Was Usyk Unbeatable At Cruiserweight ?

Their’s a huge difference between being the best H2H fighter ever , and being unbeatable.

 

Of those to have competed in an official CW division, I'd make him 50/50 vs prime Holyfield at 200lbs.

I'd make him favourite over everyone else, but would make a few live underdogs. For example, I'd give Haye a punchers chance early.

 

I appreciate your wider point, though to answer your question I think Sanders was the ring magazines #3 contender going into his fight with Vitali, whilst Peter was ranked #2 prior to their fight. I think Ortiz was #5 going into Wilder 1, which is the highest he ever achieved.

I appreciate that's not definitive proof that Sanders and Peter were better than Ortiz, but I think a credible argument can be made that they were.

 

It was a good thread until yesterday. Not your fault.

 

Unbeatable is too strong.

I think I favour him over Holyfield though which is as high a compliment as any boxer can ever receive tbf.

Wouldn't hesitate to pick Joe Louis over him, oh wow that gives me an idea.

BRB.

 

Stiverne was 3rd ranked by Ring, 2nd contender omitting Wlad. I don't regard that as good evidence he was better than Ortiz, judging by their career performances I'd say that Ortiz was a much better fighter than Stiverne.

Sanders was out of shape with 1 good round in him and had been KO'd by Rahman in a war 4 years prior. A fresher Peter than the one who fought Vitali had taken a bad 12 round beating (albeit with success) from a career low point Wlad, got a controversial points win over Toney and was dropped 3 times by McCline over 12, who was also in a rough patch in his career. Were they better than 30-0 Ortiz, who 2 years prior had outboxed and stopped Jennings and 4.5 years later at 43, with 2 KO defeats, would go 50-50 over 12 rounds with Ruiz? I don't think they were. I'd argue that a fresh, determined, well-conditioned Chisora was the best opponent Vitali ever beat and he certainly pushed Vitali the hardest of anyone since Lewis.

 

I agree that Ortiz was better than Stiverne and take your point on the rings rankings not being definitive, as id specified they weren't.

I don't think Sanders ever excelled at being in shape, he scored what was by far his career best win in his previous fight, though.

Peter was a 30-1 belt holder with the sole defeat being scored 114-111 x 3 vs Wlad.

I don't think either Sanders nor Peter were great fighters, but neither is Ortiz. Sanders best win is Wlad, Peter is perhaps Maskeav. What is Ortiz's? Jennings?

I consider Sanders, Peter, Johnson, Hide and Donald as better than Chisora. Maybe even Bean and Arreloa on a similar level. Granted Chisora was more competitive than all (though Sanders was more dangerous early), but Vitali was 40 and clearly faded by the time he fought Dereck.

 

"I consider Sanders, Peter, Johnson, Hide and Donald as better than Chisora"

This is a good example of the chronic bias that exists in favour of past eras. Hide (awful chin) and Johnson (turned up looking like a whale) got stopped in 2 rounds, whereas Sprott-victim Hoffman took Vitali 12 around the same time. Chisora was equal or better in determination (didn't quit), durability (didn't get hurt or dropped) and conditioning/discipline (12 rounds at a good pace) than all of the guys you listed as supposedly being better. With A-side advantage or even neutral officiating he would have had several additional big wins, as well as giving Vitali and Usyk their 3rd hardest and closest fights. Vitali's age/wear played a part but Chisora gave him a vastly tougher fight than Adamek did the fight prior.

Ortiz looked very good his whole career prior to 39/40. When he fought Wilder he was 30-0, had never been dropped, he outboxed and KO'd 6th ranked Jennings in 7 (who gave Wlad and especially Joyce some trouble over 12) and shut out the likes of Scott and Thompson. At 43 with 2 KO defeats he ran Ruiz very close over 12, it's reasonable to think that the 38 year old version would have won comfortably. Like Povetkin he was more than good enough to win a title but it's not the way the cards fell for him for several reasons.

Sanders only needed one round of cardio to chin Wlad but he was inactive, more than a year older and 10 lbs heavier when he fought Vitali and he lost to journeyman Nate Tubbs and Rahman in his prime. Peter had only lost to Wlad but he had a controversial SD over a former middleweight, had been dropped a bunch of times by McCline and was never in as good shape, mentally and physically, as he was for Wlad 3 years prior.

I think Ortiz was a significantly better fighter than anyone Vitali beat, more comparable with the guys who beat Vitali. But regardless of whether that's true, Vitali is regarded as a great by many despite not having any standout wins. So quality of opposition is just one factor (albeit one of the most important) that people consider in assessing greatness.

 

"Chronic bias that exists in favour of past eras"? For saying I think Sanders, Peter, Hide & Donald were better than Chisora? C'mon, what a silly & baseless accusation. We're hardly comparing fighters from several decades apart & I'm in a minority that ranks Wlad above Liston, Foreman & Frazer, as well as Tyson above the latter 2, I definitely don't favour fighters from past, or any other eras, when completing my analysis for ranking purposes.

I didn't list Adamek as being better than Chisora. At HW I don't think he was.

Sanders & Peter were clearly better than Chisora in my opinion. Let's look at a few comparators relative to how they got on in their own "era's" (Chisora fought a little later than Peter, personally I don't consider them from different eras, but we'll go with your terminology):

Records - Sanders = 42-4; Peter = 38-9; Chisora = 33-13
World titles challenged for vs won - Sanders = 1 out of 2; Peter = 1 out of 2; Chisora = 0 out 2
Highest ring magazine rankings = Sanders = 3; Peter = 2; Chisora = I can't see that he's ever cracked the top 10. Let me know if you think I'm wrong

I'm not claiming any of these in isolation are definitive, but combined they are an indicator that Sanders & Peter were better & more successful in their "eras" than Chisora was in his. Chisora has had more opportunities in terms of fighting world ranked fighters than the other 2, but yet he's never cracked the top 10 so far as I can see. Most of all, from viewing footage, if we're judging based on the ability to win fights, not just to be competitive, then from watching all 3, Chisora is clearly the lesser of them, by my eye.

Ortiz is more arguable, I've no problem with someone claiming they think he was better than Sanders & Peter. I disagree, but I think it's close enough. I strongly disagree with - 1) Ortiz being significantly better than Sanders & Peter; and 2) Ortiz being more comparable with Lennox Lewis than Sanders & Peter. The latter in particular, even basing it on the faded Lewis that Vitali fought, is, well let's just say I disagree with it very strongly.

 

"I'm in a minority that ranks Wlad above Liston, Foreman & Frazer"

Alright, I retract it. Generally when I see people boosting the likes of Hide and Donald I think they are trying to boost Bowe/the 90's as they are among Bowe's top wins. But I think it's crazy to rate the Hide and Johnson who fought Vitali above Chisora, given their utterly dreadful performances and how massive their weaknesses were. Having a glass chin or fighting in terrible condition and having no heart for battle typically write you off as a serious contender. Hide and Johnson weren't pushing any version of Vitali over 12 rounds.

You listed Arreola as being on a very similar level to Chisora. Ok, but he performed better against Vitali than the less determined, stylistically similar Peter did, blew McCline out and lost to Adamek, who Vitali beat much more easily than Chisora in the fight prior. And I don't think an old flabby inactive Corrie Sanders beats a well-conditioned, determined Chisora with his poor gas tank and suspect chin, regardless of the fact that he exposed a 20-something year old Wlad's major weaknesses as Puritty and Brewster also did.

"Let's look at a few comparators"

The same criteria put Stiverne above Chisora: won a world title, fewer losses, 2nd ranked Ring contender. Stiverne was a good backfoot counterpuncher and a heavier hitter but he was much less versatile than Chisora.

"Chisora has had more opportunities in terms of fighting world ranked fighters"

Chisora has typically been a clear B-side fighter and he didn't have great one punch power. He's a better 12 round fighter than a KO artist, hence his especially strong performances against Vitali and Usyk and his numerous SD/MD losses. He could have easily had wins over Helenius (starched Peter), Whyte and Parker (all SD losses) had the officiating been neutral or favourable to him and his career would look very different.

I didn't mention Lewis in particular but I think 30-0 Ortiz would have beaten Byrd, he's in between Byrd and Lewis for me. The wins over Page, Kayode, Jennings, Thompson, Scott, Allen and Cojanu suggested a higher level of skill and power relative to most rivals. He hasn't been as good in last 6 fights (though he's still shown a lot of skill, heart, power and even stamina, relatively) but that's no shock given his age and wear.

 

I can assure you Bowe's standing hasn't entered my head at any point during our exchange.

I concede Chisora did better vs Vitali than Hide or Donald. Whilst Vitali was way past prime &, if I recall properly, had shoulder problems vs Chisora, I also concede Chisora was more durable than Hide & would have a better chance of going the distance against any version of Vitali than Hide would. Equally, Tucker was past prime vs Hide, but Chisora isn't getting him out of there in 2 rounds, I'm not even 100% convinced Chisora beats that version of Tucker. Chisora probably has better wins than Hide & it's at least debatable who was the better of the 2. If I had to pick one of them to be competitive & go the distance with an elite HW, it would be Chisora. There are fighters I could see Hide beating that I think would beat Chisora, though.

Chisora has better longeveity than Stiverne & despite not winning a world title, it's arguable that he's got the better win resume, but at their respective primes, I think Stiverne was the better too. I think we're going to have agree to disagree on how good Chisora is relative to Sanders, Peter & Stiverne.

You said Ortiz is "more comparable with the guys (plural) who beat Vitali". I'd rank Byrd above Ortiz & Vitali was ahead on the scorecards at the time he quit with an injury not caused by Byrd. The other guy Vitali lost to was a faded Lewis, who was on a different planet to Ortiz.

 

"I concede Chisora did better vs Vitali than Hide or Donald."

It's not a huge concession! One went 12, gave Vitali what was clearly the 3rd toughest fight of his career, won 2-3 rounds by consensus and two of the guys you mentioned as being better than Chisora got destroyed in 2 rounds, whereas Hoffman went 12 with Vitali around the same time and many others took him deep. Against Vitali, Sanders, Peter, Hide and Johnson all had major obvious weaknesses in the critical engine, heart or chin departments that Chisora didn't have. Very few expected Chisora to do nearly as well as he did, there weren't any signs that Vitali was "way past prime" going into the fight. This is a narrative that people had after the fight to discredit Chisora's success. Usyk clearly wasn't "way past prime" but many believed he was after Chisora gave him what was then his 2nd toughest and closest fight.

"had shoulder problems vs Chisora"

He did (though it didn't require surgery and he was not one-armed as Holyfield was against Byrd) but Chisora's pressure may well have had something to do with that. Vitali stuck around for one more fight against an undefeated contender despite the additional age and wear, putting Charr on the canvas prior to the 4th round cut stoppage.

"You said Ortiz is "more comparable with the guys (plural) who beat Vitali"

Yes, I didn't single out Lewis. I essentially said that I rate Ortiz closer in ability to Byrd and Lewis than to the Sanders and Peter that Vitali beat. Ortiz vs 2003 Lewis is interesting given that Lewis never fought a southpaw of any note and was one-punch KO'd by gatekeepers who didn't hit as hard as Ortiz.

My original argument was that quality of opposition is one factor in determining greatness (which you don't contest, so no problem) and that 30-0 Ortiz was a stronger opponent than anyone Vitali beat (which you disagree with but not strongly). Byrd, Haye and Povetkin also never beat anyone as good as Ortiz in my opinion and none of them drew with anyone nearly as good as Fury. So I think the quality of opposition argument against Wilder is exaggerated and inconsistent, plus his career is still ongoing.

 

Young did better against Foreman than Frazier did, yet he was neither better nor greater than Frazier. I think the same applies to Chisora and some other Vitali opponents, if not to the same degree.

Vitali was 40 with a shoulder injury. The "way" is subjective and debatable, the "past prime" isn't.

I strongly disagree that Ortiz is closer to Lennox Lewis's level than Sam Peter and Corrie Sanders level. That's definitely one we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

Byrd beat Vitali who was definitely better than Ortiz. I think Chagaev was better than Ortiz too, but I think we've established that we rate Ortiz differently, so I'll leave it there.

I think both Vitali and Wilder are better than their win resumes, if that makes sense. There's no doubt in my mind that Vitali's record is better, though. I understand that you disagree.

 

"Byrd beat Vitali who was definitely better than Ortiz"

True, I forgot about that.

"I think Chagaev was better than Ortiz too"

No chance. When did Chagaev look impressive relative to his peers?

Povetkin's promoter and Russian media more frank about a Povetkin-Ortiz matchup than many Westerners on this forum are likely to be:

https://www.rbth.com/sport/2014/04/...itschko_rematch_continue_to_recede_35827.html

"yet Young was neither better nor greater than Frazier"

It's not a bad comparison. Like Chisora, Young was on the "unlucky" end of a lot of decisions. He could have easily notched victories over Shavers, Ali and Norton in addition to Lyle x2 and Foreman. Had that been the case, people today would speak of Young as a great, very possibly greater than Frazier who went 1-4 against Ali and Foreman.

I agree that Vitali was past his prime vs Chisora but how far past? Was he 99.7%, 83.4%? No one was really talking about him being "way past prime" before the fight; he was expected to pulverise Chisora, just as Usyk was expected to shut Chisora out and stop him, just as Helenius, Whyte and Parker were expected to win comfortably rather than get A-side SD's, just as Scott, Takam and Pulev 2 were expected to beat him. Chisora has objectively been underrated ever since his first loss to Fury.

"There's no doubt in my mind that Vitali's record is better"

If Vitali has a better record than Wilder it's based on him beating more ranked contenders, losing far fewer rounds, not being conventionally KO'd, not being dropped, longevity etc., not based on getting results against any stronger individual opponent than Ortiz or Fury, or losing to stronger opposition than Wilder did.