Oleksandr Usyk in the 70s

Yes because Usyk is a much better boxer then Foreman while being around the same size so I don't see how he wouldn't be able to bully Frazier and keep him off him like Foreman did and eventually wear him out for a knockout. Frazier has never faced a boxer as good and as large as Usyk so he wouldn't be able to get away with his usual pressure tactics which honestly only worked because none of the fighters he was fighting were hard punchers when he actually fought a hard puncher (Foreman) he lost badly.

 

The only one here without any logic here is you, I gave good reason for what my takes you gave 0 reasons besides relying on consensus and nostalgia

 

People like you are a walking contradiction you're accusing me of being nostalgic ? absolutely laughable.

You're the one that has claimed Usyk would dominate the division with ease and yet i'm the biased one ? when you post absolute nonsense like that ? the only one that is biased here is you.

What logic have you given exactly ? because Usyk has beaten Cruiserweights like Breidis, Hunter, Gassiev, in which you believe are similar size to 70s Heavyweights so that means he dominates the greatest Heavyweights of all time ? amazing logic. I didn't know Breidis, Gassiev, Hunter, were on the same level as Holmes, Ali, Foreman, silly me.

You excuse Usyk's performance against Chisora based on "size" yet put the blinders on when an even smaller Cruiserweight in Haye absolutely dismantled a younger fresher Chisora.

You've made awful comparisons like Usyk being able to replicate Foreman's performance against Frazier when they're nothing alike. Foreman is one of the hardest hitting Heavyweights of all time, Usyk has modest power at best and is also a boxer who uses angles and movement it would be a completely different match up.

You then claim Usyk is stopping bigger fighters the only named Heavyweight he has stopped is Dubois, who is not a top 10 Heavyweight who also quit after a jab and who was also on the floor 3 times in his previous fight from an absolute nobody. And all in all Usyk has only had 4 stoppages in 7 years.

So no you're so called "logic" is very poor and you're examples are even worse.

I've been totally fair in saying i believe Usyk could compete in the 70s, i just don't share your ludicrous opinion that Usyk dominates ATG Heavyweights.

And just to finish this off i'm done wasting my time discussing this with you it's obvious from your first comment in this thread that you're totally biased and it's a total waste of my time goodbye.

 

Yes because you put fighters on pedestals and claim they are better based on nothing while ignoring the real size difference between fighters in the past and fighters today as well as how on a technical level Usyk is superior to most fighters of that era

I think I made my reason pretty clear Usyk is a technical southpaw who would have a size and reach advantage against pretty much ever fighter of that era and the power to trouble all of them I don't see how any of them could deal with everything he has to bring, whereas none of them are able to bring something to the table that he doesn't have experience fighting.

An exception doesn't prove the rule, no other fighter was able to replicate what Haye did and I wouldn't say they were worse then Haye nor did they punch harder then Haye, which would mean Haye is an exception.

He would still probably be the second strongest puncher that Frazier has ever fought and around the same size as Foreman considering how well Frazier did against someone of that size I don't see how he would win and Usyk can and has walked people down so he can def do that if he needs to (Bellow, Huck, Hunter etc)

Name a single person as large as Dubois that Ali or Frazier have stopped? Usyk also has legit power he hurt all his opponents at heavyweight so far despite them being larger then him to ignore that aspect is foolish. If he's hurting fighters larger then himself what makes you think he wouldn't be able to hurt or even stop fighters smaller then him?

Because you look at them with nostalgia glasses while ignoring how they weren't as good as you think they are and had their flaws, they were good for their era for sure but that doesn't mean they were some monsters who no modern fighter could touch, they had their strengths and weakness and Usyk is a modern fighter who none of them would be able to deal with because he brings something that none of them are equipped to deal with I'm sorry that you're too blind to see that but you do you.

 

Yes, bodybuilding forums are notorious cesspools of trollls and baiters who act like they actually know what they're talking about pretty much just for memes.
Probably not teenagers though, more like 30+ year old neckbeards

 

I don't say he would dominate the era, but he would fit right in. With the 200 pound limit and rehydration, a lot of his cruiserweight opponents would have been huge heavies in the seventies, so he is more proven than all that. As for Chisora, he outlanded Chisora in all but three rounds, with one being even, and he staggered Chisora in the seventh, not the other way around, so it is only by the grace of biased judges that knew better that it was a "competative fight."

As for Dubois, bladder shot.

Uysk southpaw stance, iron chin, speed, defense, crazy punch angles, and ability to throw a thousand punches in a fight would have him right there with Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Quarry, Shavers and Young.

 

Hhmmm. Frazier was a great fighter, but he lacked entirely the southpaw killing right hand. What do you think?

 

Umm no i think saying "Usyk would dominate the division without too much trouble" is putting a fighter on a pedestal on my guy. I have not overrated anyone all i've said is that i don't agree with your ludicrous opinion that Usyk dominates ATG Heavyweights.

Have i not stated "Usyk would compete in the 70s" so where exactly am i overrating fighters or putting them on a pedestal ?

Usyk is 6'3 with a 78 inch reach.

Ali is 6'3 with a 78 inch reach

Norton is 6'3 with a 80 inch reach

Holmes is 6'3 with a 81 inch reach

Foreman is 6'3 with a 79 inch reach.

So no he doesn't have a reach advantages over pretty much every fighter in that era that's completely false.

As for for size ? most of the top Heavyweights are similar size to Usyk so no your point makes absolutely 0 sense.

Whether the top fighters would or wouldn't struggle with Usyk's Southpaw stance is pure speculation.

An exception to the rule ? i think it's quite evident a hard punching smaller Heavyweight can KO bigger Heavyweights. Tyson beat much taller Heavyweights than himself all the time.

Again you're fixated on size just because you're bigger doesn't make you elite, Dubois is realistically not a top 10 Heavyweight and was dropped 3 times prior to the Usyk fight by an absolute nobody. Dubois also quit after a jab from Usyk so do i think Ali, Holmes, could jab Dubois head off and stop him ? absolutely i don't see how that's a biased opinion Dubois is not that good end of.

But that's absolute lies though because i've stated Usyk would compete in the 70s so how have i got nostalgia glasses on ? if i was that biased i would say all the older fighters would wreck Usyk and i haven't claimed that at all.

I'm just not blown away by Usyk beating the likes of Breidis who he struggled with alot, Gassiev, Bellew, Hunter. Those names are solid/good names but certainly not great. And then you're other argument is that Usyk is beating bigger fighters, but he actually only has 1 win against a top 10 Heavyweight which is Joshua.

So overall yes Usyk does possess stylistic problems for Heavyweights in the 70s, but i still don't see why he should automatically be massive favourite over the likes of Holmes, Foreman, Ali, etc.

 

Because you're claiming fighters that are worse then Usyk on every level would somehow be competitive with him which is just ludicrous just because they were fighters in an era you mythologize that doesn't make them all demigods who would never lose any other fighter in any other era.

Do you not understand how numbers work 4 fighters isn't the whole division especially since Holmes only came around at the end of the era so he would have an advantage over everyone besides 3 fighters for most of the era. Also no way Norton was 6'3 he looks shorter then both Ali and Foreman who you claim are the same height. That's also not true the only heavyweight who is the same size as Usyk is Foreman everyone else was smaller and considering Foreman was the largest heavyweight of the era yeah he would have a size advatnage over all of them besides 1. Its not Ali struggled with Mildenburger's southpaw stance who is not even close to as good as Usyk and even today fighters struggle with it despite having much more experience and opportunity to train against it so I don't see why fighters of that era who would not have nearly as much experience against it wouldn't struggle as well.

Do you not understand how stats work? Just because one can doesn't mean its likely that all of them can its an exception for a reason. Sure but even Tyson struggled to knockout fighters who were heavier then him as all heavyweights do weight matters for a reason thats why we have weightclasses.

If size doesn't matter why do we have weightclasses? Sure but a larger fighter is going to have an advantage over a smaller fighter all things being equal. Maybe but they haven't shown the ability to do so like Usyk has so its pure speculation whether they could or couldn't not based on any empirical evidence

Because you underestimate Usyk while overestimateing older fighters despite the evidence showing they weren't as good as you claim they are.
They were all very good cruiserweights some of the best in the divisons history and beating all of them convincedly is impressive af.
I explained why but I guess we can agree to disagree on it.

 

That's your biased opinion not factual Usyk is not "better on every level"

Do you even read what you type ? you're claiming i'm making out fighters from 70s are demigods which is total nonsense, and yet you're saying Usyk is better on every level and stated earlier "Usyk would dominate with ease" which is contradicting is it not ? what you're claiming that i'm doing is what you're doing yourself!!!!!!

When have i said the 70's Heavyweight's would never lose ? again obviously you don't read what i say so you must've missed the part where i said "Usyk would be competitive in the 70s i just don't agree with your ludicrous opinion that Usyk dominates ATG Heavyweight"

So again i am not being biased which you're claiming that's a false statement, if anything the only one who has shown biased agenda in this discussion is you.

Ali floored Mildenberger 3 times won a majority of the rounds and stopped him here's a write up of the fight.

At first, Mildenberger's unorthodox Southpaw style caused Ali some surprising discomfort in the early rounds of the bout, a sight rarely seen by the champion. Despite the early difficulties, Ali quickly adjusted, and by the mid rounds had taken full control of the fight. Mildenberger's left eye was cut in the sixth round, and by the end of round eight it had completely swollen shut.

So it Ali took a few rounds to adjust and before he ended up dominating Mildenberger so i'm not seeing your argument. If Usyk had stopped a top 10 ranked fighter and dropped him 3 times you would be definitely using that as an argument to further Usyk's accomplishments.

Again i don't care if you think Norton looks shorter they're all listed as 6'3, you also claimed Usyk would have reach advantages over every fighter in that era which i also proved to be false.

4 fighters ? what about Bugner, Wepner, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, Ali, Lyle, Tate, they were all 6'3 and above who fought throughout the 70s.

There's plenty of examples of smaller Heavyweights being successful against bigger Heavyweights, but there is a difference between being big and elite at the sametime. And whilst someone like Dubois is a big man he's not elite and would lose to any elite Heavyweight from the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.

I never said size doesn't matter but you're claiming Usyk dominates 70s Heavyweight when he doesn't have big advantages in physicality over the very best fighters of that era.

Umm no wrong again i'm not overestimating anyone the only one that has overestimated anyone in this thread is you. You've made outlandish comments about Usyk dominating i have not once said that any of the 70s fighters would dominate Usyk.

Again that's a you problem and you're contradicting yourself.

 

Its called a hyperbole my point is you're overrated 70s fighters without considering that they were products of their time and todays heavyweight era is totally different in terms of size and athleticism and it would be hard for fighters in a different era to compete in todays era because of how much everything has advanced today. I think all but the best would struggle in the 90s when we started seeing more modern sized fighters and widespread PED use. Also I admit I'm biased but we all have our biased your biased towards past fighters I'm biased towards Usyk and modern fighters no one here is truly objective.

So you think Ali in his prime struggling with a bad southpaw isn't indicative that a VERY good southpaw would give him a hard time?

Ali had a height and reach and size advantage over most of his opponents Usyk has around the same height and reach while being bigger that's what I was basing my claim on

It happens but its rare which is why when it does the smaller fighter is almost always either an ATG or just very good there's a reason weight classes exist in the first place. Look at Bob Foster a very good light heavyweight who couldn't win at heavyweight despite skillwise being better then a lot of the guys he lost to at heavyweight like Doug Jones or Terrell. Again Ali had an advantage physically over most of his opponents so why wouldn't Usyk who's slightly bigger but just as fast?

I just genuinely think Usyk is one of the most skilled heavyweights I have ever seen and I think he would give any heavyweight a tough fight am I biased? Sure, but I think anyone would struggle with a tricky southpaw that has an iron chin, crazy gas tank, and incredible movement. Maybe dominate is too strong a word but I think he would do well in any era and would give any fighter a run for their money.

 

You do realize the Heavyweight division now is not that strong right ? bigger on average ? yes. But most of the top fighters now are in their late 30s and early 40s.

Better athleticism ? Usyk aside who else ? Zhang is a plodder, Wilder is lean and has some athleticism but is still very limited boxing skills wise, Joyce is a big lumbering slow oaf, Fury moves well for his size but is certainly not on the same level as fighters like Ali, Holmes, at their peak.

Regarding PED's well if that's true that there's more widespread PED's use, in a fantasy scenario which we are doing now wouldn't it be fair if fighters from 70s also had the same PED use aswell ? i'm sure they would be bigger on average aswell i mean that's fair right ?

Here's the problem i have with your original comments it's not the fact that you think Usyk can beat some of the 70s Heavyweight which i don't disagree with. It's the fact that you think he can dominate and you're examples i don't think are very strong arguments, beating the likes of Breidis, Hunter, Gassiev, proves he can beat similar sized Heavyweights to the 70s fighters which you are correct in saying. But the issue is that those fighters at best are good/solid fighters not great. So i don't see why the big leap of faith that Usyk suddenly can dominate ATG Heavyweights based on that.

Usyk does have a good resume but he hasn't beat a great Heavyweight as of yet, and he hasn't beaten any great fighter of the size of the 70s era. So whilst Usyk has shown some very good skills and has beaten some bigger fighters which you're correct in saying, i don't think beating limited big man who are realistically not top 10 Heavyweights, are necessarily strong arguments that equal to being very successful against greater but smaller fighters.

I do think Usyk's Southpaw style would give Ali issues yes but you're using the Mildenberger fight as an example, and whilst Ali did take a few rounds to adjust to the Southpaw stance. He still in the end pretty much dominated him and dropped him 3 times earning a stoppage.

So whilst that fight does prove that Ali would have some difficulty with Southpaw style of Usyk, it also proves that Ali could adjust to the Southpaw style and still pretty much dominate in the end.

So i think overall that fight has some merit to your argument but it also has a merit to my argument aswell that Ali could adjust and stop a top 10 ranked Southpaw Heavyweight.

This is what confuses me yes Ali did beat fighters he had considerable height and reach over, but he also beat plenty of fighters who were equal size to him aswell who were considered elite and some of them even great.

So i'm not understanding your logic TBH why would that be a negative in regards to Ali ? if he's beaten elite fighters of similar size to Usyk ?

Isn't that basically the same argument you're using for Usyk in regards to Usyk beating good opponents at Cruiserweight who are similar size to the 70s Heavyweights in which you claimed ?

So i don't see the difference with the argument i'm using to the argument you're using in regards to Usyk's Cruiserweight opposition ?

But as i've said against the best Heavyweight's of that era Usyk would basically be on a level playing field in regards to height, reach, size. So again i'm not seeing the argument that Usyk would be able to be dominate.

I think suggesting Usyk would be amongst top 5 Heavyweights of that era and would be successful is a totally fair opinion i don't see how i'm being unreasonable with that opinion.

 

So when I say that I'm looking at the average not specific cases that's how stats work. And this is an objective truth athletes today are bigger, more explosive and more athletic in every single sport or do you dispute this?

That wasn't clarified in the original statement I assumed it meant taking the fighter as he is today and putting him in the past with how fighters were in the past.

It was a hyperbole similar to how people here say Frazier or Foreman would beat every single modren heavyweight in a single night with one armed tied to their backs but I gave actual rationale for why I would favor Usyk against fighters in that era.

If he beats Fury he will have a win over an ATG who is larger then any heavyweight of the 70s. I also think his two wins over Joshua were very impressive as Joshua is huge and would be competitive in any era. Beating a good large fighter is a lot harder then beating a better smaller fighter because you have to fight pretty much perfectly and if you make one small mistake you suffer for it whereas there's more room for error against smaller opponents. As the saying goes a good big man always beats a good small man.

I mean if an average southpaw could give prime Ali more trouble then better fighters just because of his stance then I don't see why an actual good southpaw wouldn't give Ali even more trouble especially in the 70s when Ali was starting to decline

Its not a negative its just a fact that I was pointing out that Ali had a size advantage over most of his opponents in the era so why wouldn't Usyk?