It's an approximate but a realistic figure based on Boxrec stats. If 12-18% of the opponents of the following heavies are southpaws then it's 2-3x. Part of it depends whether you consider every career opponent or make a cutoff for the "bums", which is ofc subjective. Joshua for example: he's fought southpaws three times in 27 fights and two of his three losses have been to southpaws, so 11% has produced 67% of his defeats. He's an extreme example but the same applies to a lesser degree for many others. Another issue is do you count "out of prime" losses and how do you define them? Holyfield for instance lost twice to southpaws in his 40's out of the five losses but once in his 30's out of the five losses in that period, which is still a very high figure relative to the number of southpaws he fought in his 20's and 30's. Southpaws are hugely overrepresented as victors against top heavyweights - One of Holyfield's five losses in his 30's was to southpaw Moorer - One of Vitali's two losses was to southpaw Byrd - One of Wlad's four losses in his 20's and 30's was to southpaw Sanders - Two of Joshua's three losses have come against southpaw Usyk 5/14 or 36%: southpaws have beaten top heavyweights at 2-3 times the rate of orthodox fighters. - Even in defeat southpaws are often among the most competitive and dangerous opponents: Thompson vs Wlad 1, Ortiz vs Wilder 1, Wallin vs Fury - Holmes, Tyson, Bowe and Lewis never fought a southpaw of note as pros, Holmes was KO’d x2 by a future journeyman southpaw in the amateurs Southpaw heavyweights barely existed prior to the 90's, nobody wanted to fight them (hence most historical heavyweights were untested against them) and some of the most accomplished southpaw heavyweights have been former sub-cruisers.
Not fighting an elite southpaw is a factor for sure. Guess what else is a factor? Not having fought a small and relentless pressure fighter before. One who you can’t dissuade with a great jab or huge power. Usyk would have nothing for Mike. He had nothing to dissuade Mike from relentlessly pursuing him at every opportunity. Nothing to keep him off of him. How many examples have you got of Mike fouling himself out, from his entire career? Mike’s engine was fine when he was fit and fighting to his full capabilities. And his power and aggression would have backed Usyk up. Usyk isn’t Superman. Sure, he’s an amazing fighter. However, every fighter has a ceiling, and every fighter has a stylistic nemesis. If you’re not a master boxer yourself, then trying to box Usyk is a huge mistake. Not many fighters past or present would have had success against Usyk in a chess match. Mike wouldn’t have boxed Usyk though. Mike would have fought Usyk. Up close, on the inside. He’d have fought him aggressively and minimised his time and space. That’s what Frazier would have done too. I’m not even saying that Frazier would have beaten him. Only that it would have been tough match up for him. If you want to say that Mike and Frazier never fought or beat an elite southpaw, then again, I take that onboard. But again, Usyk has never fought a pressure fighter like Frazier and Mike before. If you want to think that Usyk is untouchable, then go and rewatch the Mairis Briedis fight, where he caused Usyk huge issues with his style. Joe Frazier would have given him a great fight.
"Not fighting an elite southpaw is a factor for sure." Exactly, it blows the "stylistic" argument out of the water. And it's not that they never fought an elite southpaw, they didn't fight southpaws period, at least as pros. So they'd be worse at fighting them than fighters are nowadays who have a lot more practice. And fighters today struggle badly with southpaws, let alone the GOAT HW southpaw. "small and relentless pressure fighter before" Usyk's output is far superior to Frazier's and even more so than Tyson's, he wasn't "relentless". He had great early rounds in him against guys who weren't durable, mentally tough or defensively skilled enough to weather the storm. But many did and far inferior fighters to Usyk, who could also nullify Tyson and wear him out with clinching as the considerably bigger man. "Mike fouling himself out, from his entire career?" He started fouling petulantly after the first round iirc against 31-8, 208 lbs Tillis. Against Usyk it would be amplified further due to the tribalism. He'd find himself under more adversity than he'd ever experienced (gassing out after 4 rounds and being target practice for the southpaw HW GOAT in front of his American fans) and a quitjob would be very possible. Plus Tyson was an A-side fighter with conditions tailored to his preferences; in a hypothetical H2H fight it's neutral, which is a big disadvantage for Tyson and an advantage for road warrior Usyk. "every fighter has a stylistic nemesis" Some will do better than others and a few have a good/decent chance to win but Usyk is a historically unique fighter, his combination of attributes are unprecedented. It was no coincidence that after good southpaw HW's started to exist in the 90's, they soon went on to beat Holyfield, Vitali, Wlad and Joshua. Fighters from pre-90's eras are at a massive disadvantage immediately against southpaw Usyk, who is also iron chinned, has the GOAT CW/HW engine, mentally rock solid, GOAT CW/HW skills. It's an insane combination. Briedis lost 7-5 to Usyk in his backyard on the official cards, cool. But he was an excellent modern cruiserweight champion and did better than athletic, skilled SHW Joshua, who is one of the 6 most accomplished heavyweights of the last 20 years. Briedis wasn't some chinny featherfisted 195 lbs Euro champ and you didn't need to be Usyk to beat Holyfield or Vitali, only ex-LHW Moorer or self-described "blown up SMW" Byrd.
It doesn’t blow the stylistic argument out of the water at all. Yes, southpaws cause orthodox fighters issues. Sometimes huge issues. But they’re not aliens from another planet. As per usual, you only ever look from the perspective that suits your agenda. Yes, from the orthodox fighters perspective, again, southpaws can be very problematic. But from the southpaw’s perspective, an orthodox fighter with a certain style can also be very problematic. It goes both ways, for either fighter. So, yes. Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier never fought an elite southpaw like Usyk. However, much lesser fighters than Tyson and Frazier have caused Usyk issues. Again, everyone has a stylistic nemesis. Wlad Klitschko was hammered by Corrie Sanders, yet easily beat Chris Byrd. James Toney beat prime versions of Reggie Johnson, Michael Nunn and Vassily Jirov. There is nothing special about Briedis. Yet he caused Usyk huge issues. Saying that Usyk would have beaten Mike Tyson, on the grounds that Tyson had never beaten a southpaw, is stupid. Which elite southpaws had Briedis beaten? Briedis isn’t an ATG, yet he troubled Usyk with his style. He fought Usyk up close, on the inside. So if an inferior fighter to Mike can have success, then so could Mike. You couldn’t have wrote off his chances just because he hadn’t fought a southpaw. It’s just complete nonsense. Again, look from Usyk’s perspective too. Usyk had nothing to have kept Mike Tyson at bay. There is nothing to suggest that Tyson would have fouled and then folded after a few rounds. You can say that Usyk’s size and style would have been a shock to Mike, but the exact same thing would have applied to Usyk. If you think that Frazier and Tyson would have been a cakewalk, then you’re a fool.
I wouldn't go that far. Briedis is a 3x CW champion, made the finals and then won the Super Series at CW, was The Ring's #1 CW for years and both of his losses are 5-7 by fan consensus. He also did better than Joshua did either time vs Usyk. I'm not saying Usyk is nigh-unbeatable, but Briedis is very good, and Usyk beating him is one of the best, if not the best, CW win ever.
I meant that he’s not an ATG fighter, on the level of Mike Tyson. In comparison to Mike, he’s nothing special. Yes, of course he’s a quality fighter. The point I was making, is that every fighter has a stylistic nemesis. Briedis was inferior to Mike, but he caused Usyk huge issues by fighting him hard on the inside. Mike would also have found success with his skills, speed, size and power. A combination that Usyk has never seen before.
Well said. It's still about a particular clash of styles, a fighter's stance is just one of many dynamics than can factor into the bigger equation.
"Yes, southpaws cause orthodox fighters issues. Sometimes huge issues. But they’re not aliens from another planet." No one said that they were "aliens from another planet". But southpaws are objectively much more difficult opponents for orthodox fighters, even those who have fought and sparred a lot of them post-90's, let alone those who have never fought a southpaw in their professional careers. It stands to reason that those with zero experience will struggle a lot more and those with a lot of experience typically struggle plenty: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...gainst-top-heavyweights.700438/#post-22204921 So picking any of these old fighters to beat Usyk is baseless. How can people pick for example Holmes to beat Usyk when he never fought a southpaw in 75 pro fights and got KO'd twice by a future journeyman southpaw in the amateurs? (his only two amateur KO defeats) The weight of evidence suggests that he'd have minimal chance. "So, yes. Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier never fought an elite southpaw like Usyk." They probably never fought ANY SOUTHPAWS as pros, let alone a decent/good southpaw heavyweight, let alone the best ever. Don't try and downplay the facts just because there's zero evidence that your favourite fighter from 50 or 70 years ago could beat the HW southpaw GOAT in a *fantasy matchup*. "However, much lesser fighters than Tyson and Frazier have caused Usyk issues." I would say that much lesser fighters than Usyk beat Tyson and Frazier and much lesser fighters than Usyk also caused them problems. "Which elite southpaws had Briedis beaten? Briedis beat former top 10 ranked heavyweight southpaw Perez 8-4 on the cards prior to Usyk and KO'd former cruiserweight champion southpaw Glowacki in 3 post-Usyk. Neither were elite but they were decent/good southpaws, far better than any southpaw Tyson or Frazier fought in their entire pro careers. Briedis also no doubt sparred a lot of southpaws, including Usyk years prior to their fight! "Briedis isn’t an ATG, yet he troubled Usyk with his style." Briedis may well have been an "ATG" if you could transport him back in time with his advantages. He was a 3x cruiserweight champion and Ring champion who schooled and one-punch KO'd 245 lbs Vitali title challenger Charr at heavyweight, schooled the joint longest reigning cruiserweight champion Huck, outhustled title challenger Perez, KO'd reigning 2x cruiserweight champion Glowacki and schooled reigning 2x cruiserweight champion Dorticos, along with giving future undisputed cruiserweight champion, heavyweight champion and 2x Joshua conqueror Usyk his toughest and closest fight. Briedis has never been dropped in 30 fights and never been stopped. So he's an elite fighter and he still lost to former sparring adversary Usyk by a 7-5 margin in Latvia, which is probably the best win in the 44 year history of the cruiserweight division. "Usyk had nothing to have kept Mike Tyson at bay." Usyk was able to hurt 256 lbs Chisora and 240 lbs Joshua. Even light punching sub-cruiser Byrd was able to hit hard enough to slow down and deter iron-chinned Tua. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that a modern 6'3, 220 lbs heavyweight champion doesn't hit hard enough to wear anyone out with accumulation and movement. Tyson wouldn't be able to damage Usyk significantly due to Usyk's defensive abilities (which can be seen in round 9 against Joshua 2 when AJ's throwing the kitchen sink at Usyk and doing no significant damage), southpaw stance and iron chin. He would also be far easier to nullify and drain with holding than behemoths like Chisora and Joshua. So after a few rounds he would have blown his gas tank trying to get Usyk out of there and the objectively vastly superior output of Usyk would take over. Tyson simply doesn't have the engine to beat Usyk, beyond some hypothetical punchers chance scenario but Usyk's shown a phenomenal chin over 376 fights and prime Tyson failed to KO quite a number of guys didn't he? Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Smith, Tucker, Douglas, Ruddock. How many guys with a lot of mental strength, solid chins, good engines, who were in or around their prime, not drug addicts and not journeymen did Tyson ever beat, never mind KO? I bet you could count them on one hand with fingers to spare. Let's also factor in that Usyk is a road warrior while Tyson was a privileged A-side fighter. A neutral event would favour Usyk and disfavour Tyson relative to their regular fights. "There is nothing to suggest that Tyson would have fouled and then folded after a few rounds." It wouldn't be the first time against a former cruiserweight champion: This content is protected Tyson had a lot of racial pride as a young man and he was extremely emotionally volatile. He also showed a tendency to foul stupidly when Tillis stood up to him earlier in his career. So a fight with Usyk (his only non-journeyman white opponent) would have very likely brought out the worst in him and if things were going against him, he'd look to foul his way out rather than be humiliated by the Soviet. "If you think that Frazier and Tyson would have been a cakewalk, then you’re a fool." Tyson would have been a difficult 3-4 rounds that turned into a one-sided boxing lesson. Frazier is too far removed from the present day to take seriously as a hypothetical threat to Usyk (along with his zero southpaw experience), like Marciano.
