Who ranks highest all time Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao or Usyk ?

Rexrapper 1,

And??

I’ve just named you 3-4 which didn’t, just off of the top of my head, without giving it any serious thought at all.

I could list more.


I could also list guys like Dubois, who have had success afterwards.

Jeez.

Look at how desperate you are.


No way to explain??

I HAVE explained.


They offered him millions of pounds for an EXHIBITION.

Do you understand that?

He signed for it, because it would have been ridiculous to have turned it down for the sum being offered.


They then turned into an official fight.

Tyson had zero motivation.

He hadn’t trained to his full capabilities.

He was in a position, where he had everything to lose and nothing to gain.


Whereas Ngannou, had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

A free hit.

He was motivated an awkward.

Tyson was lacklustre and didn’t have the power to get rid of him like AJ did.


It’s not hard to work out why it was a banana skin.


I don’t care what Floyd said.

Floyd said that he needed an illegal IV for severe dehydration.


Floyd took the fight with Conor serious, as he was wanting to break Rocky’s record.

And even if he had told the truth, at least he was MOTIVATED.


Now you have given Tyson’s quotes, where he said that he trained hard, and where he was gracious in defeat.

But in many other articles afterwards, it has been said that he only trained for 5 weeks instead of 12, as well as where there were direct quotes from his father and his sparring partner, of where he looked shocking, and even visibly ill etc.

They were just solid HW’s?

They weren’t very good?


BS!

I have zero respect for you.


You obviously don’t even want an objective debate.

Look at the state of you.


Wladimir?


Wlad lost THREE times to NON elite guys, on the LEVEL of Ruiz, genius.


Wlad was knocked down THIRTEEN times in his career.


Wlad barely beat Samuel Peter.


Wlad LOST to AJ, who you don’t even rate! SMH.


Wlad LOST to Fury, who you also don’t even rate, and after getting completely psyched out.


So: The guy lost to TWO guys who you don’t even rate.

Great work, genius.


You might want to rethink this, as you’ve tied yourself up in knots.


Also:


Wlad didn’t even avenge his defeat to Sanders, where he had to send his brother in for him.


Wlad reigned in a weak era, with no Fury or Usyk etc.


He reigned, because he had the OPPORTUNITY to.


His circumstances were completely different.


The landscape of the division is completely different now to when Wladimir reigned.

You rate a win based upon many different factors.


Size, the risk, the stylistic match up, the degree of difficulty etc.


Usyk gave up 50 pounds to fight a motivated Fury who completely outsized him.

Floyd had an illegal IV and a huge reach advantage, against a faded and injured Manny, who had shoulder surgery 5 days after the fight.

And that was after he’d ducked him for years.

How have you got the audacity to type this?


It was YOU who had been ignorant and dismissive.


It was me doing similar to Floyd’s wins, to SHOW YOU where you’d previously done it.


Do you understand??


I did it, to prove a point to YOU.

 

Fury was bashed up by a guy making his debut and his eyes rolled vs Wilder, plus lost vs mcdermott

Was margarito cheating?
Pac is an uber ATG and cotto was a catch weight

Sure then Pacquiao's win over Hatton means little, when Floyd smashed him silly over a year prior

Cotto was in his prime

Aj was smashed by ruiz and went life and death vs pensioner wlad, then he wasn't prime either vs usyk

 

It was somebody else.

But what difference does it make?

YOU asked the question.

 

Can't think of any fighter who, after becoming champ, was still prime after suffering two beatings. Almost by definition. Still good. No way prime.

 

Wlad?? Didn't he suffer 3?

 

Yes, they are.


It’s just that you aren’t able to apply the relevant context needed.


Context such as:


The shape of the fighters

The stylistic match ups

The degree of difficulty

The element of risk

The physical advantages/disadvantages etc


They are all comparable due to various reasons.


We aren’t comparing them prime for prime, on a P4P basis.

That would be a different argument altogether.


Prime for prime, Oscar was on another level to AJ.

But the AJ win for Usyk is more impressive.


Usyk was past his prime, and he moved up to HW to beat an in-form Joshua twice, whilst being completely outsized.

Floyd was still in great form, where he was still fresh, where he struggled to beat a faded and inactive Oscar, who was rusty. A guy who hadn’t fought in a year, and who’d only fought once in 3 years. A guy who looked awful against Forbes and Manny, before retiring.


Even if you don’t agree that the AJ win was better, they were definitely comparable.


Breidis was a very capable fighter, who was in his prime.

It was a very difficult stylistic match up for Usyk.

Marquez was a 36 year old LW, who was dragged up two weight classes, before being deliberately cheated on the scales.


Tyson Fury was a very difficult stylistic fight, where he outsized Usyk, where he outweighed him by 50 pounds.

Canelo was an easier stylistic fight, where he’d had no big fight experience, and where he was at a completely unnecessary catch-weight.


None of those wins of Floyd’s were on ANOTHER level.


They were all COMPARABLE.

 

Great post, fully agree

 

Usyk past his best vs Joshua?
Was Floyd not past his best by beating inform cotto at a similar age to usyk vs Joshua? Lighter fighters tend to age faster and Floyd had many more fights

You are all over the place

 

1. Every fighter ages differently, depending on their styles and their circumstances.

2. I have never said that Fury was in his prime.

3. I don’t rate on wins and losses, I rate upon my knowledge of the fighter in question.


Miguel Cotto had some fine wins and performances around the Floyd fight.

However, no knowledgeable fan of Cotto’s career, will tell you that he was in his prime when he fought Floyd.

Cotto was considered in his prime in the mid to late 00’s at WW.

Go and ask the other members.

 

Manny>=Floyd>Hopkins>Usyk

 

Floyd also wasn't prime vs cotto
Regardless that cotto was greater than the bums usyk feasted on at CW and lumps at hw

 

So dragging up a 36 year old LW 2 divisions, before deliberately cheating him on the scales, was on another level to Usyk’s win over Breidis?

Yeah, that’s perfectly logical.

 

Breidis is smaller, older and not a great fighter. Decent at best. Cruiserweight is historically a bum division. To he fair it was a little better during the tournament, but still poor quality

Marquez could be 99 years old and weigh 120 and I would still rate him over gassiev and Co

Floyd also toyed with him very easily

 

What on earth are you talking about?


How am I all over the place exactly??


Yes, Floyd was past prime for an in-form Cotto.

Who has said otherwise??

 

I think you are debating for the sake of debating. I'm going to put a film on now, as we are going around in circles

Floyd is greater than usyk
Manny is greater than usyk

The above are the facts I care most about, hence the original topic. I personally don't agree with usyk having comparable wins, you do. I also don't care what others think, as common sense tells me Floyd and manny are greater,

Longevity
More wins
More former champions beaten
More defences
More ranked wins
More hof guys on their resume

I don't care if Usyk beats bellew or Fury on the moon, or Mars, it doesn't make him greater

The title is who ranks highest of all time?

Please tell me why usyk ranks higher than Floyd or manny if you want to continue