Rank the TOP 10 HW from the 90s to here

And yet you were still convinced he would beat Usyk. Nice 180 there.

 

Wait, so Chagaev is better because he beat a much taller opponent. And Valuev is better because he started his career at 46-0? If Chagaev's size disadvantage is a highlight for his win, why can't I claim that this is a low point for Valuev? He lost to a boxer who is much smaller than him?

Also, since when is crushing 40+ tomato cans considered a superlative? If Ali, Foreman or Lewis willed, they could have all gone 50-0 up (Brian Nielsen went up 49-0 at one point), but they got to the title scene earlier and fought better opponents. With respect to the title defenses, I will say the same thing - it is quality that matters not quantity.

I can't see how the WBA title wins by Chagaev and Valuev are considered more 'realish' than IBF title. Byrd was (undisputed champ) Lewis's challenger and Lewis ducked him. Byrd then won it by beating Holyfield. What else could he have done? Chagaev beat Valuev who had beaten Ruiz. So, how did Ruiz win the belt? Roy Jones Jr. vacated the title! And unlike Lewis, Roy wasn't even a proper heavyweight - he won only one fight in the heavyweight division.

 

Doesn't this make Usyk the GOAT in the eyes of some people? Whether or not to hold a big fighters size against them or not is a quandry theres no clear answer to. But Chagaev still beat a guy a foot taller than him and knocked out Pianeta.

I agree with quality over quantity in that quality wins should matter more. I strongly disagree with what many take quality to mean which is ignoring everything except HOF wins and punishing fighters for good win loss records. I like a record with losses only to top guys where the fighter puts up a good showing. Thats quality too. People tend to think every record is fradulent without HOF wins. 46-0 is a scarce feat that means something.


Lennox was dominant active champ in 2002.Holyfield had lost to Lewis and had the Ruiz trilogy there was no reason for him to fight for the WBA or IBF belt. Byrd had lost the WBO belt to Wladimir who at this time was still WBO champ. If not for alphabet politics he would have been the obvious alternate champ if there was a need for one which there wasn't. Sanctioning bodies should be crowning new champs if the old champ is inactive or only fighting low rank fighters. Dictating a champs opponent then stripping a champ if they say no is the least valid reason for creating a belt there is. Being the "undisputed champs challenger" is not a real position.

After Lennox and then Vitalis retirement there was a need to crown a new champion. In that context Ruiz v Rahman the guy who'd knocked out the outgoing champ was as logical a matchup as any to start a new lineage. Speaking of which Byrds IBF opponents except Williamson all fought for either Ruiz or Valuevs WBA belt. And the reason they got these shots is because they did well against Byrd.

In terms of RJJ the best 175 champs getting title shots with no HW resume has precedent going back to 1905. While the early examples usually fought in both divisions Bob Foster and Michael Spinks got the shot.

 

Ok