Usyk vs Lennox

He doesn't have better footwork and he's not as skilled at close range or long range. Aj might move his head more but there isn't much separating their head movement and Lewis is more defensively effective by simply blocking or stepping back.

Lewis is more skilled with better punch selection and definitely has the superior jab even if aj has better fundamentals, so i disagree aj doesn't have better technique

 

Punch selection falls under boxing iq. Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

Lewis has a bigger toolkit, Lewis has more ability at long range and close range. He is just straight up more skilled.

Better fundamentals ≠ more technical skill. Lewis would have the better technique. Help me understand why you disagree with this

 

Exactly, even ignoring resume and looking at skill. What does aj and Fury do better ? Nobody wants to explain for some reason

Fury has better head movement feints more and can switch stances, but he's offensively poor in comparison, doesn't block as often, can't disguise his right hand like Lennox and their lead hands aren't as multi faceted. Lewis would KO both of them, especially aj that might be a mismatch

 

Got to the line '…faster and slicker than Lewis ever was' and that said it all --- you can't actually know what you're talking about.

For the record, I never asked for a comparison; I only pointed out that your reaching for Mercer was somewhat impractical. You chose that fight for a single Top Trumps stat to wave around, without considering any other qualifying factors.

It's difficult to sustain a sensible discussion with someone who relies on one out-of-context statistic and builds convenient caricatures of the fighters involved.

So why should I address any more of your points when, 1) you haven't addressed any of mine, and 2) you haven't said anything meaningful to respond to?

 

The problem with the word technique is that it is too broad a term, from which several different attributes can be inferred --- even if the speaker never intended them.

If it is meant to refer to boxing fundamentals, then it is probably better to use the word "fundamentals". Technique can and really should evolve beyond the basics; not be confined to a narrow, textbook ideal.

Every great boxer ultimately developed their own technique(s) in ways that suited their style and needs. In this respect, Lewis refined his techniques to a level that clearly surpassed Joshua’s.

 

You literally didn’t say anything this whole time, you are just making snarky remarks and typing long sentences that don’t actually mean anything. I said Lewis was lumbering with bad defense and brought up the Mercer match and how much he got hit in there against a limited slugger with a bit of a jab. You said this doesn’t mean anything as styles make fights and I asked you what makes you think he is gonna do any better against Usyk. And from then on you didn’t even give any arguments. You didn’t elaborate on anything, you didn’t explain how Mercer’s style helped him more than Usyk’s would despite me asking you and your response to me saying Usyk beating similar big stiff HWs with power (Dubois, AJ etc) and HWs faster and slicker than Lewis (Fury) is just making another snarky comment about how I don’t know anything. Don’t respond if you are not gonna actually argue.

 

You continually miss the mark...

1. I countered your Mercer statistic with 'Did Mercer win?'
2. I pointed out that Lewis/Mercer was a "toe-to-toe anomaly", not typical of a Lewis fight.
3. I challenged your '60% jab stat' as Top Trumps-style analysis.
4. I highlighted that a Lewis/Usyk fight wouldn't remotely resemble Lewis/Mercer.

Just how much acknowledgement did you think your analysis deserved? Especially, when you have deliberately chosen not to engage with any of those points and claim you couldn't find another comparison. Your replies have been rightly dismissed because they're either circular or simply poor additions to an already weak take.

If you don't know enough about Lewis, then say so. Because, as it stands, it appears as though you've barely watched him.

Joshua and Dubois might be big, but neither compares to Lewis in terms of overall quality. Just off the top of my head, Lewis had the better jab, better combinations, was more fluid, more versatile and had better composure, as well as all-round adaptability.

Fury being 'faster and slicker than Lewis' is a caricature you have created. His decline post-Wilder III - arguably even from Wilder II - was evident to anyone with eyes, and even at his peak, much of his work was sloppy, dragging out fights that might have been ended much sooner.

Lewis had faster hands than most modern heavyweights, a far sounder basis on which to express his natural ability, and a much broader arsenal as a result. Your depiction of Lewis is so far off the mark that it doesn't warrant a serious reply.


Let's circle back to your initial ‘comprehensive' analysis:

You don't realize how bad of a take that is, yet you seem to believe it warrants credence.

Meanwhile, Usyk has regularly given ground to the likes of Briedis, Bellew, and Chisora - even Joshua, with his perennially tentative approach, found a way to push Usyk back at times. Usyk takes shots regularly. He loses rounds regularly. And even a flat-footed, clowning, burnout version of Fury made him look ordinary for a good spell of their first fight.

But according to you, a proven guy and class act like Lewis gets picked off, without response, all night long --- and now you're whining because you're not being taken seriously.

Be serious, and we'll have a serious debate. Until then, your commentary is fair game.

 

Not as much as Lewis lol