Usyk Better Than Holyfield? That is Insane

Saying that Usyk has a better resume than Holyfield in cruiserweight does not mean he's a better boxer, just that he has proved himself to be a better boxer at the weight.

 

Yes, you can only beat what's in front of you. But in terms of ranking "atg" you can only count what you have fought. And Usyk have the better resume at cruiser.

 

At Cruiser ?? No fella, hes moved on left his mark there, now you can clearly judge him...No1 Cruiser imo of all time, h2h with Holy would be close but Usyk has better legs, Usyk pulls away late

 

Usyk is a better CW than Holyfield, but Holy made his name at heavy, which Usyk is still to do. Personally I don't think this current division is memorable enough for Usyk to reach the same sorts of heights as Holyfield. No Lennox, no Tyson, no Foreman, no Bowe. Beating Wilder, Joshua, Fury, Ruiz and Parker would put him up there, no doubt, but I doubt it'll top Holyfield's achievements in the eyes of the public. There was just something special about that era which hasn't been replicated since.

 

Cruiserweight accomplishments are more or less irrelevent in my view as it's just not much of a global division. There are no atgs who fought soley at cw and there never will be

 

This is a good clear post.
I was always a fan of Haye, but at CW, he wasnt as strong as what he was at HW. At HW he could take a far bigger shot, but at CW, I think keeping the weight off weakened him.
I recall another well known British boxer saying after he retired that he was weak at the weight and went down due to weakness even though not overly hurt. In a fight I recall him winning.
I dont think Usyk or many other CWs at that have the amazing punch power of Haye (or Thompson), but think Usyk would have beaten him at CW due to Haye not being as durable at that weight.
It was never a planned thing but I was at several of the fights you listed there

 

Not sure if you remember the program back in the 80s where it used to have boys amateur boxing on TV
Red vests and blue vests

 

There probably isn't enough raw material for him to catch up with Holyfield at heavy, no - but when people say he's greater they clearly (at this point), obviously mean at cruiser. As for overall greatness, if Usyk manages to beat most of the upper echelon of current heavyweights (all the more so if he makes it to retirement undefeated without having ducked anyone), despite it being a weaker era than Holyfield's, then his CW+HW net greatness might just eke past Holy's sum on the strength of quantity x quality.

 

I think what gets massively forgotten or maybe younger posters dont realise but the CW division was lighter when Holyfield fought there to when Usyk was there.
I struggle to envisage Usyk struggling with a small former LHW blown up to CW like Holyfield did.
As for the stronger/weaker era at HW. I dont know. A thing I find is that if there are even level fights, people think it is a stronger era, where as when you have a dominant champ who clearly wins people dont rate it as highly.
At CW I think Usyk has claim to being the top CW but like everything when it is just opinion, it all comes down to debate

 

There's no mystery formula - stronger or weaker eras have nothing to do with how good the best handful of guys are (you can have a stacked façade but still be top-loaded with a large drop-off after some or all of the champs, and thus weak), nor (strictly) with the parity in a majority of fights between those in contention. What makes or breaks an era's strength is one thing: depth.

If the 15th ranked guy is, say, Dominic Breazeale - that isn't good.

30 years ago it was Gary Mason. Not great perhaps, but very good. Now, it can be subjective, I suppose, in that some of the modern scene proponents I'm sure will tout rationalizations for Breazeale defeating Mason... but that's rubbish from a vocal minority. People old enough to have watched a lot of the late 80's/early 90's scene in real time, or devout students of the game who've pored over footage and contemporary analysis, will know that in a time-travel match, Breazeale would lose to Mason 10x of ten.

 

I was very much watching Gary Mason when he was active.
Yes I am that old.

I think you misunderstood the point I was badly making.

Now I get what you are saying with breazeale and Mason even though it is not an example that I like for various reasons.

When you have several evenly matched fighters people assume due to great fights that it is a strong division.
For example some years back there was foreman, Ali, Frazier all active. Frazier beats Ali, who then loses to foreman who Ali beats and it makes for exciting match ups. It becomes a bit of a round Robin with each ones legacy partly dependent on the others achievements. Not completely

When you have one dominant champion people then tend to think its a weak division because of that where if you removed the dominant champion there would probably be several evenly matched fighters and people thinking it's a tougher era.

 

Lol

I'll give you Toney, but Qawi? Are you mad? Is it because he's not American?
Qawi was a good fighter at LHW in a stacked era but he's far from an Usyk level fighter.
In fact, to suggest otherwise is a ridiculous showing of bias.