Holyfield V Usyk

[gilgamesh]

I think Holyfield made Bowe look better than he was in reality because he didn't have the attributes to take advantage of Bowe's weaknesses. Sort of like Norton with regards to Ali and Holmes.

But there are a lot of non-greats I would favor to beat Bowe based on matching up better. One of Bowe's biggest weaknesses was his poor defense but Holyfield didn't hit hard enough for that to be a huge liability.

Usyk don't hit as hard as Holyfield. I think he's technically more skilled, more defensively responsible, and more tactical in general, but he doesn't match Holyfield's power I don't think.

So his being able to hurt a guy like Bowe would've been pretty unlikely.

[cfang]

Totally agree with this. I wonder if golota is a better yardstick? He fouled out but battered Bowe also. Evander great of course but at heavy Bowe even though he won 2/3 makes evander look better.

Fury in particular is underrated on these forums and uysk beating him twice (only man to do so) were great results.

I stand by usyk beating evander.

I think Holyfield made Bowe look better than he was in reality because he didn't have the attributes to take advantage of Bowe's weaknesses. Sort of like Norton with regards to Ali and Holmes.

But there are a lot of non-greats I would favor to beat Bowe based on matching up better. One of Bowe's biggest weaknesses was his poor defense but Holyfield didn't hit hard enough for that to be a huge liability.

[cfang]

I don’t agree. Golota hurt bowe and knocked him down uysk had fury all over the place. Evander wasn’t a huge puncher. Foreman and Holmes didn’t much rate his power. He hit hard but usyk also has power. Neither are killers but wouldn’t automatically say evander hit harder.

quote=gilgamesh post_id=6166010 time=1768237083 user_id=31301]

I think Holyfield made Bowe look better than he was in reality because he didn't have the attributes to take advantage of Bowe's weaknesses. Sort of like Norton with regards to Ali and Holmes.

But there are a lot of non-greats I would favor to beat Bowe based on matching up better. One of Bowe's biggest weaknesses was his poor defense but Holyfield didn't hit hard enough for that to be a huge liability.

Usyk don't hit as hard as Holyfield. I think he's technically more skilled, more defensively responsible, and more tactical in general, but he doesn't match Holyfield's power I don't think.

So his being able to hurt a guy like Bowe would've been pretty unlikely.
[/quote]

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

What you are saying is exactly bias. Thinking the sport magically got better when you became a fan is bias.
Extensive use of their jabs? Well the jab has been important since well before Baer's time. The hws of today have better jabs on average than the hws from earlier eras.

Of course, Maz Baer and others were not great at everything. Baer in particular was not a textbook fighter. But he was an aggressive fight with some power and a good chin. Sometimes that was good enough, sometimes not. Same with fighters now. None of these guys are perfect. In any era.

Modern fans like you simply cannot comprehend your own biases. The KBro/Usyk connection been dominating the Heavy division since just before the turn of the Century with Vit making Ring top 10 in 1999 to kick off their era

Stated for the umpteenth time, Field 200+ Hvy Record a dismal 26-10-2 with something like 30% KO%.

Big Dummy stripped of every belt he owned.

Same Deal with Lewis save the WBC where he retired the day before they were gonna strip him.

Tyson became a highly entertaining 4rd fighter post prison whilst getting fleeced by King.

Usyk pro record is 30-0, 17 KO passed up those guys ages ago.

Now, you boys could propose fantasy fights where your heroes were prime or in their best fights, but it Jack in the Beanstalk stuff. Joe Louis recently lost his top Heavy IBRO rating 6 yrs ago when Louis Voting Members finally lost their majority vote to put Clay @ #1, but soon Clay Voters will pass and a new order will reset the rankings.

Really, having Sonny Liston #8 who I admire on several levels over Lewis, Frazier, Tyson and the Ks is just Dumbo Cubed in perpetuity.

[gilgamesh]

It is worth pointing out that Usyk had several of those Semi Pro bouts that were essentially Professional fights with the highest level amateurs, and he was paid for them. Paid more than what most guys would make for their first 5 or 6 bouts in fact.

The only thing Amateur about those bouts is they were wearing shirts. There was no headgear, and the competition was of the highest level among Amateur boxers in a Pro setting.

I personally don't count those bouts toward Usyk's Pro record, but you easily could, and it's not crazy to do so.

[Cent0089]

It is worth pointing out that Usyk had several of those Semi Pro bouts that were essentially Professional fights with the highest level amateurs, and he was paid for them. Paid more than what most guys would make for their first 5 or 6 bouts in fact.

The only thing Amateur about those bouts is they were wearing shirts. There was no headgear, and the competition was of the highest level among Amateur boxers in a Pro setting.

I personally don't count those bouts toward Usyk's Pro record, but you easily could, and it's not crazy to do so.

Well there was big difference - amateur gloves, if you mean that WSB fights organised by AIBA. Gloves are biggest difference between pro and amateur.

[gilgamesh]

It is worth pointing out that Usyk had several of those Semi Pro bouts that were essentially Professional fights with the highest level amateurs, and he was paid for them. Paid more than what most guys would make for their first 5 or 6 bouts in fact.

The only thing Amateur about those bouts is they were wearing shirts. There was no headgear, and the competition was of the highest level among Amateur boxers in a Pro setting.

I personally don't count those bouts toward Usyk's Pro record, but you easily could, and it's not crazy to do so.

Well there was big difference - amateur gloves, if you mean that WSB fights organised by AIBA. Gloves are biggest difference between pro and amateur.

And that's why they ain't on the Pro record. They were certainly Amateur bouts of the highest level though. Nobody could argue that.

[Cent0089]

It is worth pointing out that Usyk had several of those Semi Pro bouts that were essentially Professional fights with the highest level amateurs, and he was paid for them. Paid more than what most guys would make for their first 5 or 6 bouts in fact.

The only thing Amateur about those bouts is they were wearing shirts. There was no headgear, and the competition was of the highest level among Amateur boxers in a Pro setting.

I personally don't count those bouts toward Usyk's Pro record, but you easily could, and it's not crazy to do so.

Well there was big difference - amateur gloves, if you mean that WSB fights organised by AIBA. Gloves are biggest difference between pro and amateur.

And that's why they ain't on the Pro record. They were certainly Amateur bouts of the highest level though. Nobody could argue that.

Yes. I was a big fan of that WSB thing back in the day. Very good level of boxing

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Holyfield made Bowe look better than he was in reality because he didn't have the attributes to take advantage of Bowe's weaknesses. Sort of like Norton with regards to Ali and Holmes.

But there are a lot of non-greats I would favor to beat Bowe based on matching up better. One of Bowe's biggest weaknesses was his poor defense but Holyfield didn't hit hard enough for that to be a huge liability.

Usyk don't hit as hard as Holyfield. I think he's technically more skilled, more defensively responsible, and more tactical in general, but he doesn't match Holyfield's power I don't think.

So his being able to hurt a guy like Bowe would've been pretty unlikely.

I think his movement and work rate will serve him well against Bowe. I would prefer to use the cruiserweight version though as he had a better work rate

[Ambling Alp II]

Usyk would be going up against someone who was far better than anyone he actually beat in real life. If they were in their primes at the same time and about to fight each other, nobody would be picking Usyk. And nobody would be surprised after Bowe won. But on our site, where it's not going to happen in real life, people can just pick anyone that they want.

[gilgamesh]

Which is why who you think would win means jack sh*t when it comes to ranking guys historically.

Many times we see some guy come along and get a huge win none of us could've predicted, so how we think these mythical matchups would go could easily be just as wrong.

[Ambling Alp II]

True. I was trying to say that in a different way. (And we should always be hesitant to pick a guy against someone else who is better than anyone they actually beat in real life. But people do it all on the time with Mythical fights.)

Mythical fights should not count when rating people. Now if a guy does in real life does win a fight against a great opponent, he should get credit for that.
Bowe did that. Doesn't make him the best of all time. But it is something in that helps his all-time rating greatly. We need to weigh all the pluses against all the minuses of a fighter in what happened in real life.

[Cojimar 1946]

I'd probably pick Breidis over Bowe possibly Gassiev and Hunter.

Holyfield has a number of poor performances that don't involve great opponents. If we take Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe out of his era we still have the Moorer defeat at 31, a very close fight with Mercer which could have been scored a draw without the knockdown and of course the Cooper knockdown. Plus a fairly competitive fight with old Holmes. How do you blame those performances on being in a stronger era?

Holyfield is proven at a higher level than Usyk in that he beat Tyson who rates above anyone Usyk beat at heavyweight but he routinely struggled with guys no better than Usyks opponents.

[gilgamesh]

I'd probably pick Breidis over Bowe possibly Gassiev and Hunter.

Holyfield has a number of poor performances that don't involve great opponents. If we take Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe out of his era we still have the Moorer defeat at 31, a very close fight with Mercer which could have been scored a draw without the knockdown and of course the Cooper knockdown. Plus a fairly competitive fight with old Holmes. How do you blame those performances on being in a stronger era?

Holyfield is proven at a higher level than Usyk in that he beat Tyson who rates above anyone Usyk beat at heavyweight but he routinely struggled with guys no better than Usyks opponents.

I thought Holyfield beat Mercer pretty clearly myself.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'd probably pick Breidis over Bowe possibly Gassiev and Hunter.

Holyfield has a number of poor performances that don't involve great opponents. If we take Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe out of his era we still have the Moorer defeat at 31, a very close fight with Mercer which could have been scored a draw without the knockdown and of course the Cooper knockdown. Plus a fairly competitive fight with old Holmes. How do you blame those performances on being in a stronger era?

Holyfield is proven at a higher level than Usyk in that he beat Tyson who rates above anyone Usyk beat at heavyweight but he routinely struggled with guys no better than Usyks opponents.

Yes I;m sure you would have picked those guys over Bowe.

If we take out Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe? Seriously? Yeah, lets just take out three great fighters from one era. No biggie.

You can't just take out the best fighters. The best fighters are the most important factor.

1.Yes he lost to Moorer. That counts against him.
2. The Mercer fight? huh? That was a great fight. Holyfield fought very well and won a well-deserved decision. One of Mercer's best fights. Have not heard anyone dispute this verdict before. The Mercer fight is a plus in ranking Holyfield. Not a minus.
3. The Cooper "knockdown". Well he won that fight pretty easily. That supposed "knockdown" doesn't mean much.
4. Didn't look great against Holmes, though he wasn't awful. If that was one his best performance than yes, that would mean a lot.

With Holyfield, there is a lot to look at. Have to look great and subpar performances.
He looked like an ATG against Dokes, Tillis, Stewart, Thomas, the 2nd Moorer fight etc.

[Cojimar 1946]

I'd probably pick Breidis over Bowe possibly Gassiev and Hunter.

Holyfield has a number of poor performances that don't involve great opponents. If we take Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe out of his era we still have the Moorer defeat at 31, a very close fight with Mercer which could have been scored a draw without the knockdown and of course the Cooper knockdown. Plus a fairly competitive fight with old Holmes. How do you blame those performances on being in a stronger era?

Holyfield is proven at a higher level than Usyk in that he beat Tyson who rates above anyone Usyk beat at heavyweight but he routinely struggled with guys no better than Usyks opponents.

Yes I;m sure you would have picked those guys over Bowe.

If we take out Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe? Seriously? Yeah, lets just take out three great fighters from one era. No biggie.

You can't just take out the best fighters. The best fighters are the most important factor.

1.Yes he lost to Moorer. That counts against him.
2. The Mercer fight? huh? That was a great fight. Holyfield fought very well and won a well-deserved decision. One of Mercer's best fights. Have not heard anyone dispute this verdict before. The Mercer fight is a plus in ranking Holyfield. Not a minus.
3. The Cooper "knockdown". Well he won that fight pretty easily. That supposed "knockdown" doesn't mean much.
4. Didn't look great against Holmes, though he wasn't awful. If that was one his best performance than yes, that would mean a lot.

With Holyfield, there is a lot to look at. Have to look great and subpar performances.
He looked like an ATG against Dokes, Tillis, Stewart, Thomas, the 2nd Moorer fight etc.

If we take out Bowe, Lewis and Tyson that should make the eras more equal. So I thought to be fair we should remove those guys from consideration. That would give us a better idea of how Holyfield would do today.

I assume you believe the top guys today are better than at least some 90s heavyweights?

[Ambling Alp II]

Well sure there a certain fighters from today who were better than certain fighters from the 1990s. You can do that with any era. But it is just stupid to take out the best fighters. Holyfield fought them all. Every fight that Holyfield had that was close to his prime counts. Same with anyone.

[gilgamesh]

Well sure there a certain fighters from today who were better than certain fighters from the 1990s. You can do that with any era. But it is just stupid to take out the best fighters. Holyfield fought them all. Every fight that Holyfield had that was close to his prime counts. Same with anyone.

Every fight he had after his prime counts too. It all counts. If you were fit enough to step into the ring you're fit enough to take the result.

No excuses.

[Ambling Alp II]

You have to take consideration how close the fighter was to his prime. Who cares if he fights way too long and loses to someone he never would have lost to close to his prime?

You also have to look at what else happens if you do count those fights.

You would have give Trevor Berbik the same credit for beating Ali as you do Joe Frazier.
Hector Camacho would have been one the greatest of all time for beating Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran.
There are literally thousands of examples of this.

[gilgamesh]

You have to take consideration how close the fighter was to his prime. Who cares if he fights way too long and loses to someone he never would have lost to close to his prime?

You also have to look at what else happens if you do count those fights.

You would have give Trevor Berbik the same credit for beating Ali as you do Joe Frazier.
Hector Camacho would have been one the greatest of all time for beating Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran.
There are literally thousands of examples of this.

Berbick's fight with Ali wasn't a great fight for one thing. Though it was better than Holmes vs Ali by a lot. Plus Berbick vs Ali wasn't for any title. Sadly it probably is one of Berbick's career best victories, but it wouldn't get him near the boost to his reputation that it does any of the other guys that beat Ali. Especially Frazier and Norton.

I give credit to Holyfield for beating "old and washed up" George Foreman and Larry Holmes, and i give credit to others for beating "old and washed up" Holyfield.

Why?

Because Boxing comes full circle. One day you're the fresh faced young Champion beating up Yesterday's star, and then One day you're Yesterday's star, and the new fresh faced kid is beating you up.

For the most part very few fighters avoid this cycle.

Another reason why you have to do it that way is because everyone wants to claim that people's primes end at different times. If we all universally agreed a guy is washed after 40 or 35 years old, maybe we could consider a "He was past his prime" argument, but since it just gets handed out arbitrarily wherever people want it, then it's ultimately just another excuse.

If you were fit enough to step in the ring you're fit enough to take your win or your loss along with your paycheck. No excuses. Not even age.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well you seem to understand it with Trevor Berbick but not other guys.

If the fighter was clearly past his prime, it doesn't matter. For either the guy who was past his prime or the guy who won.

Often, boxing doesn't come full circle. A guy might be a lot of washed big names when he was in his prime and then retire without fighting past his prime.
Or do the opposite and fight way past his prime and have a ton of losses that don't matter. i.e Ezzard Charles.

When you beat a guy way past his prime, you aren't doing anything meaningful. Sometimes it's just a money grab or the past it guy.
This is something to that you have to comprehend if you want to know how to rate fighters.

And to a lesser extent this all goes for a guy on his way up who is too inexperienced loses to quality opponents. This used to be quite common in boxing. If you want to have a grasp on how the sport used to be, you have to do that as well.

[gilgamesh]

Well you seem to understand it with Trevor Berbick but not other guys.

If the fighter was clearly past his prime, it doesn't matter. For either the guy who was past his prime or the guy who won.

Often, boxing doesn't come full circle. A guy might be a lot of washed big names when he was in his prime and then retire without fighting past his prime.
Or do the opposite and fight way past his prime and have a ton of losses that don't matter. i.e Ezzard Charles.

When you beat a guy way past his prime, you aren't doing anything meaningful. Sometimes it's just a money grab or the past it guy.
This is something to that you have to comprehend if you want to know how to rate fighters.

And to a lesser extent this all goes for a guy on his way up who is too inexperienced loses to quality opponents. This used to be quite common in boxing. If you want to have a grasp on how the sport used to be, you have to do that as well.

I comprehend that guys are past their prime at some point, and just a name that used to be famous a "has been" if you will. I get all aspects of the game at this point. I've studied it inside and out. I've competed in it. I've written about it. I've read about it, and watched it for hours upon hours.

There's nothing I need to understand about the sport that I don't already. There's nothing you understand about the sport that I don't. I'm not saying that fighters are never past their prime, but eventually the guy that's beating the guys past their prime winds up past his prime taking losses. Happens ALMOST every time, and the few times it didn't is noteworthy, and those guys careers can be taken for what they were. Having no losses doesn't mean they were unbeatable obviously, but it does mean, they handled their career wisely.

If a guy gets out without fighting past his prime, then he simply handled his career smarter than most. Think of how few guys actually did something like that. It's not a long list. Almost all of them wind up losing at least a few, and there's no shame in that. It's the nature of the game. Any one of us would've lost a hell of a lot more often than any of the guys we talk about on here that's for goddamn sure.

I also obviously understand the concept of guys not being what they once were with aging, since I'm aging myself. I'm damn near 40 here, so I'm no stranger to the idea of not being what you once were at 25

Besides even if you're saying a guy is the 200th Greatest Fighter of all time. It's not an insult. Boxing has a hell of a rich history, and many of the Legends made their mark in their own unique way. That's what makes it such a fun sport to look back on. It's a rich tapestry. Making a mark in any sorta way that makes you worthy of inclusion in the conversation is nothing to scoff at.

[gilgamesh]

The great ones are usually able to still pull off impressive wins sometimes even when they're past their prime. The guys that were just good usually can't. Holyfield has wins when he was past his prime that are respectable scalps to have added to the record. Particularly the Hasim Rahman win. So it's not all bad, all the time. Depending on which career anyway.

Ali obviously could've done without the Holmes and Berbick fights, but I'm sure he made a lot of money for 'em, and ultimately it didn't deter from the fact that he's still the greatest heavyweight of all time, other than Joe Louis nobody really even comes close to having an argument. It just spoiled what would've been a perfect and wild send off that his great win that Leon Spinks in the rematch was.

[Ambling Alp II]

There is nothing that you need to understand about the sport that you don't know already? Wow.

I guess there no reason to go around and round on this. There are many reasons why how close to a fighter's prime when a occurs matters. This is not worth arguing about.

[gilgamesh]

There is nothing that you need to understand about the sport that you don't know already? Wow.

I guess there no reason to go around and round on this. There are many reasons why how close to a fighter's prime when a occurs matters. This is not worth arguing about.

I thought we settled the who was better between Holyfield and Usyk debate a while back anyway. Since Page 1 we've been going off on side tangents.

I genuinely don't know why it is you think there's something about Boxing I don't get or haven't understood. I'm not being condescending to you by saying there's nothing I don't understand about the sport, I'm just being honest. How well could a human being possibly know this f*cking sport? I'm just saying that I'm as hardcore of a fan as one can possibly be. I've experienced the sport over, under, sideways, down, backwards, forwards, square and round.

You keep explaining things to me about Boxing history like "There used to only be 8 weight divisions"..."There used to only be 1 Champion per division"

Yeah I know all of that. I've known all that for 20 f*cking years.

I AGREE with you that Holyfield is better than Usyk. You never did seem to catch that either.