Where do you rank Oleksandr Usyk as an ATG great heavyweight?

Usyk would have absolutely smoked them both. You are a nostalga biased dumbass troll. They can't even be put in the same sentence as the great Oleksandr Usyk.

 

Holyfield went life and death with Bert Cooper. Louis was being outboxed by Billy Conn. Saying they would chew Usyk up is crazy talk. They might have won, but it wouldn't be easy at any stretch. Toney? That's hilarious, lol.

 

I don’t give a F what Pauline thinks.

The man has literally only fought just FIVE HW’s in his life.

And were any of them great and in their primes?

NO.

So only a Simp would make such an absurd claim.

 

It’s styles, you CASUAL.

Usyk doesn’t have the attributes needed to have beaten Mike.

But carry on with your tantrum.

 

Usyk is the best of his era so has earned ATG status for himself,as to how he would compare to other ATG fighters from different eras the absolute truth is we honestly don’t know ! All these H2H discussions and ATG standings are just somebody’s personal opinion and as such there wide open to be agreed with or not to be agreed with,at the end of the day it is without question,Usyk is the best of his era and can’t do anymore than that !

 

Imagine not acknowledging rematches. He's fought and beat all the best HW's of his era whilst undersized and 3 of them twice.

He's done everything asked of him and more. He's a phenomenal fighter. He was the underdog against both Joshua and Fury, both of who will be future hall of famers. He never lost to nobody let alone some Buster Douglas.

You are clueless. And stuck in a 80's/90's biased nostalgia delusion.

Usyk's overall ability is on another planet to Mike Tyson, who lost to all the best fighters he faced, hit the canvas and lost too many times to remember.

Usyk ticks every ****ing box ability wise. Tyson was flawed and mythical,one for the unknowledgeable casuals to overrate. Usyk is probably the best HW ever when it comes to his ability to adapt. Whereas Tyson never had a plan B and never turned a fight around that he was losing. They are just not comparable. Usyk has flown right past your favourite, deal with it!

 

Read this thread, as well as the similar ones that I’ve posted in.

I’m a huge, huge fan.

I’ve literally said that he’s my favourite fighter and that he’s a genius.

He couldn’t possibly have done anymore.

What he’s done is remarkable.

He’s a great fighter.

A great role model.

A gentleman.

He’s done the sport proud.

However, I’m not going to proclaim him as being the GOAT at HW, after having had just 8 fights against 5 opponents.

I have acknowledged the rematches.

It doesn’t make any difference.

It’s still just 5 opponents.

Opponents who weren’t great and in their primes.

That’s not Usyk’s fault. But it’s just how it is.

Regarding Mike Tyson, you can’t tell me anything about his career. I know everything that there is to know. I was there. I watched it all unfold. He only gave us just 4/5 great years. Yes, he lost to guys who weren’t anywhere near Usyk’s level. He’s also massively overhyped by many, many people throughout the world.

However, after studying the sport for decades and decades, I know that the old adage of: “Styles make fights” is as true today, as when the words were first spoken.

Yes, Mike had flaws.

Everyone has flaws.

Usyk has flaws.

Everyone has a style that is wrong for them. Simply because there’s too many fighters with different styles. Of different sizes. With different attributes. It’s what makes the sport so fascinating.

It doesn’t matter if Usyk is better than James Douglas.

That’s like saying that Floyd Mayweather could easily have beaten Thomas Hearns, because he was on another planet to a guy like Iran Barkley, who beat Hearns twice.

But the sport doesn’t work like that. And that’s why it’s beautiful.

Floyd was a genius. But he didn’t possess the attributes that Barkley did.

Just like how Usyk doesn’t possess the attributes that James Douglas did.

Now you can rank Usyk higher than Mike.

You can mock Mike for his losses and lack of longevity.

But in a head to head fight, Mike would have been an horrific stylistic match up for Usyk.

Again, Usyk is a genius. A beautiful boxer.

But Mike was a wrecking ball. A small, power punching, switch hitting pressure fighter who was explosive.

Now Usyk hasn’t got a great, long jab.

He hasn’t got great inside fighting skills.

He hasn’t got great power.

Now all of that means that Usyk hasn’t got anything in order to have deterred or stopped Mike from closing in on him.

Nothing to have kept him at bay.

Mike would have suffocated him on the inside.

He wouldn’t have given him any time or space to have boxed a technical chess match.

A smallish technical HW with limited power, who wasn’t as strong with no inside game, wouldn’t have beaten Mike.

Go and watch some footage and appreciate how they’d have matched up on the night stylistically.

Go and educate yourself on the sport’s history, instead of just comparing statistics without applying any context.

It’s a very easy fight to predict, irrespective of Mike’s flaws.

 

H2H he's number 1. Who the **** could ever outbox Usyk- nobody. Who the **** could ever land clean on Usyk - nobody. Usyk would outbox, outwork and outthink everybody. He has the highest Ring IQ of any heavyweight ever, best overall ability of any HW ever, has the best ability to adapt of any HW ever, and is one of the fastest ever HW's.

On achievements it's debatable but he has to be in the top 3, top 5 an absolute minimum

 

A truly bizarre thread. I like Uysk - he's a great fighter and good for the sport. But he is not even close to being an ATG heavyweight - it's not his fault, but his best wins at Heavyweight are against a recovering cokehead in Fury, Joshua - who has never been the same since Ruiz got to him first and a mentally fragile Dubois. And aside of the last Dubois fight, he didn't exactly steamroller them either. He simply doesn't have the number of fights at Heavyweight, enough dominant wins or the depth of opposition to be considered anywhere near ATG Heavyweight status.

ATG Cruiserweight? A much stronger argument - it's either him or Holyfield.

H2H match ups at Heavyweight? - I think he does very well and can hold his own with most with a mixture of decision wins and losses. Only a Tyson or a Dempsey could possibly overwhelm him early. Frazier, Louis and Rocky would go the distance in tough fights with the decisions going either way. Not sure with Liston, Holmes, Wlad, Johnson or Tunney, but he can probably outlast a young, first career Foreman - old. methodical Foreman is much more of a threat. Ali too much for him, probably Lewis too but Uysk hears the final bell with both.

Uysk is an outstanding fighter but he is unfortunate that he is fighting in a poor Heavyweight division which prevents him from serious consideration as an ATG. We simple don't know how good he actually is because there is no one around to *really* test him. Not his fault but it is what it is.

 

Fury was coming off a 10,-round split decision win over a semi-retired UFC fighter with a 0-0 boxing record. People cite this as Usyk's best win. That's incredible.

Joshua was knocked out by a fat disgustingly obese Ruiz just 3 fights before facing Usyk.. ..

Usyk failed to knock out Joshua or Fury in a total of 48 rounds.

Mike Tyson fought some far-less-than-great boxers too, of course. But he was fighting the best around and not at a rate of 1.5 fights a year. Mike Tyson beat Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks in a 19-month period. Destructive or dominant wins.

Of course Mike Tyson gets over-rated by casuals. But in this era, every fighter and every achievement gets hyped even more. Maybe not in the mainstream culture but in the sports and boxing media. It's on another level.
Tyson Fury ticks all the boxes of a second-tier 1980s fat heavyweight contender, and worse. His career after Klitschko was only distinguished by an entertaining trilogy with a spindly legged KO puncher with very limited boxing ability and a comically padded record. I actually like Fury but a lot of his reputation was built on pure speculation what he "could have" been after beating Klitschko, if he hadn't gone off the rails completely, or what he "could have" done after the Wilder trilogy, if he'd been prepared to fight often and against good contenders. (to be fair the COVID interruption didn't help his momentum). Once we reach 'coming out of retirement' for Chisora 3, and then Ngannou, we're at very low depths.

Usyk is a tremendous boxer but his heavyweight opposition is being hugely overrated.

Usyk might be a more complete boxer than Mike Tyson but Mike didn't usually need a plan B.

 

I agree totally.

 

If Usyk carries on too long, which it appears he will, he will eventually lose to someone he shouldn't, such as Kabayel, for instance. He will go for a rematch and lose again, and then all of a sudden, people will say he's completely overrated. It's a peculiar cycle in boxing where fans become completely carried away during a solid performance or a rich vein of form, only to overlook them when they start slowing down. Josh Taylor is a good example; he cleaned up at 140, became undisputed, and has had a remarkable career. However, once he started declining rapidly, he was suddenly labelled as "always overrated" in the eyes of many.

A guy with eight fights at HW, against five opponents, especially when they're as limited as Dubois, Joshua and Chisora, is not greater than Louis, Ali or Lewis. I know people have their reasons, and I respect that, but I don't see any realistic argument that would convince me otherwise. Not at the moment anyway. If he destroys Kabayel and Parker in the same fashion, then takes out a young prospect like Itauma in a couple of years, then I would say these comparisons are warranted, but it's too premature at the moment.

 

Do you think his WSB fights should count? I mean, the only good win is Joyce, but still...

 

I joke around about how overrated I think he is, and it's half serious, but I'm starting to frame him at the HW historical level in a #10 Wlad, #11 Johnson, #12 Usyk, #13 Dempsey, #14 Liston kind of way. I am not the believer some of you guys are. I think against the Haye, Chagaev, Adamek, Byrd, Peter, Povetkin, Ibragimov group, he'd actually have some trouble that you just couldn't conceive of if you are really on the train but I can see pretty easily occurring. Not losses, per say, but some very dicey patches that aren't happening due to these slower behemoths with wider, duller, rangier punches that aren't cleanly connecting the way they would with maybe less skilled but smaller operators.

 

As good as anyone. Who'd beat him in a best of nine? Muhammad Ali is often cited as the greatest but is he really better than Usyk? Not a chance. He's nowhere near as good as Usyk.