Oleksandr Usyk vs Larry Holmes primes

Holmes UD.

 

Cheers mate.

 

Yeah sure if Uysk loses the narrative will change. To be honest I wouldn't even be too surprised if Uysk lost fairly soon.

 

I think Larry by UD

 

I would pick Usyk because he is the greatest southpaw in heavyweight history and Holmes admittedly couldn't handle southpaws

 

Holmes SD. Usyk is a great and very difficult fighter, Larry will have to get over his irritation (Spinks, Berbick) to win.

 

I'm sorry, but giving two fighters with similar styles problems doesn’t necessarily make you a great H2H fighter—it just shows you’re a stylistic problem for them and fighters with that style. To be considered a good H2H fighter overall, you need to prove yourself against a variety of styles, which Norton never really did.

Sure, Norton might give Fury trouble if Fury tried to outbox him, but Fury has shown that he can adapt his style. If Fury chose to walk Norton down—as we've seen him do effectively in other fights—I don't see Norton handling that well, especially considering his history of struggling against physically bigger fighters. Fury is a much bigger man with the potential to hit hard when he sits down on his punches. It’s logical that someone of Fury's size would have a huge advantage over someone who has shown he can't deal with fighters of that size.

 

Norton is weird case some would argue he beat Holmes and Ali all 3 times but then against Shavers/Cooney/Foreman he completely caves. And today there probably more huge punchers than there ever was.

 

I tend to take boxers' statements about power with a grain of salt. Fighters often exaggerate or prop up opponents they beat rather than those who actually stopped them. I prefer to assess punching power based on actual fight results and knockout stats, as they provide a more objective measure.

If we’re playing that game, Usyk claimed Chisora was the hardest puncher he faced, and Toney said it was Sosa rather than Peter. These kinds of statements are inconsistent and don't always reflect reality, so they’re not the most reliable basis for comparison.

 

Fury has only "walked down" Wilder who has very limited boxing skills.

Fury tried to "walk down" Usyk got caught by a counter shot decided better of it and went back to being an outboxer.

I never said Norton is a great H2H fighter against all styles I said he's great H2H fighter against boxers. Hence he would have a good style vs Fury who's an outboxer with mediocre boxer.

I think a prime Holmes is better than a 37.year old Usyk and certainly better than a 36 year old Fury. If Norton is basically going nigh on near enough even vs prime Holmes and showing amazing stamina in a 15 round fight. He can certainly out point the version of Fury who fought Usyk and faded down the stretch after 6 rounds in both fights I might add.

Fury may be heavier but he certainly does not hit considerably harder than the likes of Holmes or Ali when they sit down on their punches. Size doesn't mean diddly squat on how hard you hit and if neither Holmes or Ali could drop Norton after 50+ rounds I don't see Fury being able to do it.

Norton vs a prime Holmes in one of the best Heavyweights of all time ----------> 36 year old Fury performance vs 37 year old Usyk.

 

Honestly, we don't really need their statements, I could've just used footage of any of these fighters and compare em to show that my point stands well. The only reason I use statements instead is because of ease.

Yet that's different from what I'm talking about. The punch ratings that I bring up are pretty easily provable, just go compare footage from each puncher to another and you can tell it's true. Bringing up different fighters possibly being inconsistent in the way they rank punchers has no relation to the ones I'm talking about. (Toney's claim still makes sense anyways, Sosa hit him harder at middleweight than Peter did at heavyweight, Sosa was the better puncher pound for pound)

 

Fury has walked down more than just Wilder—he also walked down Steve Cunningham, a solid cruiserweight with decent boxing skills, but simply too small to compete with Fury. He struggled against Usyk because Usyk’s footwork was too good, but that doesn't mean Fury wouldn't have success walking down Norton. Norton never had the best defensive footwork and was vulnerable to strong punchers. Just because Norton might have success outboxing Fury (which also isn't guaranteed but for the sake of argument lets say he would) doesn’t mean he would have success if Fury decided to walk him down.

As for power, size and speed both factor into it. A 250-260 lb fighter, especially one who sits down on his punches, is going to generate more force than someone who weighs 210 lbs. While Fury doesn't always sit down on his punches, when he does, it's clear he has power—something people often overlook.

 

What did Cunningham do at Heavyweight remind me ? He was never ranked and never had one notable win at the weight. Fury was behind on points and got dropped heavily by Cunningham so that's not a good argument.

Norton is a harder puncher than Usyk and a good body puncher aswell if Usyk can stop Fury coming forward and slow him down with body punches then so can Norton.

Fury hasn't got the cardio levels to live with Norton late on so unless he stops Norton early which I would highly doubt as Fury is not a big punching KO artist. Then I would think Norton would have a decent chance of coming on late vs Fury and outpointing him especially if we're talking 15 rounds.

I think you're missing the point I'm comparing the Norton who fought Holmes to the Fury who fought Usyk. My argument is Norton looked better than Fury in their respected fights and I'm saying Norton fought at a higher level considering he was fighting an ATG in their prime in Holmes in one of the best Heavyweight fights of all time.

Hence I'm saying....

Prime Holmes----> 37 year old Usyk

35 year old Norton----> 36 year old Fury

This whole debate started because catchwtboxing criticised Holmes opposition and I'm countering that argument by saying I think 35 year old Norton was better than 36 year old Fury in their respected fights and recent form.

And I'm also saying a Witherspoon who peaked vs Holmes is a better H2H fighter than Joshua.

 

I personally don't see how James Smith could be considered a harder puncher than Joshua. That seems like an absurd claim to me, especially when you look at both footage and their respective records. Joshua has a significantly higher KO rate and has knocked out heavier opponents. Based on that, it seems more logical to consider Joshua the more powerful puncher, especially when comparing their knockout performances and who they've knocked out.

 

Bonecrusher stopped....

Witherspoon
Bruno
Weaver

2 of them in the 1st round he also wobbled Tyson with 1 punch and dropped Ruddock like a sack of potatoes. For raw power here's not much to choose between them but Joshua is a considerably better boxer and throws with better precision.

I would Joshua is a better puncher but Bonecrusher is more durable and if he got Joshua in trouble then he could be trouble. As Bonecrusher wails away like a mad man when he gets an opponent in trouble and Joshua freezes when he gets hurt.