[PRIME] Oleksandr Usyk vs. [PRIME] Evander Holyfield

Difficult to say, who has Usyk fought close to Holyfield quality.

 

The same could be said for Holyfield. Usyk has a very unique style.

 

I think Usyk would win simply because they are similar size and Usyk excels at fighting men his own size, he'd be the one to dictate the pace

 

Yes but their specific builds were somewhat different, as was the way they achieved them.
Holyfield had relatively small legs, his calves were always listed at only 13".
He was even leaner, a workout fanatic, but his build was typical of what the BALCO investigation showed about what he did-HGH & steroids to become "Evan Fields" as listed on their roles.

So his upper body was somewhat more muscular than Usyk's, & even more so around the areas that have more androgen receptors that respond differentially to exogenous sources of Androgen-the trapezes & neck.
Usyk has showed no indication of cheating or lying about it.

 

Holyfield by wide UD/late TKO - this ain't Joshua who was throwing body shots like he just realized they existed in the 2nd Usyk fight (& landing them). This is a masterful, nasty ATG body puncher. I don't think Usyk would like that stuff downstairs much.

 

I am going to point this out every time....there is little doubt, in fact no doubt, that Evan Fields took HGH, one of the most powerful and effective PEDs, in an era when testing was minimal. And he still lost fights.

It isn't a comparison. If you thinks it is acceptable to vote for a fighter on HGH, you go ahead, but Usyk is a different level.

 

I don't include considerations like peds in a fantasy matchups, takes all the fun out for me. And there are plenty of knowledgeable folks on here who will call you naive if you don't think Usyk is on them too.

 

Anyway, I think Evander dominates Usyk so much that the peds wouldn't matter.

 

Waiting for certain poster to go on another ALT, and tell us Holyfield will lose to Usyk. Because he lost to Southpaws Byrd, Ibragimov, when he was in his 40s.

 

Well, he might have a point. Holyfield was a very correct boxer. They often find it difficult when an opponent is not also correct. Boxing is much about action/reactions, with learned counters triggered by what the subconscious has learned. It take years of boxing to be able to counter naturally without thinking. Then when someone comes along and goes off pattern, ie; doesn't do what the subconscious has learned what is usually thrown, it upsets the fighter. For example.. Often a double jeb will be effective simply because a fighter gets conditioned to receive just the one jab. He encounters two, and the 2nd one lands. Lead right hands can often land as they are rarely thrown. Etc, etc, etc.

I still think Holyfield wins, but Usyk is so awkward, and Holyfield so correct, it may throw Holyfield.

 

What you guys fail to understand is that American fighters are not like fighters from anywhere else. And an American elite is not like an elite from anywhere else. I mean, anybody can beat anybody but our great fighters are raised to believe in their own greatness and glory and limitless returns on our perseverance. Ask anyone from any country and if they know what they're talking about they agree with me because I am American and I am right.

 

I don't disagree that Usyk can't win, but I don't agree with using the Byrd and Ibragimov fights as examples that Holyfield struggled with Southpaws. I do agree overall that Usyk definitely presents a tough stylistic match up for Holyfield though.

 

SD either way.

 

Those folks have no evidence whatsoever. They are talking entirely out of their assess.