No, I simply don't think his resume at HW is enough for him to be an ATG at the weight, although as I said, he is an ATG fighter on his achievements. It's all about opinions man, and I'm not saying I am right, just offering mine. Maybe the issue is I don't rate AJ as an elite fighter, had Usyk nailed on both times to beat him. I DID rate Fury and always said if he beat Fury, he'd be best of his generation, and he did and is. Clearly. But can he be an ATG based on beating these guys? At heavyweight? Not for me. I suspect Dubois might, historically, prove to have been his best win although I admit to being one who subscribes to the school of thought that says Usyk used a whole lot of gamesmanship in that victory and Dubois capitulation can be somewhat excused because of it. Each to their own. Going back to my point, if Ituama say, or Bakole, or whomever went on a run of beating the same fighters Usyk has AT THE WEIGHT would we profess him to he a heavyweight ATG? I doubt it...and if we did. I'd be disagreeing with that as well!! Thanks for your thoughtful reply man, enjoyable chat.
I think the whole Undisputed thing is overrated as it is. It just means you got all the pieces of a belt that got scattered at some point. Being Undisputed is no better then being Champion in the one belt eras. I see it more as a penalty when a fighter doesn’t become Undisputed. Like +1 Undisputed Champion -5 No Undisputed Champion. Ofcourse it gets more complicated then that. Because unifying belts also is a matter of the promoters wanting to put the money down to make Undisputed. Wlad is an example of a fighter who was not Undisputed but he was still clearly the man. But in an ideal world ‘Undisputed’ should not even exist. There should only be one belt.
Yes. He beat the top dogs of his era. Fury, Dubois & Joshua. How can he not be? That's the only way you can be defined as an all-time great HW surely? Conquer your era. What else could there be? And to top it off he did it in a quarter of the time most fighters of the past did it.. the problem people have with him is he didn't have a long HW run .. but what does it matter.. when you skip straight to the best rather than fighting the up & comers who have already been defeated by the individuals he has beaten. Arguing how good these individuals are in comparison to their forebears is just conjecture & won't alter the fact that he's the best of his era and that's all anyone can ever be. How good you think they are compared to Marciano, Liston or Ali means nothing ultimately because it cant be proven one way or the other. So it is best just to stick to fact & verifiable criteria.. like did they clean out their era. The answer is yes. People will argue Zhang, Bakole etc .. but really? Don't get me wrong I would like those fights but Zhang lost to Parker & Hrgovic & Bakole got schooled by Hunter , he's only come to prominence recently.. they aren't the standout fighters of this era.. Usyk beat the cream of the crop.
We don't know how good the guys Usyk beat at heavyweight are due to their extremely thin resumes. Tyson and Joshua would have to fight a lot more capable opponents for us to gauge how good they actually are. Both are largely unproven
Yeah and we can go into Louis getting smashed to pieces and ktfo, something that has never happened to Ali Ali is Miles better than Louis. Just watch them fight. Louis is a better puncher and throws good combinations, but Ali was far superior Would Louis beat Liston, frazier and Foreman? I'm not sure he would. I do know that none of the guys he beat, or marciano, Charles for example would beat those guys Louis was great, but Ali is the greatest You are either trolling or clueless
Dubois lost to Joyce and Joshua lost to Ruiz I hardly think a loss years ago to Hunter means Usyk shouldn't fight Bakole. You also have young unbeaten guys like Wardley and Kabayel
Joe Louis is referenced in the same breath as Ali. They are universally recognized GOATs. So suggesting that saying Louis could be the GOAT at heavyweight is trolling is ridiculous. Louis has 25 title defences, defeated everyone of note in his era, including 6 ex/future/champions in the one champion system. His resume is impeccable. For me Ali is number 1, but Louis has a strong case to be that also.
If another fighter went on the same run, it wouldn't be deemed as great because Usyk would have laid the blueprint Do you overall rate Fury higher?
Fury & Usyk are both ATG heavyweights Lennox, Vitali, Wlad, Fury & Usyk is the past 25 years of HW boxing. Someone else will enter that list shortly, Question is who. If Dubious can continue an uperward trajectory he could do it...AJ, Parker, Hurgovic. That is good going and honest to god he can beat Usyk. Not to say he's better but that's just what can happen.
I certainly do not rate Fury higher, I don't rate anyone Usyk has beaten higher, his resume at heavyweight is somewhat hampered by the era he is fighting in and for me, cannot elevate him to ATG status at heavyweight. Exaggerating a point to make a point here, but RJJ is an ATG fighter, but not one at heavyweight, James Toney similarly. Usyk is undoubtedly an ATG fighter, a generational talent, but he's not an ATG at heavyweight. For me. Others clearly disagree and that is cool brother man, believe me. It wouldn't be much of a discussion board if we all simply parroted each others views... ....sits back, waits on someone posting 'you can't compare RJJ and Usyk' even though I haven't and only used the comparison to identify what I mean....
I could potentially agree with that, but they were the top HWs and between them had beaten much of the competition so Usyk was facing the best available in those two I do have a bit of sympathy with Joshua as I always felt he tried to make the big fights. Fury beat Wladimir to win the titles but didn't defend them. Fury was the champion at that time and Wladimir #1. Fury wasn't fighting, so Joshua fought the number 1 HW. The 3 titles Fury didn't defend, Joshua went out and won in 3 separate fights and did sign to face Fury. With Fury, who I rate highly, I think he is more particular in who he fights and when ie, didn't rematch Wladimir, didn't go in to an immediate rematch with Wilder for the 2nd fight, postponed the 3rd fight, called out Joshua after his 2nd fight with Usyk when he was coming off a couple of losses and giving a notice period for himself saying he is fine after a sparring session fight with Usyk, decided against facing Usyk for a while and faced Whyte, Chisora and Ngannou has now retired again We do know that between Fury and Joshua they beat Wladimir, Parker, Povetkin, Wilder so I think Usyk cemented his place in beating the then top 2 at the time and Dubois in there also
I know you are not comparing the two I have seen it on here when someone can't debate a subject so try and alter what has been said or implied to suit their agenda. I said on another thread once that (talking Joshua's resume) although beating Martin wasn't an atg win, that I felt it was a good performance based on that it was a 2 round win for Joshua and nobody else had beaten Martin as convincingly including other top 10 rated opponents like Ortiz, Anderson, Kownacki Due to a poster having trouble debating the subject, they started trying to insinuate that I was calling Martin a great Recently I was looking at the boxrec top 20 and found Usyk had more wins over names in the top hw 20 than his rivals which is another reason I think during this era has been more dominant than people realise. Considering some of his cw division opponents would have been hws when before the division was created Some fighters of the past have names on their hw resumes against fighters that would be cws today When l looked at the boxrec top 20 a few weeks back usyk had wins over Fury, Joshua, Dubois, Chisora, Hunter, Gassiev
He made a point of saying it alot It's funny how many people parrot something when said so often I recall many saying they felt Fury could beat any HW in history