Rocky Marciano Versus Oleksandr Usyk

So in other words you got destroyed so bad you had to project and then run away gotcha well I'm happy that you can at least concede when you know you've been wrecked

 

I've engaged in a logical debate where I countered everything my opponent said and instead of acknowledging he kept repeating the same points then ran away when he knew he couldn't win. Oh well another easy clap for me you guys make it too easy

 

Destroyed?

Ha!

We’ve got a comedian on the thread.

 

I’ve read the back and forth.

You’ve no idea what the word logical means.

You’re still yet to figure out that sometimes, the smaller guy can have the advantage.

Maybe one day the penny will drop.

You just have an obsession with things that are bigger and more modern.

An ignorant fan who never expands his knowledge.

A waste of your own time.

I would suggest a new username.

 

Not an argument try again. I gave a summary of the debate for people like you please tell me where my summary was wrong

 

I’m only joking of course.

You’re a true guru.

 

Ikr

 

They mean Usyk beats any version of Louis, not Marciano.

 

Wow, you swooped quickly, didn’t you - laying in wait, much? You seem obsessed.

You are one for false narratives and overviews.

Some might even employ the term “delusional”.

Read your last several posts - your needle is absolutely stuck, literally verbatim repetition without any convergence -

So much for your conviction that you HAVE to mindlessly keep repeating already debunked points - it screams denial and acute fan boyism.

The lack of comprehension, legit or feigned, that you’ve displayed goes beyond the pale and your lame attempts to try and “reframe” what has actually been put to you has been well and truly exposed.

What exactly don’t you get?

CW Usyk (past prime) moves to HW and actually gets hit less - which you acknowledged.

Hmmm, what does that say about the HW competition? Don’t answer, it would be just another disingenuous response.

At HW he was able to take better advantage of and exploit more greatly certain disadvantages inherent to larger opposition. Again, you acknowledged this.

Therefore, he was even more effective in those regards at HW, and therefore he could not be equally as effective in those same regards at CW, against similarly sized opponents of better skill and stamina. Duh!

YET, in all self contradiction and defiance of simple logic, you claim that Usyk was EQUALLY effective in those very regards at CW?????

I’ve spoon fed you 1 + 1 = 2 but in all ignorance, you keep coming up with the inane answer of 3.

Your “agenda” (NOT logic) dictates to you that Usyk has somehow not deteriorated but has, in fact, miraculously improved as a fighter from the age of 31 though to 37/38.

How does it feel to be Robison Crusoe in that regard?

You might assume that “Wilson” agrees with you but poor “Wilson” obviously can’t speak up to put you straight.

So, Usyk got hit less at HW but has also seen decline during his run at HW, so, DURING that run, he has been hit more than when he first entered the HW ranks - this is not rocket surgery but you have been struggling with this simple premise.

Briedis was popularly regarded as Usyk’s toughest fight until Fury 1, an opinion held by Usyk himself up until that point in time - and some people reasonably maintain the Briedis is still Uyk’s toughest fight to date - it was much much closer than either Fury 1 or 2 and that’s a 31 yo Usyk we’re talking about, not a past prime and obviously declined 37/38 yo Usyk.

The majority of fans acknowledge that Usyk has lost a step or two and has become less effective than he used to be - but, in all perversion, not you , no siree. You must remain aligned to your agenda. Lol.

Usyk’s overall effectiveness has been trending down - so much so many would like to see him call it a day - but then, the competition at HW hasn’t been the formidable challenge you’ve earnestly tried to frame it to be.

I mean gee, you yourself discredited Usyk’s win over Dubois, thereby cancelling 20 % of his already limited HW resume - see what happens when you pursue a single agenda at the expense of all else to make things “fit” to your preferred conclusion.

Yes, your highly flawed and slanted methodology has put you into a world of contradiction.

AJ 1 to AJ 2 was the perfect example of Usyk experiencing some decline.

You couldn’t deal with that irrefutable example so you came up with AJ making necessary adjustments to bring the rematch closer -

Now that is funny, how did AJ do that against the master of adjustment and ever improving Usyk? - exactly as you have tried to frame Olek.

Stop not making sense already.

Usyk defeated Dubois more easily than he did both Briedis and Bellew - the latter leading on 2 judges cards AS AT the time of the stoppage.

YOU IN REPLY : “But, awe gee, those fights don’t count”. - Good Lawd!

You couldn’t debate your way out of a paper bag.

So, according to you, Dubois isn’t the feather in the “ever improving” Usyk’s cap that we thought it was - 1 opponent (20%) of just 5 different opponents that Usyk has engaged at HW?

Can you even help not constantly treading on your own toes? It’s comedy gold.

Usyk didn’t just KD Fury, for all intents and purposes, he stopped Fury - he didn’t come close to doing same against Briedis.

All things being equal, he should have 3 KOs/stoppages to his name at HW.

Fights become tougher with advancing age and perhaps other external factors - do you understand that? It’s not necessarily all always due to engaging larger opposition.

So, your obvious agenda has been to aggrandise Usyk, suggesting that past greats of similar size couldn’t compete with Olek nor achieve what Usyk has against larger opposition of far less skill and woefully limited gas tanks -

And you try to suggest that people overly inflate Ali….lol, too funny man - just another self contradiction atop the your ever growing heap.

Consider yourself wrecked, Ralph.

 

Your response reeks of the belief that only your narratives can be correct, no matter how flawed or unsubstantiated they are. You repeatedly double down on your points, even when I’ve presented clear evidence and logical counterarguments that expose the holes in your claims. Instead of addressing these points, you either dismiss them outright or twist the conversation to suit your agenda.

Let’s be clear: I’ve backed up my positions with specific examples and consistent logic, yet you insist that your interpretations are the only valid ones. When I point out why your narrative about Briedis being harder than Fury or Joshua is questionable, you ignore the broader context that heavyweight fights are more grueling overall. Fighting larger opponents is physically more demanding than fighting opponents of the same size or smaller, something you initially agreed with. When I use examples to show that Usyk’s style works effectively against all sizes, not just SHWs, you dismiss it without explanation because it goes against your narrative. And when I explain that Usyk’s technical improvements have offset some of his physical decline, something common among aging elite fighters like Floyd Mayweather, Bernard Hopkins, and Wladimir Klitschko, you simply call it “delusional” rather than engaging with the evidence.

You accuse me of being repetitive, but the reality is that I’ve had to repeat myself because you refuse to acknowledge or address counterpoints that challenge your arguments. Instead, you double down on your narrative without providing new evidence or addressing the flaws I’ve already exposed. It’s as if you think your opinion alone makes something true, regardless of the facts or logic presented to you.

Your entire approach to this debate has made it abundantly clear that you have no real understanding of how to analyze or break down fights. You latch onto specific moments, nitpicking isolated examples, and twisting them to fit your narrative without considering the bigger picture or the context of the fights. This isn’t the mark of someone engaging in meaningful discussion, it’s the mark of someone trying to seem smarter than they actually are.

If you truly understood boxing or Usyk’s career, you wouldn’t need to rely on cherry-picked points or dismiss clear evidence just to prop up your shaky arguments. It’s painfully obvious that your goal isn’t to have an informed discussion but to nitpick your way through in an attempt to save face. At this point, it’s clear you’re out of your depth, and this debate has become little more than an exercise in you flailing around to hold onto a crumbling narrative.


In summary, you are an ignoramus who loves the sound of his own voice while contributing nothing of substance. You’ve demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about boxing, relying solely on parroting narratives that have no real basis in reality. I’d suggest you learn to actually watch and analyze the sport before making any more idiotic statements. Furthermore, you should work on developing the ability to think critically, reason logically, and understand perspectives other than your own—because so far, you’ve shown an absolute inability to do any of those things.

When you’re ready to engage in a good-faith, reasonable conversation, I’d be happy to have that discussion with you. Unfortunately, given how stuck in your ways you appear to be, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

 

Well, that was a whole lot of NOTHING, yet again.

Absolute non convergence.

The more you’re directly proven wrong, the more hot air you type in false compensation - what a vicious, self defeating cycle that is.

I post text but I like the sound of my own voice?

Stupid is as stupid writes and you’re consistently typing out stupid posts that have been stoically devoid of any logic.

And as far as life being like a box of chocolates goes, I’ve clearly been exposed to a nutty one.

I’m clearly a LOT smarter than you - duh! - though you do present as a VERY low intellectual bar, so it’s nothing to write home about or shout from the roof tops - and you’re obsessed with me, because you know that I am your MASTER.

Perhaps you should change your moniker to thedisaster458 - it would suit you so much better.

You’re definitely a glutton for punishment, Ralphy Boy.

See if you can find someone who actually agrees with you.

 

It’s almost laughable how much projection and insecurity saturates your response. You throw around insults and baseless claims, yet fail to engage with a single point I’ve made. Calling my arguments “devoid of logic” while your entire reply amounts to nothing more than childish name-calling is peak irony. It’s clear you’re more interested in personal attacks than actual discourse, likely because you have no real arguments to offer.

Your reliance on ad hominem is not only pathetic but also a blatant admission that you can’t actually refute anything I’ve said. You’re accusing me of being obsessed, yet here you are, frothing at the mouth over a discussion you’re clearly losing, which is rich coming from someone who seems more focused on stroking their own ego than contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.

If this is the best you’ve got, hollow insults, false bravado, and zero intellectual effort, it’s no wonder you’re stuck resorting to this nonsense. Grow up, develop a real argument, and maybe then you’ll be capable of having a discussion that isn’t an embarrassing display of your own inadequacies. Until then, keep projecting, it’s the only thing you’re consistent at.

 

This thread has devolved nicely. Let's push it another 60 pages.

(it's obvious to anyone with eyeballs that Usyk would school Rudy)

 

So obsessed……and so nutty….

From your vantage point you are clearly in no position to tell ANYONE ELSE to grow up.

Now that is laughable.

Re AD HOMINEM attacks: -

Among other things, you called someone an idiot earlier in this thread, another poster delusional and in your second to last post to me you called me an ignoramus.

You also suggested to another poster that they take a course in logic 101 AS IF your “logic” is sound??? That’s just a few examples.

Lol, so you’re persistently throwing stones whilst living in your glass house.

So you’re THAT guy who attempts to insult other posters (= ad hominem attacks) ONLY to switch after baiting to falsely posit yourself as a victim. Gotcha. Hypocrisy.

You see, I’ve even got you well and truly covered in the regard also. You’ve been throughly dismantled, from head to feet.

Obviously I don’t have to detail/repeat my thoroughly supported positions any further, it’s ALL already there.

Others can judge for themselves, you can’t do same because of your clear bias and obviously corrupted thinking .

Point by point, this has been akin to you saying the sky is pink, I say it is blue and prove to you that it is blue, only for you to comeback and say “Please address my point.” Mind boggling.

You are seriously out to lunch.

AND……as you’re foaming up at your own keyboard (as anyone else possibly reading could easily deduce), typing out yet another hot air reply you deludedly describe me as frothing??? Wow.

Lol, the classic case of the TRUE projector accusing others of what they themselves are repeatedly guilty of.

At any rate, I hope your keyboard is water proof.

As I called it ALREADY you are obsessed and clearly don’t cope at all when soundly refuted.

And yes, as and when applicable, you have been specifically and soundly refuted - not cherry picks but refuted on key aspects/cornerstones of your impossibly flawed positions.

Again, take the Pepsi challenge, expand it beyond you and I and see IF you can get anyone to agree with your wholly irrational and self contradicting positions.

It seems that is far too daunting a challenge for you and that says a lot.

I’m not interested to discuss with you any further - as I’ve made clear multiple times previously.

That’s another thing you’ve ignored, since you persist in attaching yourself to me like a barnacle.

You’re simply not coping with your positions having been debunked.

I can rest on my already, clearly supported positions….you on the other hand have to keep repeating yourself…and that actually screams insecurity.

Weird. Now run along…..