He'd have a lot to adapt to. A lot of it is the old gloves, that allowed much more grappling, (which the refs would allow it too). It really changes how they defended a lot, having to use leverage blocks instead of covering up, though he's good at slipping, so maybe he'd rely on that. Still he has a good ring IQ. Some of the stuff like less hand protection and the longer fights, I'm not sure how to tell how well he'd deal with. I couldn't see him being any less than one of the top contenders. I don't see him having much of a chance against Jack Johnson. I have a hard time seieng him beat Jeffries. Corbett in 1900 I think Usyk would win after taking some punishment early on. Fitz, I'm really not sure on. These could all change as his career plays out. Edit: I ought to include some others. I'd pick him over Burns. Give him the edge against Jeannette. I think he'd outbox McVea. I think a lot depends how well he adjusts defensively, if he didn't at all for what ever reasons, then under those conditions I think he'd lose to them all. I think he'd make reasonable adjustments though, and it's the grappling I see being the biggest issue.
He would be the best boxer out there and a big man. The only question is how would he do in 20-25 rounds fights, and what type of chin would he have with those lighter gloves? I think he'd beat Corbett, Fitz, Hart, Burns, and Johnson on points or stoppage. If he can take power shots and keep up his pace over 20-25 rounds, he'd beat Jeffries too, but those questions are unanswered presently.
As I see it, the only boxer from the 1900s, who would be a problem for Usyk is Johnson. I find it very difficult to rate Johnson, because he was so "different". He was physically strong, and maybe his grab and clinch style, would prevent Usyk from doing much. Maybe!… but it's also possible that Usyk would easily outbox him. I don't really know, what to think!
From what I’ve seen so far he’d have a hard time fighting in 1900-1910. Besides Bellew most of Usyk’s opponents have been shot fighters or novices, which would’nt be the case if Usyk went back in time and fought in that era. I also see his southpaw stance being a huge liability. Bellew was landing right hand counters at will on Usyk, but didn’t do any roadwork work for the fight and gassed out and Bellew has always had a weak chin. Langford, Tommy Burns, Jack Johnson, and Jeffries would all beat Usyk.
Usyk is at a disadvantage as boxing was almost a different sport then. Would kind of be like expecting the Warriors today to compete against the 60s Celtics. Different rules despite the new age team being more physically gifted. Edge to 1900s greats. Now bring those guys into today and the opposite is true. Imo anyway.
The Warriors today would crush the 60s Celtics under any rules or conditions (as long as they had advance notice).
I’m not sure about that. No three point line, they didn’t call fouls like they do now, defense was a lot more physical (something no one would be used to), The warriors would be lost as every offensive set they’d run would be called for an offensive foul, traveling or just plain inefficient. Different game completely. But I think they would do a lot better against them in their time then vice versa. The thought of Bill Russell guarding Durant is interesting.
I disagree and I don't think it would even be close. The Warriors are stronger, faster, and more skilled. I think they would do just fine in a rougher game with fewer foul calls (not sure why you think they would be inefficient or called for offensive fouls though). They're much better athletes pulled from a much, much greater talent pool. Knowledge about basketball technique and strategy has improved dramatically over the past half century. They would outshoot the Celtics and kill them on the boards. They would rack up steals and blocked shots too. Complete mismatch. Russell would have never seen a big man with Durant's moves and versatility. Probably wouldn't be able to stop Durant any more than he was able to stop Wilt (for mostly different reasons).
these "discussions" become more ridiculous all the time. It's like discussing whether a Stanley Steamer was faster than a new Ferrari. The 60s Celtics might get shut out by the modern Warriors and they'd still do better than the early 1900s heavyweights would do against Usyk.
We normally get thread creep, but this has gone off topic within the first half of first page. I can't wait for an engaging discussion on evaluating the merits of Andrew Jackson's presidency or whatever random topic this thread settles on.
I'm curious how people see Usyk having a chance against Johnson, under the rules of the day. Johnson was more than just a grappler, you can see it when he was past it against Moran and Willard. But even if he was, the Usyk would just be torn to shreds on the inside. You're never going to stop the fight getting in close, if nothing else someone can just rush in. The boxers of the day all trained wrestling heavilly, it's not just something that can be picked up mid fight on the fly. And even ones who knew what they were doing were played with by Johnson. Sticking Jeffries hands behind his back. How to grab someone's arm effectively for leverage, to to then use that to set up punches, and switch between grappling and punching to your advantage. It's just not skills a modern boxer will have, because it's no longer part of boxing. So your sending someone in missing a key part of the skills to be a boxer then, against someone who was maybe the best in that area. It'd be a massacre.
