"AJ was very easy to hit for Usyk. But Mike’s small stature..." Was Tyson hard to hit for non-great Tucker? Or non-great Tillis? Or journeyman Ribalta? Or non-great Douglas? Or non-great Ruddock? Even Holmes, Tubbs and Thomas had their successes before they were bombed out. He'd be even easier to hit for Usyk, who is better than all of those fighters and Mike's defensive manoeuvres were suited to evading and countering orthodox opponents, so logically far less effective against a southpaw; a class of fighters he never trained to fight. "A non great CW who was tough" If Briedis isn't a great cruiserweight on ability then there are only two at most in the 44 year history of the division. I would say Briedis is a lot more skilled than Tyson (in terms of versatility), taller and longer than Tyson, fitter than Tyson, more mentally robust than Tyson, likely more durable than Tyson, more disciplined than Tyson and certainly far more experienced against southpaws than Tyson, having sparred Usyk years prior and beaten former top 10 Ring ranked heavyweight Perez over 12 in his previous fight. And Briedis had home advantage, whereas Tyson specialised in home and A-side advantage, which he wouldn't get in a fantasy matchup, worsening his performance relative to his irl fights. Had Spinks, Moorer and Byrd remained LHW's would anyone have picked them to beat Holmes, Holyfield or Vitali? Would they have even been great, Moorer and Byrd in particular? There are many potential reasons why cruisers (who are at less of a disadvantage obviously) don't move up, beyond Dubblechin's absurdly simplistic "They know they can't compete or they'd go for the cash and status at HW". It's totally feasible that had Briedis moved back up to heavyweight and looked to challenge (assuming he wasn't ducked chronically, as he would have been) he could have picked up a major scalp and would be seen as a significantly greater cruiserweight than he is. You didn't answer a key question of mine, which is: how many opponents did Tyson defeat who were very durable, with great engines, massive confidence and determination, elite skills (in Usyk's case probably the best ever at CW/HW), who were in our around their primes, who were not known alcohol/crack/smack abusers? While Tyson was clearly a very dangerous fighter I regard him as the most overhyped fighter in boxing history. The delusion surrounding him was so extreme that people believed he was still invincible after "fringe contender" Douglas destroyed him and he'd spent 4 years in prison and still favoured him over Holyfield after he'd been destroyed in the first fight.
"ATG" doesn't mean "would compete in any era", it means they were very significant in their own time. They could be rubbish against elite fighters now or 100 years in the future H2H but they may well be "greater". "I’ve already acknowledged that it would have been a factor" Judging by the stats I've shown you and common sense it would be an enormous factor. Even in this era where there's plenty of southpaw sparring and more southpaws to fight prior to fighting the best ones we see top fighters struggling with them at wildly disproportionate rates. Fighters in the past would struggle a lot worse as they had little to no experience. It would likely be insurmountable when you have a fighter as elite in so many respects as Usyk, who is vastly superior to Moorer, Byrd or Sanders (who toppled 3 "ATG's" themselves). You assume Frazier or Tyson would be able to deal with it with only a relatively slight disadvantage but it's unrealistic and for all you know they would struggle terribly. "Southpaws Wlad Klitschko fought before he’d fought Byrd? NONE." Completely wrong. Wlad had fought three prior to Byrd (Koch, Shaheed, Chingangu) and he had his brother to give him the inside track on what to expect. And Byrd was a sub-cruiser who was totally outgunned physically by skilled athletic powerhouse SHW Wlad, not so much by Vitali. "Your guy could barely beat an inferior, non great CW in his prime." Your guy got destroyed by a 42-1 fringe contender in his prime and never beat anyone as big or accomplished as Joshua, let alone as the B-side, let alone twice. "Maybe if Mike had beaten Perez, it may have changed your opinion?" Tyson chinning Perez in a round or two wouldn't give him much southpaw experience and you ignored the fact that Briedis and Usyk had sparred extensively years prior. Plus in many respects, Briedis was better than Tyson, which only sounds silly because he never made a concerted run at HW. "Spinks/Moorer/Byrd would probably beat Holmes/Holyfield/Vitali if he moved up" also would have sounded silly before it happened. Heavyweights (Mike Tyson more than anyone) have historically been very overrated in these matchups. "Mike wouldn’t have needed to have knocked out Usyk in order to have won." Tyson wouldn't have enough engine to win over 12 against Usyk. The stamina difference is absurd. Take away Tyson's A-side advantage, put him against the GOAT CW and southpaw HW and his stamina would be even worse. "Tyson's engine was fine in the Ruddock fight" Ruddock was a mediocrity. "A computer punch count had Tyson landing 206 of 449 punches and Ruddock 124 of 246." Tyson was always on the lower output side, Compubox shows him slowing down after 3-4 rounds. "Usyk had nothing to have stopped Mike from pressuring him at every opportunity. Nothing to have deterred him from pouring forward." Tyson's pressure was determined by his stamina, which would have been suffocated by Usyk's output, movement and defence. Much like Joshua throwing the kitchen sink at Usyk in round 9 of the rematch, before losing 10-12. "You can also name on NO HANDS, all of the guys who Usyk broke down, who even resembled a prime Mike Tyson." Tyson was essentially the 5'10, 71 inch reach, 215 lbs Joshua. They are pretty much the same guy, though Tyson was more hyped up. Uncanny parallels between Mike Tyson and Anthony Joshua 1. Both were undefeated champions with 3 year reigns, knocking almost everyone out 2. Both KO'd an ageing ATG former lineal champion who'd been dethroned by a 4/1 underdog on points and was returning from an extended layoff 3. Both suffered historically massive upset defeats to one-hit wonders who lost the belts in their first defences after not preparing properly and blowing-up 15 lbs 4. Both came back and became champions again but didn't seem to be the same fighters they once were and had much shorter second reigns 5. Their second reigns were ended by ATG cruiserweights in fights they were expected to win and they lost the immediate rematches, resulting in public meltdowns 6. Both were overhyped and exposed as on-top fighters who lacked mental fortitude in the tough moments "there’s no such thing as someone being far too removed from the present day. What a stupid statement that is, as though there’s some sort of cut off or something. SMH. Absolutely ridiculous. Styles make fights. And it’ll always be that way. Frazier was a pressure fighter..." In 50 years heavies Fury's size might be on the smaller side of the heavyweight division. Maybe the future king will be 7'1, 315 lbs but skilled and athletic, with a granite chin and massive power. Clowns like you will still be coming out with your fantasy matchups about how Muricans like midget Mike Thaison or whoever else from the "golden era" 100 years ago would beat him.
82/452 jabs, 239/453 power for Usyk against Hunter, who landed 190; 72/376 jabs, 118/418 power 365 of Frazier's connects were power shots with only 13 jabs, Ali landed 135 jabs, 195 power Usyk threw about 50% more punches than Frazier in 80% of the time against a skilled and mobile opponent who also threw a ton back. And Usyk is perpetually using feints and movement. Mercifully, Ali was not a big puncher; when Frazier had to absorb big punches (similar to the kind Usyk was able to absorb for 12 rounds against 6'5.5, 245 lbs Joshua, when he was hit clean), Frazier was folded up inside two rounds. I also don't know if being hit so much was a virtue, your defence isn't great if you're being hit almost at will. We get crazier and crazier punch stat figures these days, despite bigger heavies than ever fighting other big heavies, which should reduce output. Ike was regarded as a cardio freak in the 90's (he and Tua broke the previous record despite being a lot heavier then the 70's heavies) but Joyce is 26-36 lbs heavier and throws even more! 267 lbs, heavier than ever, 42 year old Tony Thompson threw 1000+ punches over 12 rounds against Solis (he had been done for PED's in one of the Price fights and said they should be legal because "everyone does them").
You are too biased to discuss this rationally. For example, you talk about Usyk's perpetual movement, yet give no mention that Frazier was perpetual movement over 15 rounds throwing very few jabs, all power punches - and there is a big difference in the power Joes throws all fight long. Frazier threw 618 much harder power punches over 15 rds while getting beat up far far worse than Usyk has ever experienced yet you ignore all of this and make it sound like Usyk was under the same fire from Hunter. Ali was much bigger than Joe and put him in the hospital! He gave Frazier a tremendous beating. You have no idea if Usyk could stretch his punch percentages into the championship rounds, yet you speak like it's a fact.You're simply negating everything about Frazier, making assumptions and being generally irrational.
You're trying to bring as much ambiguity into the situation as possible rather than stepping back and looking at the big picture. Heavyweights are much larger these days and often fight very large opponents (which should drain their cardio more), yet can throw more punches in fights than they used to. There was no 6'5.5, 271 lbs man with the 1000 punches over 12 rounds engine against a 6'3, 255 lbs former titlist in those days. The "15 rounds" argument is no different to saying that we've got no idea if Ali and Frazier could compete with fighters 120 years ago who sometimes did 50 rounders, or making the matchup vs Usyk in a 5 round WSB fight. More rounds = slower pace, fewer = faster. Though more rounds also typically = more punches thrown as there's more time spent battling, even though greater pacing over the course is more necessary. I'm finding it hard to locate Compubox stats for many of Ali's fights, they took down the old way of finding them on the website and they are not freely available in many cases. These were the stats from the Ali-Norton 3 15 rounder: This content is protected Apparently there were 233-171 landed in the first fight in favour of Norton but I don't know how many were thrown. Very likely fewer than the 1344 figure given for the 15 round trilogy fight though, with 480 landed. Whereas Usyk and Hunter clocked 1699 between them over 12, with 511 landing.
You can throw all the numbers, weights & measurements out the window when it comes to boxing ability, which Holmes had very much more of than Usyk. This is my opinion of course, not fact.
Usyk on points, but out of all the old 70s crew I think Frazier matches up the least favourably for him. If you look at all the fighters Usyk struggled against, amateur, WSB and pro it's always been the smaller, stockier come forward guys. Beterviev, Nistor, Medhidov and Chisora all gave him issues, and while he won all those fights he looked less than comfortable doing so. Frazier's plodding feet and somewhat predictable style would likely see him figured out somewhere down the line, but I can see a lot of hairy moments for Usyk where he's forced to hang on or shell up against the ropes against a rampaging Frazier.
haha, this is the Classic forum philosophy in a nutshell. people clinging to Bert Sugaresque mythologising and ignoring facts.
Redbeard7, There’s a huge difference between being hit, and the punches being effective. Yes, of course Mike was hit in those fights. It’s a boxing match. Likewise, Usyk has been hit in every one of his fights. Most of those guys you mentioned didn’t have much success. Yes, Usyk is better skilled than all of those guys. But this is boxing. Where as you know, styles make fights. So although they were less skilled than Usyk, some of them matched up better stylistically. A guy like Ruddock was extremely strong and powerful. So he could go to war with Mike, in a way that Usyk couldn’t have done. Usyk is a phenomenal boxer with great skills. But he only has respectable power. It doesn’t matter if you believe that he was more skilled than Mike. It’s how they’d have matched up on the night. No, he wouldn’t have been easy for Usyk to have hit, simply because Mike’s power and aggression would more than likely have put him into continual defensive positions. Stop embarrassing yourself man. This is absolutely cringeworthy. If Mike had fought that guy, he’d have been a nobody to you. But seeing as though he gave Usyk a great fight, you now have to hype him up as much as possible. It’s pathetic. No, he wasn’t more skilled or versatile than Mike. It’s theoretically possible of course, but he’s not an outstanding fighter with great qualities. To my knowledge, nobody has stopped him from going up. Why would he have been chronically ducked? Yes, nobody fits that specific set of criteria. Just like nobody fits mine in the question that I posed to you. This is your issue though. Because of this, you show an emotional bias towards him. In all my years as a boxing fan, I’ve hardly ever been able to have an objective debate of Mike’s career. Because 90% of the time, I’ve found two groups of people: Group A Group B Group A state: That a prime Mike Tyson would have beaten anyone in history, and that he’d never have been undefeated had Cus not died. Group B state: That Mike only ever fought bums, and that he folded at the very first sign of adversity. So to me, Mike is both horribly overrated, and horribly underrated. It depends on what’s been claimed. But I know for sure that a faction of his fans upset you, which heavily influences your posts. I’m a guy who always debates on logic though. I have no issue if you personally rank Usyk higher, or if you believe that he possesses a bigger skill set. I wouldn’t even argue with you. However, whatever you think of Mike and his fans, it’s completely and utterly realistic of you to claim that Usyk would have humiliated him after 4 rounds. Using your terminology, it’s an absurd claim to make. It is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. Because once again, Usyk could not have stopped Mike from aggressively pursuing him. It would have been a very tough match up for him stylistically.
When you guys throw all these numbers around with no context, they are worthless facts. Orthodox fighters generally have problems with southpaws, this is true. But when the percentage fanboys assume Holmes wouldn't have the intelligence to deal with a lefty and would have his ATG jab nullified simply because of Usyk's stance and some stats, then you're the one creating myth.
Redbeard7, Great fighters could compete in any era. They would both win and lose, depending on who they fought and how they matched up stylistically. Once again, you are only focusing from the perspective of the orthodox fighter. You simply won’t allow for styles, and look at all of the other relevant factors. It’s all one way with you. If no ATG HW had ever faced a southpaw, you couldn’t honestly claim that because of that, that it would be absurd to pick any HW in history over Usyk. A guy who’s only had 4 pro fights at the weight. Ha! You’ve scrolled through BoxRec to find those guys. They were domestic level fighters. Non world class guys. Have you been through Toney’s resume too? He’d never seen anyone who resembled the great Michael Nunn before. We can go back and forth all day. I focus on styles, not statistics with zero context applied. Mike Tyson would have knocked out Joshua. He wasn’t better than Mike. Just stop. There was no issues with his stamina when he was fighting to his full capabilities. Sure, he was a mediocrity. Why? Because it disproves your opinion? This really amuses me, because I know that if Usyk had beaten him, you’d be no doubt telling us all now how big and powerful he was etc. You described Chisora as a behemoth yesterday. You are making the huge assumption that Usyk would have unleashed huge volume upon Mike. But it’s far more logical to believe that Mike’s style would have reduced his output. There were similarities for sure. But not as fighters. I’m a knowledgeable fan of the sport. I’m not ignorant like you. I debate on styles, not on the dates of the eras. I’m educated enough to know that any great fighter from any era, would have been able to have beaten any other great fighter from any era. A guy like Mike would have had mixed success in any era. He’d have won fights and lost fights. In 100 years, what will happen?? Will the fighters have extra arms or something?? Fights will always be determined by how the 2 fighters match up on the night stylistically. That will never change. There’s only 2 arms on each fighter, with only a certain amount of punches to be thrown. So my guess would be, that whoever the best 10 HW’s are in the future, the ATG’s greats of the past would have mixed results against them, again, depending on how they’d have match up on the night stylistically. If you’re going to ignorantly assume that all future HW’s will be better than everyone who came before them, then you are the one who’s the clown.
Frazier has a thin resume and was bounced off the canvas like a basketball by a guy the same size as Usyk. He's no monster and he doesn't have the stamina advantage against Usyk he enjoyed against the rest of his resume.
