Usyk is a generational GOAT

[Barteh]

because he hasn't beaten many all time greats. that's precisely what makes you an all time great.

there are a dozen plus guys who absolutely dominated for over a decade that we don't put in a top 20 ATG discussion just because they were unfortunately in that division/those divisions at a bad time, when the competition wasn't amazing. it's not usyk's fault that the HW division sucks but because it sucks, there's no way he's ever catching the top 10 HW's of all time.

That's just your nostalgia talking. Joshua and Fury are amazing wins, and so are some of his wins at cruiserweight.

 

[djacobox372]

Usyk is way higher than Floyd in the GOAT discussion. For one, he hasn't fought the majority of his fights in Vegas.

Usyk is a fantastic fighter, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. His two best wins at HW were split-decisions. He was losing that fight pretty handily until he caught Fury in the 9th, and even after that it was a close fight down the stretch

He reminds me of Evander Holyfield. His heart and determination are 2nd to none, but the rest is not GOAT worthy.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

That's just your nostalgia talking. Joshua and Fury are amazing wins, and so are some of his wins at cruiserweight.

joshua and fury are really good wins. i'd say so is breidis at CW. then what? that's 3 big wins lol you think murat gassiev and tony bellew are all time greats or something?

 

[Jonny Ninja]

because he hasn't beaten many all time greats. that's precisely what makes you an all time great.

there are a dozen plus guys who absolutely dominated for over a decade that we don't put in a top 20 ATG discussion just because they were unfortunately in that division/those divisions at a bad time, when the competition wasn't amazing. it's not usyk's fault that the HW division sucks but because it sucks, there's no way he's ever catching the top 10 HW's of all time.

Did you think the CW division he unified was also shit? It wasn’t, usyk had to beat elite fighters in gassiev and breidis to unify and he did it in their home countries! My point is you can’t put too much weight in resume when he’s beaten everyone fairly comfortably. There is no one else to beat

 

[moosaev]

How Usyk is remembered will largely depend on how he finishes. If he defended his belts against Fury in a rematch, beat Fury, and retired 23-0 having cleaned out 2 divisions, it will make him the best big in over 20 yrs. He can also fight until he's 42 go on to lose a few times which will greatly diminish him.

That said, I don't think Usyk at his best could've been the HW champ in the 1990s, so that has to be factored in even if he goes undefeated.

 

[totoro mick b]

"probably a top 5 cruiserweight"

he's either 1 or 2 honestly. him and evander stood far and away as the best in the two most stacked cruiserweight divisions. usyk's was deeper imo, but usyk never beat anyone as good as qawi. so its a toss up

usyk's résumé is nowhere near top 10 ATG status. i'd guess he's probably hitting the top 50 at this point.

"usyk's résumé is nowhere near top 10 ATG status."

So would you say the same about Holyfield's career then ?

Because you can't have it both ways. You can't say this guy is "nowhere near", while at the same time having Holyfield in the TOP 10 or close to it.
Both have very similar career achievements. If you're not willing to admit it, you have to explain this contradiction (or call it favoritism) by either belittling their accomplishments or their competition. (depending on which side you're leaning towards).

At one point you said to "Croaker":
"usyk never beat anyone as good as qawi. so its a toss up" Is that a fact though ?
I'm asking because i just see a subjective point of view and a contradiction.

Since you also said:
"usyk's was deeper imo" (speaking of his era at cruiserweight).

So it was deeper, but your point of contention is "Qawi", you see him as an exception ? I fail to see why though. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you're implying that Qawi would be "too much" for a prime cruiser version of Usyk.

Dwight Muhammad Qawi's amateur career was non existant.
In his own words:
" I had no amateur career. But I was undefeated in the street."

Usyk's amateur career speaks for itself. (extremely impressive to say the least). But Qawi was way better than any of Usyk's opponents right ?

Why ?
who did he beat ?
Piet Crous. Ok so, he was a cruiserweight titleholder for a period, not the most accomplished and Holyfield also had to defeat Crous in a defense of his cruiserweight titles in 1988.

Who else ? Leon Spinks. Ok great. But it's just a name isn't it ?
In other words, Spinks was not in his prime when he lost to Dwight Muhammad Qawi in 1986. Already had a bunch of losses and draws (By the mid-1980s, Spinks had lost 17 professional fights and been knocked out 9 times).

Somehow, Qawi, who had zero amateur career, and mostly fought 99% american competition, was "the" much superior cruiserweight even when compared to Usyk's deeper, more experienced cruiserweight competition. Usyk had competition from Russia, UK, Poland, Latvia, Ukraine, America, Germany, south Africa, in other words, a more diversified talent pool. All the guys he fought wern't just past prime superstars, Usyk never took that route. All of them, were the cream of the crop of their division, all of them were in their prime.

Want to talk about the Heavyweights ?
Let me guess, the version of Tyson that Holyfield had to fight, would've destroyed Usyk but Holyfield had the tools to do it right ?

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

"usyk's résumé is nowhere near top 10 ATG status."

So would you say the same about Holyfield's career then ?


Because you can't have it both ways. You can't say this guy is "nowhere near", while at the same time having Holyfield in the TOP 10 or close to it.
Both have very similar career achievements. If you're not willing to admit it, you have to explain this contradiction (or call it favoritism) by either belittling their accomplishments or their competition. (depending on which side you're leaning towards).

holyfield just by default has more than double the fights and double the wins at the top of his divisions. you would have to assume usyk is going to fight 22 more times and beat even more world champs to even sniff holyfield. longevity matters. that's not even counting the sheer number of world HW champs holyfield beat, the classic fights he was in (win or lose) and the depth of the divisions he ruled. holyfield was a top 3 guy in the deepest HW division ever.

also "top ten GOAT" and "top ten HW of all time" are two different things. usyk is nowhere near a top ten GOAT but definitely near a top ten HW of all time if he's not there yet. i think you could argue it.

At one point you said to "Croaker":
"usyk never beat anyone as good as qawi. so its a toss up" Is that a fact though ?
I'm asking because i just see a subjective point of view and a contradiction.

Since you also said:
"usyk's was deeper imo" (speaking of his era at cruiserweight).

So it was deeper, but your point of contention is "Qawi", you see him as an exception ? I fail to see why though. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you're implying that Qawi would be "too much" for a prime cruiser version of Usyk.

i'm saying qawi is a better single win than anyone usyk beat at cruiser, but overall, usyk's division had more talent.

Dwight Muhammad Qawi's amateur career was non existant.
In his own words:
" I had no amateur career. But I was undefeated in the street."

Usyk's amateur career speaks for itself. (extremely impressive to say the least). But Qawi was way better than any of Usyk's opponents right ?

Why ?
who did he beat ?
Piet Crous. Ok so, he was a cruiserweight titleholder for a period, not the most accomplished and Holyfield also had to defeat Crous in a defense of his cruiserweight titles in 1988.

Who else ? Leon Spinks. Ok great. But it's just a name isn't it ?
In other words, Spinks was not in his prime when he lost to Dwight Muhammad Qawi in 1986. Already had a bunch of losses and draws (By the mid-1980s, Spinks had lost 17 professional fights and been knocked out 9 times).

Somehow, Qawi, who had zero amateur career, and mostly fought 99% american competition, was "the" much superior cruiserweight even when compared to Usyk's deeper, more experienced cruiserweight competition. Usyk had competition from Russia, UK, Poland, Latvia, Ukraine, America, Germany, south Africa, in other words, a more diversified talent pool. All the guys he fought wern't just past prime superstars, Usyk never took that route. All of them, were the cream of the crop of their division, all of them were in their prime.

no way you just wrote all that for no reason

Want to talk about the Heavyweights ?
Let me guess, the version of Tyson that Holyfield had to fight, would've destroyed Usyk but Holyfield had the tools to do it right ?

i think mid 90's tyson gives usyk a great fight, probably beats him.

 

[totoro mick b]

How Usyk is remembered will largely depend on how he finishes. If he defended his belts against Fury in a rematch, beat Fury, and retired 23-0 having cleaned out 2 divisions, it will make him the best big in over 20 yrs. He can also fight until he's 42 go on to lose a few times which will greatly diminish him.

That said, I don't think Usyk at his best could've been the HW champ in the 1990s, so that has to be factored in even if he goes undefeated.

holyfield just by default has more than double the fights and double the wins at the top of his divisions. you would have to assume usyk is going to fight 22 more times and beat even more world champs to even sniff holyfield. longevity matters. that's not even counting the sheer number of world HW champs holyfield beat, the classic fights he was in (win or lose) and the depth of the divisions he ruled. holyfield was a top 3 guy in the deepest HW division ever.

also "top ten GOAT" and "top ten HW of all time" are two different things. usyk is nowhere near a top ten GOAT but definitely near a top ten HW of all time if he's not there yet. i think you could argue it.


i'm saying qawi is a better single win than anyone usyk beat at cruiser, but overall, usyk's division had more talent.

no way you just wrote all that for no reason

i think mid 90's tyson gives usyk a great fight, probably beats him.

"holyfield just by default has more than double the fights and double the wins at the top of his divisions."

You sounds like a fight promoter. is that your way of saying that padded records also matter ?

Alright, let's follow this line of reasoning. Wilder is a living legend then ? 43 wins Only 3 losses, 97.67% KO ratio.
Surely Wilder has more credibility than Usyk as a HW then ? Would you say he's also more accomplished than Usyk ?
How about Valuev ? 50 wins , only 2 losses.
How about Brian Nielsen ? 64 wins, 3 losses.

Maybe Faruq Saleem ? 38 wins, 1 loss, 84.21% KO ratio.
LaMar Clark ? 43 wins, 3 losses (Muhammad Ali beat him once)

There's no "default"; it's the "who," "when," and "how" that matter. Everything else is irrelevant. It's even more impressive when it is achieved with the least amount of fights.


"i think mid 90's tyson gives usyk a great fight, probably beats him."

Maybe. One thing's for sure, we'll never know because it never happened. We can just speculate, look at their competition, and pretend to know better than everyone else. And of course, nostalgia embellishes everything so it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, i've noticed sports fans tend to have similar arguments about basketball, tennis, mma, etc.. Some athletes end up becoming untouchable demi-gods and all rational goes out the window. The only thing that's left is passion & ego. "90's basketball", "80's music", we idealize the past, with each generation believing things were better when they were younger. The same must've been true for all generations who preceded us. But i'm rambling like an old fart.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

"holyfield just by default has more than double the fights and double the wins at the top of his divisions."

You sounds like a fight promoter. is that your way of saying that padded records also matter ?

Alright, let's follow this line of reasoning. Wilder is a living legend then ? 43 wins Only 3 losses, 97.67% KO ratio.
Surely Wilder has more credibility than Usyk as a HW then ? Would you say he's also more accomplished than Usyk ?
How about Valuev ? 50 wins , only 2 losses.
How about Brian Nielsen ? 64 wins, 3 losses.

Maybe Faruq Saleem ? 38 wins, 1 loss, 84.21% KO ratio.
LaMar Clark ? 43 wins, 3 losses (Muhammad Ali beat him once)

There's no "default"; it's the "who," "when," and "how" that matter. Everything else is irrelevant. It's even more impressive when it is achieved with the least amount of fights.


"i think mid 90's tyson gives usyk a great fight, probably beats him."

Maybe. One thing's for sure, we'll never know because it never happened. We can just speculate, look at their competition, and pretend to know better than everyone else. And of course, nostalgia embellishes everything so it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, i've noticed sports fans tend to have similar arguments about basketball, tennis, mma, etc.. Some athletes end up becoming untouchable demi-gods and all rational goes out the window. The only thing that's left is passion & ego. "90's basketball", "80's music", we idealize the past, with each generation believing things were better when they were younger. The same must've been true for all generations who preceded us. But i'm rambling like an old fart.

holyfield beat more world champs. he beat and/or drew with the best of the best. bowe, tyson, mercer, foreman, rahman, lewis, douglas, cooper, moorer, holmes. there aren't even that many champs and title challengers for usyk to possibly fight let alone beat. he literally can never catch up lol

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

holyfield beat more world champs. he beat and/or drew with the best of the best. bowe, tyson, mercer, foreman, rahman, lewis, douglas, cooper, moorer, holmes. there aren't even that many champs and title challengers for usyk to possibly fight let alone beat. he literally can never catch up lol

Holyfield had the much deeper resume at heavyweight. There's no disputing that. Usyk turned pro very late and only has 6 fights at heavyweight. Even if he did have the ability to catch up, provided the quality of opposition was there (it isn't), he wouldn't be able to manage it. Not at 37 years old with so few heavyweight fights to his name. He also only fights once a year.

 

[is a]

On a pure resume standpoint, Holyfield's losses to Riddick Bowe (2x) and a majority decision loss to Michael Moorer don't look too good.

A robbery draw and a UD loss to Lennox Lewis adds another mark to that record and then his record spirals from there.

 

[Gas121]

I think Usyk still has a little more in him yet. If he was to beat Fury in a rematch, then fight winner of Hrgovic - Dubois, then maybe Parker, could really cement a serious heavyweight legacy. I think he has 3-4 fights left in him yet.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

I think Usyk still has a little more in him yet. If he was to beat Fury in a rematch, then fight winner of Hrgovic - Dubois, then maybe Parker, could really cement a serious heavyweight legacy. I think he has 3-4 fights left in him yet.

I think he'll consider taking some more fights. If I were him though I'd be tempted to retire while on top as the undisputed, undefeated champion. Marciano was the only heavyweight champ in history to leave while still champion with his undefeated record intact. The rationale is simple. There's only one direction in which Usyk can go from here and that's down. He's already accomplished everything he set out to do. There's nothing left except to build a stronger resume at heavyweight. And financially he's already made generational wealth.

 

[Badr Hari]

I think Usyk still has a little more in him yet. If he was to beat Fury in a rematch, then fight winner of Hrgovic - Dubois, then maybe Parker, could really cement a serious heavyweight legacy. I think he has 3-4 fights left in him yet.

usyk is 6 years from his boxing prime, against both dubois and fury he resorts to sheer toughness and grit to beat his opponent in a dog fight. That ain't gonna work for long but Saudi money are sweet and will keep him for a while until his 0 is gone. Even in Joshua I he was much faster and had better conditioning than against Dubois and Fury. Part of the reason is he has had injuries in recent years and has been very inactive so a bit of ring rust as well. I guess if that October rematch gets made we can get to see a more fluid and dynamic version of him. I know he is a clean athlete tested and all but he is at a point where a couple of injections would be welcome lol

 

[Prex32]

weak era

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Holyfield had the much deeper resume at heavyweight. There's no disputing that. Usyk turned pro very late and only has 6 fights at heavyweight. Even if he did have the ability to catch up, provided the quality of opposition was there (it isn't), he wouldn't be able to manage it. Not at 37 years old with so few heavyweight fights to his name. He also only fights once a year.

exactly. and again, i'm not saying you have to blame usyk specifically for that. of course not. it's just the unfortunate nature of the HW division at the moment. there's not a lot of great fighters to fight.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

On a pure resume standpoint, Holyfield's losses to Riddick Bowe (2x) and a majority decision loss to Michael Moorer don't look too good.

A robbery draw and a UD loss to Lennox Lewis adds another mark to that record and then his record spirals from there.

he also beat moorer and bowe. and losses matter a lot less than wins. i'll take a guy with 15 losses who beat 10 all time greats over a guy with no losses who beat one.

 

[HHJ]

Usyk is a fantastic fighter, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. His two best wins at HW were split-decisions. He was losing that fight pretty handily until he caught Fury in the 9th, and even after that it was a close fight down the stretch

He reminds me of Evander Holyfield. His heart and determination are 2nd to none, but the rest is not GOAT worthy.

Is THE COMMANDER not GOAT worthy?

 

[totoro mick b]

weak era

It begs the question..Is there such a thing as an overrated era ?
What do you guys consider as "weak" ?

What about overrated ?

For example, take Leon Spinks.

He had 8 professional fights before defeating an aging Muhammad Ali in 1978 to win the WBA, WBC, and The Ring titles. However, he lost the titles back to Ali in a rematch just 7 months later without defending them against any other opponent. He ended his career with a record of 26-17-3, often losing to journeymen fighters.

We're supposed to believe this guy was part of a great , golden, weak or overrated era ? Would a Leon Spinks be undefeated in today's "weak" era ?

How about John Ruiz ?
Here is a guy who held a portion of the heavyweight title on multiple occasions. He did it in 2001 when he defeated Evander Holyfield via a 12-round unanimous decision to capture the WBA heavyweight title. He had seven successful title defenses , was he part of a weak, overrated, great era ? Would a John Ruiz destroy or at least dominate the likes of Usyk, Joshua ? Lennox ? Fury ? Klitschko ?

Maybe Michael Moorer ? He won titles in the early-to-mid 90s didn't he ? So moorer would've easily destroyed today's fighters right ? Since they're all part of a weak era.

Who else ? Riddick Bowe, maybe... His best victories were against an over-the-hill Foreman & aging Holyfield, lost twice vs Golota, (who himself, was a mental midget). Was Bowe part of an overrated, weak , golden era ? It's hard to tell how good he'd be in today's era. He had 2 losses in the amateurs against Alexander Miroshnichenko , one against Lennox...

There's a bunch of other names i can think of but you get the idea..

 

[aries]

How ironic that ‘pillow fisted’ usyk had fury in far more trouble than the reputed ‘hardest puncher in the world’

Absolutely. I feel that both Usyk and Fury have been accused of having pillow fists but that's more to do with how they fight. When they sit down on their shots and fire with accuracy they do damage.