Wlad's better opponents; the likes of Chambers, Ibragimov and Chagaev. If Usyk were fighting a prime Brock, Pulev or Jennings this weekend, would there be more or less intrigue?

I'd say that Chisora, Joshua, Joshua, Dubois, Hrgovic, Zhang (plus the WSB and quasi-heavyweights Hunter, Briedis and Gassiev, if he does anything at HW) has Wlad's record beat. It would be a hugely impressive run to go on without a single defeat, especially given Usyk's age/wear + style.

 

See post above:

How much do Wlad's losses count against him?

How much do his foul tactics and A-side antics count against him?

Do wins over...count for much?

Would there be more intrigue in Usyk vs Pulev/Brock/Chambers etc. than Usyk-Dubois?

 

"First phase he was a hype job"

He was a vulnerable destroyer pre-Peter: only fighters with outstanding chins and determination could take the barrage that he dished out to Puritty and Brewster before gassing. Schulz, Jackson, Mercer, Byrd and McCline were impressive wins in terms of the dominance of the pointfighting and the offensive arsenal, not that they posed a great threat. Vitali wasn't able to hurt Byrd or seriously dominate him before his 9th round quitjob, so clearly he wouldn't fare as well in some stylistic matchups. Even a very immature Wlad at 21 displayed far greater offensive ability against their mutual opponent G. Williamson.

"Pulev was the best of them, I see him as a better opponent than Dubois"

A number of Wlad's victims (Pulev being one) may be rightly favoured to beat Dubois but if your life depended on it, would you send Pulev in to beat Usyk over Dubois? I wouldn't; Pulev couldn't outpoint Usyk once in ten fights and he couldn't do any serious damage either. Dubois is a vastly bigger puncher than Pulev, far more aggressive stylistically and punches much better in combination, which more than makes up for Pulev's greater skill, durability and determination in this comparison.

We agree that the losses should be held against Wlad, that his style/A-side antics should dock him points and that he lacked great fights/wins against top opponents. Yet he's still an ATG.

Even right now, heavyweight Usyk has Wlad beaten on all of these fronts: undefeated, very clean/no A-side antics/road warrior, great fights/wins at heavyweight against Joshua, whereas Wlad's most significant victory all things considered was his war against Peter, then his schooling of Haye. Wlad has longevity over Usyk of course but the majority of his title defences ranged from Mormeck/Leapai to Thompson/Byrd 2 in quality. An additional run of Dubois, Hrgovic and Zhang arguably poses more of a threat than all of them combined save Haye and Povetkin.

 

"ATG clears their division out"

"Fury has been ducking him for over a year"

"and most importantly Fury of course"

How can Usyk "clear the division out" if Fury's ducking him? Moreover, doesn't this standard disqualify Lewis as an ATG? He didn't fight Bowe, allegedly because Bowe's team/Bowe ducked what may well have been the biggest superfight of the 90's. He didn't beat Tyson when it mattered all that much. And he dropped a belt to sidestep Vitali-conqueror Byrd, who was 6-0 against Lewis's mutual opponents over the period that they were both active. Lewis wasn't interested in fighting Sanders or Wlad, he wanted to retire and understandably so. But where does one draw the line exactly? Usyk may still be taking on contenders or unifying at 38+.

Expecting Usyk to get a rich piggy like Ruiz into the ring is an absurd standard for ATG status and it's completely irrelevant anyway. Wilder is much more relevant as an opponent but again, he'll spend the rest of his career (perhaps not long) chasing Fury. So there are external factors preventing it, just as there were external factors preventing Lewis or Holyfield from fighting Ibeabuchi. You can only beat the fighters who are available to fight.

"Normally, I would say beating Dubois, Hrgovic and Zhang doesn't grant you ATG status"

In this hypothetical it's that group plus Chisora and Joshua x2, B-side in all three fights. And potentially the heavyweights Usyk schooled in the "semi-pro" WSB (most notably Joyce in a 5 rounder with 12 oz gloves), as well as the cruiser-heavies with significant results against heavyweights (Hunter and Briedis currently). Joyce himself will be irrelevant, nowhere near contention if Zhang destroys him again in the rematch. Queensbury will try to feed him to Dubois as a big rebound win if Usyk schools him, which would add to Usyk's HW ATG credentials if successful.