What does Usyk have to do to surpass Holyfield alltime?

There's literally no spin whatsoever you can apply to Saad Muhammad to make him out as a worse win than any of Briedis'.

None.

When Dorticos beats the likes of Lopez, Pops or Conteh, come back and let me know.

 

Usyk had stepped up to heavy too late in his career to surpass Holyfield but what a head to head this fight would be

 

Good God, a fighter beats a very beatable champion in Joshua and all of a sudden they want to compare him to the greats in history. LOL!

 

I think AJ deserves huge Credit if he wins the rematch without controversy. If he'd clean out from there he'd still had a great career. Big ifs, though.

 

I don't overly disagree. The knock would be that he failed twice in his prime over a pretty short space of time to figure guys out one who wasn't even ranked. Lewis lost twice and avenged but once was when he was comfortably short of his best and the other from poor discipline 7 years later. Joshua is always in good shape and isn't going to get any better you'd think particularly given how little they all fight.

 

Making adjustements and improving is a mark of greatness for me. Lewis lost to McCall at about the age Joshua was when he lost to Ruiz and had had more pro fights from memory, so that's about the same.

He lacked in focus against Rahman, but that's no excuse for me and Rahman was a level or two below Usyk I'd say.

 

He certainly made tactical adjustments against Ruiz but Ruiz also weighed 283 pounds which is interesting to say the least.

Lewis lost 2 in 44 fights while Anthony has only had 26 so far. Making adjustments and improving is all well and good but you don't want to have to do it 4 or 5 times in your prime due to losing first fights too often.

Joshua's got some weaknesses. He was had it against a much smaller man at the end and he's probably peak.

It should be a lot harder to come back against a smart dedicated fighter like Usyk. Ruiz was a much much more straight forward fighter. He doesn't have a lot of places to go against Usyk. He's sure not likely to outbox him and trying to put more pressure on will come with it's own dangers. You'd have to favor a properly prepared Fury to school Joshua at this stage.

 

I agree and that's why I'd rate wins over Usyk and Fury very highly. It's unlikely that that will happen but it would be a fantastic comeback.

 

As usual, CONTEXT is everything.

Drew101 is trying his hardest to tear down the resume of somebody like Breidis. In that context, he is trying to downplay what Breidis has achieved by nitpicking holes in his (for example) knocking out cold a champion from a higher division.

In THAT hypercritical context, things like Muhammad's losses to bums become very relevant, and not to mention a lack of genuine high level wins.

 

AGREED.

Drew has been on here for almost 2 decades. He's one of the finest and well balanced posters we've ever had in here with a noted lack of bias. What you call nitpicking is anything but.

So if you "perceive" (incorrectly) someone to be nitpicking you just kneejerk out a post with more holes in it than swiss cheese and automatically concede any chance of credibility?

 

Finally.

Really?

Unbeaten Breidis = much worse than Qawi
Unbeaten Glowacki = tainted win
Huck = written off because Glowacki ko'd him
Charr = fringe contender
Perez = lost to Povetkin, doesn't count
Dorticos = good, but not so good, actually
Gassiev = ignored because, agenda
Bellew = ignored, because, agenda
Mike Hunter = ignored, because, agenda

That's not nitpicking?

Nope, just putting things in context.

Briedis has only lost to Usyk and never to any no-names like Qawi did. I'm not reduced to bigging up Piet Crous as a major win for Briedis, ffs. I'm not the one bigging up Marvin friggin Camel who managed to peak when he snagged a vacant cruiser belt and lost it right after. You're aware that just after losing to Qawi, Muhammad went and lost to this guy, right

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/558

the only thing with holes in it is the notion that Qawi is way ahead of Briedis in terms of resume.

 

You've missed the point. No-one was "bigging up" Marvin Camel by pointing out how early in Saad's career it was, that he was immensely more experienced than Saad and that he picked up a strap at a later point. That was providing context for the loss.

You've also failed to recognize that a warrior like Saad was in that many back and forth wars, fights of the year and the like that by the time Qawi got thru with him a second time he was SHOT.

I won't harp on tho because maybe the likes of Camel and Winbush and career stages just don't register with you.

 

You're missing my point.

Perez is devaluaed as a win because he lost to Povetkin, yet Muhammad is not devalued even though he lost to Camel..
Huck is devalued as a win because he lost to Glowacki, yet Qawi is not devalued even though he lost to a lightheavy in the form of Spinks, and would go on to lose to Hunter and Daniels.

There's a double standard at play here.

 

Tell me you didn't watch this era of boxing without telling me you didn't watch this era.

Marvin Camel was a future cruiserweight champion (the first one, in fact); so a close, disputed loss to him (in Camel's backyard) isn't quite the black mark you think it is. A draw against a former Olympic gold medalist and future LH world titlist Mate Parlov (held near Parlov's territory) isn't really anything to criticize, either. Saad also defeated both of them, and a whole bunch of other contenders on the way up.

So, the only blemishes on Saad's championship resume are a SD loss to Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, and an early decision loss to Wayne McGee when he was a neophyte. Most of his later losses occurred after he had been tortured by Qawi on two separate times, when he was clearly starting to decline.

And yes, Charr is slow, basic and only a "world titlist" because of a favorable promotional arrangement. Guy's lost and lost pretty badly every time he's stepped up in class.