Were does Usyk rank P4P all time?

Usyk’s résumé is excellent, but let’s be real, he’s not the GOAT or even Top 10 all-time P4P. His dominance at cruiserweight and becoming undisputed heavyweight champ are historic achievements, but when you stack him up against the likes of Robinson, Ali, Armstrong, or even Pacquiao and Mayweather, he doesn’t have the same depth, longevity, or number of elite wins across eras. Realistically, he’s somewhere in the Top 50 all-time, maybe around #45–#55. Still an all-time great, just not on the absolute highest tier.

 

Hmm, I think a quick recap of the origins and progession of this discussion is in order.

DP cited the number of ranked opponents Fury had beaten. It's generally accepted on the classic section that, unless otherwise stated, ranked opponents refers to Ring ranked contenders. I'm happy to have a poll bet with you if you disagree on this point, with a consequence for the loser of your choosing. You won't accept this bet, and whilst you'll give alternate reasoning, the true reason is because you're smart enough to realise that you'll lose.

You responded to DP disagreeing, advising Fury had fought more ranked contenders than DP had claimed.

DP then clarified he was referring to Ring ranked opponents, as is commonplace in such discussions.

You then responded that DP was changing the goalposts, when it was clear to the majority from the outset he was referring to Ring ranked opponents, as is the generally accepted standard on the forum. You don't have agree with that standard, but you're either ignorant to it, or more likely, were being disingenuous and hypocritical in saying DP had changed the goalposts.

You then said you disagreed with what I posted.

I asked which part you disagreed with.

Your response did not cite anything I had posted. I explained as much to you and said I was just interested in which part of what I had posted you disgareed with.

You responded by changing the goalposts from disagreeing with what I posted, to calling it irrelevant. That's because you're smart enough to realise that your position would be too weak if you had the courage of your convictions and debated me by directly disagreeing with what I said.

 

You went wrong in the second sentence. OP INCORRECTLY cited the number of ranked opponents that Fury beat. It doesn't matter what is "generally accepted." The Ring magazine are not the OFFICIAL rankings that fighters have to live by, and nothing is going to change that. You are discussing your fantasies about what the rankings should have been.

What is more, OP is still technically wrong, as he said Fury has only beaten three, and even by Ring standards, it would have been four. But make no mistake about it, the answer is eight. It is always going to be eight, and nothing but eight.

Yes. I get it, in the opinion of the Ring magazine, which you share, Fury has beaten 3 (actually 4). But IN REALITY, the answer is eight. I can't continue to argue for reality if you don't want to know about it, so good luck to you.

 

I made two very short, specific and easy to understand statments:

1. Ring magazine rankings have typically better represented the 10 best and most deserving contenders than those of the alphabet bodies; and

2. When posters in Classic cite the number of ranked contenders a fighter beat as a guide to the quality of their win resume, the majority are referring to boxers ranked by the Ring.

You said you disagreed with me. When challenged, instead of directly arguing the opposite of either, or both, of the above statements, you instead are arguing against straw men you've created.

If you disagree with what I said verbatim, let's debate it. If not, be man enough to retract your statement and read more carefully in future.

 

But your statements are incorrect/lacking in importance, for very simple reasons that I explained, and really, should be self-evident. I can't debate someone who is in denial of reality. Fury beat eight top-ten contenders. That is what history will record. That is all. Accept it or deny it--it is the truth one way or the other.

 

Can you please quote where I've said Fury didn't fight 8 x contenders as ranked by the alphabet governing bodies?

If you can't, can you please say, VERBATIM, what I've posted you disgareed with?

 

Well that is what I am pointing out, so if you don't agree, then what are you arguing against? If you agree, then please stop badgering me.

Ring magazine ratings are completely meaningless. Period. Fury has beaten eight champions/top contenders. That is all.

 

This is getting bizarre.

YOU said you disagreed with ME. Not vice versa.

For the 5th time, could you please quote me VERBATIM on what you disgaree with?

 

Because OP said that you disagreed with me. Nothing bizarre about it. If you understand that the organizational ratings are what is important, then we have no disagreement. If you cling to your ridiculous idea that the Ring Magazine ratings have any relevance, then we disagree, and I let you go, because I can't argue against a fantasy.

 

No one in this thread has said "Greg Price disagrees with you".

For the 6th time, could you please quote me VERBATIM on what I said that you disagree with?

 

This is performative. Again, I'd really like to leave off this conversation because you are pretending, and I have better things to do.

 

You're welcome to cease your contributions to our exchange at any time.

DP was referring to my previous post where I stated, and I quote verbatim - "I don't consider the Ring magazine rankings infallible, but in general, throughout history they're a better representation of the best/most deserving contenders than any of the alphabet bodies". Is this the statement you disagree with?

 

Fury,s biggest mistake was to give usyk an undisputed shot when fury knew he was in risk to loose .

He should do it like usyk : avoid all opponents you risk to loose against , fight only when you are sure to win and let your promoter do the work to promote you as a king to your fans .

Usyk is smarter than fury .

 

Again, and again, and again, and again, and again...it is a statement I find completely irrelevant.

 

Then say you find it irrelevant, not that you disagree with it. Learn to chose your words more carefully.