Evander Holyfield (Lewis 2) vs Oleksandr Usyk (Dubois 2)

[gilgamesh]

Yeah, some folks here on boxrec overrate past fighters and underrate current ones

And vice versa

Hmmm didnt notice that. Maybe i am wrong

If Crawford beats Canelo you'll seriously have people asking if that makes him P4P The Greatest there ever was.

Anytime we have a dominant Heavyweight Champion he gets hyped to the moon at least by a few people on here. The only one that really didn't get the credit he deserved was Wladimir Klitschko, and I suspect that's because most of us on here aren't Ukrainian.

If Klitschko were the same exact fighter, but American or British, he'd be the #1 Heavyweight of all time in the eyes of many

[Ambling Alp II]

You know gilgamesh, I was agreeing with you a lot lately. But a couple of recent comments made me read your comments a couple of times to make sure I read it right.

Waldimir Klitschko didn't get the credit he deserved, here? huh?

He got knocked out by three different no-names in his prime and the best fighter he beat was Chris Byrd. Name a great heavyweight who had this happen to? Is there even a great hw who had this happen to him twice?

Younger fans were always raving about him because of his WBS title defenses. He is one of the most overrated fighters.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't but it seems like crazy logic to act like Bowe is some amazing win when he did so little outside beating Holyfield himself. I wouldn't rate it above Usyk beating Joshua or Breidis. Fury is arguable due to the Ngannou debacle but overall I would put Fury ahead of Bowe

Fury undoubtedly had a better career than Bowe. Bowe certainly always looked like the better fighter to me though, but of course there's not enough of Bowe at the Championship level to prove that definitively.

Wow. And I mean wow. Fury has not had anywhere near the career that Bowe had. Not remotely close.
WBS title defense against stiffs don't mean anything.
What do we have of Fury at a high level? Lost to Usyk twice.
Wilder is his big victim. A guy with a big punch and nothing else. Who a draw with in their first fight when Fury did virtually nothing for 12 rounds.

Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs etc. were better than anyone Fury ever beat. And of course, Bowe beat Holyfield, light years more impressive than anything Fury ever did.

[gilgamesh]

I don't but it seems like crazy logic to act like Bowe is some amazing win when he did so little outside beating Holyfield himself. I wouldn't rate it above Usyk beating Joshua or Breidis. Fury is arguable due to the Ngannou debacle but overall I would put Fury ahead of Bowe

Fury undoubtedly had a better career than Bowe. Bowe certainly always looked like the better fighter to me though, but of course there's not enough of Bowe at the Championship level to prove that definitively.

Wow. And I mean wow. Fury has not had anywhere near the career that Bowe had. Not remotely close.
WBS title defense against stiffs don't mean anything.
What do we have of Fury at a high level? Lost to Usyk twice.
Wilder is his big victim. A guy with a big punch and nothing else. Who a draw with in their first fight when Fury did virtually nothing for 12 rounds.

Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs etc. were better than anyone Fury ever beat. And of course, Bowe beat Holyfield, light years more impressive than anything Fury ever did.

Fury probably made about 60 Million more dollars than Bowe for one thing. That's one damn good reason why I KNOW he had a better career. I never said he was a better fighter exactly, but without a doubt if you were either of these guys' manager, you'd rather be working for Tyson Fury.

He might've made even more than that compared to Bowe. I'm not sure.

Fury had about 12 World Title fights compared to Bowe's like 4 or 5 and that's if you're counting his WBO title matches which I would.

[gilgamesh]

Fury also ended the reign of one of the most dominant Champions of all time in Wladimir Klitschko. Granted it was a dreadfully boring performance, but he did it.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK I wasn't talking money. We all know how deceiving that can be.
The amount of WBS title defenses don't mean anything. Take the number and multiply it by zero. That's how much it means. You can always find a stiff to beat. Goes for Klitschko and Fury or anyone.
Palomino and Cuevas had a lot of title defenses. (There competition wasn't as bad as Klitschko and Fury's). Nobody has them anywhere near the top of the welterweight rankings.

Beating a well past it Klitschko doesn't mean anything. At all If he was a great, he won have won much easier as well.

[gilgamesh]

OK I wasn't talking money. We all know how deceiving that can be.
The amount of WBS title defenses don't mean anything. Take the number and multiply it by zero. That's how much it means. You can always find a stiff to beat. Goes for Klitschko and Fury or anyone.
Palomino and Cuevas had a lot of title defenses. (There competition wasn't as bad as Klitschko and Fury's). Nobody has them anywhere near the top of the welterweight rankings.

Beating a well past it Klitschko doesn't mean anything. At all If he was a great, he won have won much easier as well.

Beating a dominant Champion that nobody has beaten in over 10 years always means something. Deciding he was old and easy to beat after the fact is bullsh*t. Going into the fight he was expected to kick Fury's ass.

Klitschko whatever you may personally think of him was the defending Heavyweight Champion, the man to beat, and he had been that for years, and Tyson Fury was the guy that beat him. So yeah that does mean something.

To me a Title fight is always an important achievement. How many guys have we seen get toppled in Title fights against underdogs they're heavily favored to beat? Being able to hold the Heavyweight Championship for any length of time is impressive.

Fury's biggest win doesn't match Bowe's, but his 2nd, 3rd and 4th best wins are on about the same level as anything Bowe ever did really.

Bowe really only has Holyfield as far as big wins, which is a great shame. He did usually finish his fights more emphatically than Fury so that boosts him a little as well. It's tough to say who would rate higher overall. I suspect Fury still has a few more noteworthy wins in him.

[Cojimar 1946]

If competition is so important for H2H fights how is someone like Holmes rated so highly? He never beat a consensus top 20 heavyweight outside of a totally shot Ali and those guys he fought who were close to top 20 (Norton and Witherspoon) were past prime or pre prime. Despite this he struggled immensely with his opponents getting dropped multiple times and barely scraping by several opponents. Also questionable decision against Williams.

Aside from nostalgia why is competition a problem for Usyk and not Holmes?

[Ambling Alp II]

First of all, if you watch Holmes fight, you can tell he was a better fighter than Usyk. (This is the part where you cherry pick an off night by Holmes)

Holmes competition wasn't as good as some other great heavyweight champions, but it was a lot better than Usyk.

i know you like to throw out the best win of fighter's career (if it's convienent) but you shouldn't. Ken Norton was a really impressive win. If you ever watched the Norton-Holmes fight, you would know that.

Some of Holmes wins were against stiffs(Ledoux, Frank etc.)
But some of Holmes wins were against quality opponents. Besides Norton, Shavers, Snipes, Berbick, Cooney, Witherspoon, Smith, etc. were not good fighters. Not legends, but good fighters.

Holmes usually (not always) won his fights decisively. Usyk has had too many competitive matches against lackluster opponents.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK I wasn't talking money. We all know how deceiving that can be.
The amount of WBS title defenses don't mean anything. Take the number and multiply it by zero. That's how much it means. You can always find a stiff to beat. Goes for Klitschko and Fury or anyone.
Palomino and Cuevas had a lot of title defenses. (There competition wasn't as bad as Klitschko and Fury's). Nobody has them anywhere near the top of the welterweight rankings.

Beating a well past it Klitschko doesn't mean anything. At all If he was a great, he won have won much easier as well.

Beating a dominant Champion that nobody has beaten in over 10 years always means something. Deciding he was old and easy to beat after the fact is bullsh*t. Going into the fight he was expected to kick Fury's ass.

Klitschko whatever you may personally think of him was the defending Heavyweight Champion, the man to beat, and he had been that for years, and Tyson Fury was the guy that beat him. So yeah that does mean something.

To me a Title fight is always an important achievement. How many guys have we seen get toppled in Title fights against underdogs they're heavily favored to beat? Being able to hold the Heavyweight Championship for any length of time is impressive.

Fury's biggest win doesn't match Bowe's, but his 2nd, 3rd and 4th best wins are on about the same level as anything Bowe ever did really.

Bowe really only has Holyfield as far as big wins, which is a great shame. He did usually finish his fights more emphatically than Fury so that boosts him a little as well. It's tough to say who would rate higher overall. I suspect Fury still has a few more noteworthy wins in him.

Deciding that Klitschko was old and easy to beat was BS? The guy was destroyed multiple times by lackluster opponents in his prime. I and many others had been saying for over a decade that a good fighter would beat him. His titles defenses were a joke so he kept winning. The guy was 39 years old and had 67 fights when Fury beat him. And not by that much.

Leon spinks was a big underdog when he beat Ali. By your standards that should go a long way to rating Spinks highly. just about everyone realizes that the Ali Spinks beat was nowhere near being a great fighter. Why is it different for Fury beat Klitschko?

Winning a title fight usually seems impressive. But when you are comparing it to another fighter's win over a better important, it's not.

As for Bowe and Fury, well first of all we should not just throw out Bowe beating Holyfield. The best fighter that a guys beat counts for a lot. and there is a gigantic difference between that and beat an ancient Klitschko.
Secondly, no fury's other wins were not as impressive as Bowe. Thomas and Tubbs were a lot better than Wilder.

[gilgamesh]

OK I wasn't talking money. We all know how deceiving that can be.
The amount of WBS title defenses don't mean anything. Take the number and multiply it by zero. That's how much it means. You can always find a stiff to beat. Goes for Klitschko and Fury or anyone.
Palomino and Cuevas had a lot of title defenses. (There competition wasn't as bad as Klitschko and Fury's). Nobody has them anywhere near the top of the welterweight rankings.

Beating a well past it Klitschko doesn't mean anything. At all If he was a great, he won have won much easier as well.

Beating a dominant Champion that nobody has beaten in over 10 years always means something. Deciding he was old and easy to beat after the fact is bullsh*t. Going into the fight he was expected to kick Fury's ass.

Klitschko whatever you may personally think of him was the defending Heavyweight Champion, the man to beat, and he had been that for years, and Tyson Fury was the guy that beat him. So yeah that does mean something.

To me a Title fight is always an important achievement. How many guys have we seen get toppled in Title fights against underdogs they're heavily favored to beat? Being able to hold the Heavyweight Championship for any length of time is impressive.

Fury's biggest win doesn't match Bowe's, but his 2nd, 3rd and 4th best wins are on about the same level as anything Bowe ever did really.

Bowe really only has Holyfield as far as big wins, which is a great shame. He did usually finish his fights more emphatically than Fury so that boosts him a little as well. It's tough to say who would rate higher overall. I suspect Fury still has a few more noteworthy wins in him.

Deciding that Klitschko was old and easy to beat was BS? The guy was destroyed multiple times by lackluster opponents in his prime. I and many others had been saying for over a decade that a good fighter would beat him. His titles defenses were a joke so he kept winning. The guy was 39 years old and had 67 fights when Fury beat him. And not by that much.

Leon spinks was a big underdog when he beat Ali. By your standards that should go a long way to rating Spinks highly. just about everyone realizes that the Ali Spinks beat was nowhere near being a great fighter. Why is it different for Fury beat Klitschko?

Winning a title fight usually seems impressive. But when you are comparing it to another fighter's win over a better important, it's not.

As for Bowe and Fury, well first of all we should not just throw out Bowe beating Holyfield. The best fighter that a guys beat counts for a lot. and there is a gigantic difference between that and beat an ancient Klitschko.
Secondly, no fury's other wins were not as impressive as Bowe. Thomas and Tubbs were a lot better than Wilder.

Thomas and Tubbs are absolutely not more impressive than Wilder.

[Ambling Alp II]

Outside of punching power, they did literally everything better than him. They were faster, better stamina, better defensively, better chin, light years better in terms of boxing skill. Wilder had no jab, little defense, low work rate, not good at finishing a hurt opponent. Nothing besides power and he didn't throw nearly enough punches to get the full effect of it. And he was an inaccurate puncher. All Wilder had was power, nothing else.
Thomas and Tubbs weren't legends, but they were much better than Wilder.
If you don't think they were better than Wilder, I guess there is no need to continue any further.

[gilgamesh]

Outside of punching power, they did literally everything better than him. They were faster, better stamina, better defensively, better chin, light years better in terms of boxing skill. Wilder had no jab, little defense, low work rate, not good at finishing a hurt opponent. Nothing besides power and he didn't throw nearly enough punches to get the full effect of it. And he was an inaccurate puncher. All Wilder had was power, nothing else.
Thomas and Tubbs weren't legends, but they were much better than Wilder.
If you don't think they were better than Wilder, I guess there is no need to continue any further.

Everyone is more skilled than Wilder. Who did they beat that was better than who Wilder beat?

Their skill didn't take them further than Wilder's power took him did it?

[Ambling Alp II]

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Tubbs beat Smith and Page. Lost a very close decision to Witherspoon that could have gone his way. Wilder beat some professional fighters.

Not saying Thomas and Tubbs were anywhere near Ali or Louis. But I can't believe that we have to debate that they were better than Wilder.

[gilgamesh]

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Tubbs beat Smith and Page. Lost a very close decision to Witherspoon that could have gone his way. Wilder beat some professional fighters.

Not saying Thomas and Tubbs were anywhere near Ali or Louis. But I can't believe that we have to debate that they were better than Wilder.

We don't. They weren't. Weaver is nobody to beat. Witherspoon is a good fighter. "Bonecrusher" Smith and Greg Page are about the same level as Wilder's best victims.

I'd rank Wilder ahead of Thomas or Tubbs by a pretty fair margin, and I think most fight fans would.

[Cent0089]

Fury also ended the reign of one of the most dominant Champions of all time in Wladimir Klitschko. Granted it was a dreadfully boring performance, but he did it.

Yeah, it was freakin impressive from Fury. he beat Klitschko in his own boring game. But of course some guys here will talk about Klitschko and Fury being worse than some trevor Berbick or whatever

[Cojimar 1946]

Thomas was totally shot when he faced Bowe and had fallen out of the ratings years earlier. Fury has plenty of better wins than that. Tubbs was losing to Lionel Butler and Jimmy Ellis at that stage of his career and took Bowe to a close decision that some thought Bowe lost.

Holyfield is really the only win you can reasonably argue as being better than anyone Fury beat. If someone disagrees id like to hear the logic behind it

[Ambling Alp II]

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Tubbs beat Smith and Page. Lost a very close decision to Witherspoon that could have gone his way. Wilder beat some professional fighters.

Not saying Thomas and Tubbs were anywhere near Ali or Louis. But I can't believe that we have to debate that they were better than Wilder.

We don't. They weren't. Weaver is nobody to beat. Witherspoon is a good fighter. "Bonecrusher" Smith and Greg Page are about the same level as Wilder's best victims.

I'd rank Wilder ahead of Thomas or Tubbs by a pretty fair margin, and I think most fight fans would.

Weaver was nobody to beat? no. Weaver was a good fighter. Not great, but good. Smith and Page weren't the same level as Wilder's best victims. They were better than Wilder himself.

Most fight fans would rank Wilder ahead of Tubbs and Thomas by a fair margin? Well I'm sure most younger fans would. They have no idea how bad their era is compared historically.

People that actually saw Tubbs and Tomas etc. when they actually in their prime don't think they were great. They think they were good and only occasionally great.

Notice that I can actually name names. With Fury and Wilder etc, it's usually anonymous "good fighters" that they beat. In desperation an unimpressive win over an ancient Klitschko is a big deal.

With Bowe, think how desperate people they have throw out his biggest win. A fighter's biggest win is one of the first things that should be looked at. It proves what he is capable of. Not in a fantasy fight. In real life.
We know that Fury is capable of beating an old Wladimir Klitschko. That is less impressive than what Corrie Sanders and did or Lamond Brewster did.
Wilder was capable of beating opponents that no one ever names.

And Riddick Bowe capable of beating a prime Evander Holyfield in a great fight.

[gilgamesh]

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Tubbs beat Smith and Page. Lost a very close decision to Witherspoon that could have gone his way. Wilder beat some professional fighters.

Not saying Thomas and Tubbs were anywhere near Ali or Louis. But I can't believe that we have to debate that they were better than Wilder.

We don't. They weren't. Weaver is nobody to beat. Witherspoon is a good fighter. "Bonecrusher" Smith and Greg Page are about the same level as Wilder's best victims.

I'd rank Wilder ahead of Thomas or Tubbs by a pretty fair margin, and I think most fight fans would.

Weaver was nobody to beat? no. Weaver was a good fighter. Not great, but good. Smith and Page weren't the same level as Wilder's best victims. They were better than Wilder himself.

Most fight fans would rank Wilder ahead of Tubbs and Thomas by a fair margin? Well I'm sure most younger fans would. They have no idea how bad their era is compared historically.

People that actually saw Tubbs and Tomas etc. when they actually in their prime don't think they were great. They think they were good and only occasionally great.

Notice that I can actually name names. With Fury and Wilder etc, it's usually anonymous "good fighters" that they beat. In desperation an unimpressive win over an ancient Klitschko is a big deal.

With Bowe, think how desperate people they have throw out his biggest win. A fighter's biggest win is one of the first things that should be looked at. It proves what he is capable of. Not in a fantasy fight. In real life.
We know that Fury is capable of beating an old Wladimir Klitschko. That is less impressive than what Corrie Sanders and did or Lamond Brewster did.
Wilder was capable of beating opponents that no one ever names.

And Riddick Bowe capable of beating a prime Evander Holyfield in a great fight.

Wilder's best wins are Luis Ortiz, Bermane Stiverne and probably Sergei Liakhovich. Ortiz and Stiverne are right there with the Greg Page's of the world as forgettable Heavyweight contenders/paper champions of their time.

His best achievement is probably the Draw with Tyson Fury in the 1st bout which is actually better than any of his wins.

I think Tony Tubbs and Pinklon Thomas both would be outboxing Deontay Wilder until he caught them and knocked them out. I've watched most of Tubbs' and Pinklon's key fights. They were nothing impressive, and Tubbs has definitely been knocked out by much lesser hitters than Wilder.

[Cojimar 1946]

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Tubbs beat Smith and Page. Lost a very close decision to Witherspoon that could have gone his way. Wilder beat some professional fighters.

Not saying Thomas and Tubbs were anywhere near Ali or Louis. But I can't believe that we have to debate that they were better than Wilder.

Putting Thomas ahead of Wilder finally seems like a reasonable position as Thomas has better wins and for a brief time was likely the best heavyweight in the world.

But the version Bowe faced was totally shot so it's hardly relevant.

[gilgamesh]

Thomas beat Witherspoon and Weaver. Tubbs beat Smith and Page. Lost a very close decision to Witherspoon that could have gone his way. Wilder beat some professional fighters.

Not saying Thomas and Tubbs were anywhere near Ali or Louis. But I can't believe that we have to debate that they were better than Wilder.

Putting Thomas ahead of Wilder finally seems like a reasonable position as Thomas has better wins and for a brief time was likely the best heavyweight in the world.

But the version Bowe faced was totally shot so it's hardly relevant.

He maybe would've had a window in there where he could've taken Michael Spinks or something, but Larry Holmes or Tyson who were the dominant forces of the 80's definitely would've always been the Best Heavyweight in the world at almost any given time they were around and active.

[Ambling Alp II]

We don't. They weren't. Weaver is nobody to beat. Witherspoon is a good fighter. "Bonecrusher" Smith and Greg Page are about the same level as Wilder's best victims.

I'd rank Wilder ahead of Thomas or Tubbs by a pretty fair margin, and I think most fight fans would.

Weaver was nobody to beat? no. Weaver was a good fighter. Not great, but good. Smith and Page weren't the same level as Wilder's best victims. They were better than Wilder himself.

Most fight fans would rank Wilder ahead of Tubbs and Thomas by a fair margin? Well I'm sure most younger fans would. They have no idea how bad their era is compared historically.

People that actually saw Tubbs and Tomas etc. when they actually in their prime don't think they were great. They think they were good and only occasionally great.

Notice that I can actually name names. With Fury and Wilder etc, it's usually anonymous "good fighters" that they beat. In desperation an unimpressive win over an ancient Klitschko is a big deal.

With Bowe, think how desperate people they have throw out his biggest win. A fighter's biggest win is one of the first things that should be looked at. It proves what he is capable of. Not in a fantasy fight. In real life.
We know that Fury is capable of beating an old Wladimir Klitschko. That is less impressive than what Corrie Sanders and did or Lamond Brewster did.
Wilder was capable of beating opponents that no one ever names.

And Riddick Bowe capable of beating a prime Evander Holyfield in a great fight.

Wilder's best wins are Luis Ortiz, Bermane Stiverne and probably Sergei Liakhovich. Ortiz and Stiverne are right there with the Greg Page's of the world as forgettable Heavyweight contenders/paper champions of their time.

His best achievement is probably the Draw with Tyson Fury in the 1st bout which is actually better than any of his wins.

I think Tony Tubbs and Pinklon Thomas both would be outboxing Deontay Wilder until he caught them and knocked them out. I've watched most of Tubbs' and Pinklon's key fights. They were nothing impressive, and Tubbs has definitely been knocked out by much lesser hitters than Wilder.

So Wilder has never beaten anyone worth mentioning. Well glad that has been cleared up.
Wilder chances against Tubbs, Thomas etc. would have small. First he didn't throw nearly enough punches. Second, he was a very inaccurate puncher. He was very wild. When you don't throw many punches and connect cleanly at a low % of those shots that you do throw, your chances of taking out a good fighter are very low. there is a reason why even when he fighting the weak competition that he was, he was usually often not scoring quick knockouts.


You have seen Thomas against Weaver and Witherspoon and you don't think he would have beaten Wilder? Come on. You really think Wilder lasts until the 6th round against Tyson?
Thomas had very good boxing skills. Has some speed and some power. A fairly accurate puncher. Tubbs had great hand speed, and good boxing skills. Tubbs did have a good chin. Only Tyson stopped when he was near his prime and he fought some good punchers.

Same with other guys like Dokes and Witherspoon. Certainly not as good as Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe, or Tyson. However, there is a gigantic gulf between Wilder and Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe and Tyson. Thomas, Tubbs, Dokes, Witherspoon etc. are in the middle of that gulf.

[gilgamesh]

I'll take your arguments point by point.

No I don't think Wilder would last into the 6th round with Mike Tyson because he didn't have the defensive skills.

Yes I think he'd knock out Tubbs or Pinklon Thomas because they didn't have the chins to take his bombs, Wilder would almost certainly be losing on points at the time he stopped them unless he got 'em early. Wilder could actually outbox Mike Weaver even if he couldn't knock him out I think.

I don't think Wilder would have been able to beat Tim Witherspoon, but their careers aren't far off in terms of accomplishment. Spoony had the chin, and tricky defense to hang in there through Wilder's biggest shots, and I think he'd poleaxe him with one of his own overhand rights at some point.

Just like any of those "Middle of the Road" Titleholders as you put it. I think Wilder would win some, and lose some based on how he's matched. I think his punch would allow him to win many fights against guys that are otherwise better than him too because it did.

[Cent0089]

I'll take your arguments point by point.

No I don't think Wilder would last into the 6th round with Mike Tyson because he didn't have the defensive skills.

Yes I think he'd knock out Tubbs or Pinklon Thomas because they didn't have the chins to take his bombs, Wilder would almost certainly be losing on points at the time he stopped them unless he got 'em early. Wilder could actually outbox Mike Weaver even if he couldn't knock him out I think.

I don't think Wilder would have been able to beat Tim Witherspoon, but their careers aren't far off in terms of accomplishment. Spoony had the chin, and tricky defense to hang in there through Wilder's biggest shots, and I think he'd poleaxe him with one of his own overhand rights at some point.

Just like any of those "Middle of the Road" Titleholders as you put it. I think Wilder would win some, and lose some based on how he's matched. I think his punch would allow him to win many fights against guys that are otherwise better than him too because it did.

[Ambling Alp II]

We are way apart on this. This had probably been beat to death. Ultimately, it mostly goes down to this: Some people think the hw division has been awful for the last 20 years or so. Others don't.