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

[Cent0089]

I started following Boxing in 2001, I've backtracked and watched 100's if not 1000's of hours of fights from the 90's, 80's and 70's.

I don't know what it is you think you've seen or understood about Boxing that i haven't, but I can safely guarantee that less than 0.1% of people in this world have seen, discussed or thought about Boxing more than me.

Great and even Good fighters from the past are not unknown to me.

I have some blank spaces with my knowledge of the eras that pre-date Color television, but even then I try to educate myself and watch the guys that would be considered the cream of the crop.

That is totally irrelevant for a guys like this ambling alp guy. Those people will always say something like "180 lbs Dempsey would smoke Klitschko in 2 rounds, Hagler is 5 levels above Canelo and Golovkin" and similar trash. . Every boxing fan who is not delusional agree Holyfield and Usyk are both legends and on the same level of greatness This mythical fight could go either way, some favor Holyfield, some favor Usyk.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I cant stand the klitschkos so shame on you for making me defend one

You keep harping on 3 of wlads losses. He reinvented himself after those and went on a historic run. Fixating on those is disingenuous

Do you harp on lennox losing to rahman and mccall and arguably mercer? Bernard hopkins lost his debut and went life and death with mercado before his run.

Im sure youve argued countless times about how fighters nowdays are afraid to take losses while arguing wlads a bum for losing some fights

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Anyone can see ustk is a great talent

Hes a professional, always in shape
Can fight coming forward or counter
Takes a great punch
Elite quickness
High boxing iq
Ability to adjust midfight

The only weakness i see is he reacts to body punching moreso than most fighters

Hes had great success despite being undersized

Holyfield is an all time great. Lennox 2 wasnt even his peak

[gilgamesh]

I cant stand the klitschkos so shame on you for making me defend one

You keep harping on 3 of wlads losses. He reinvented himself after those and went on a historic run. Fixating on those is disingenuous

Do you harp on lennox losing to rahman and mccall and arguably mercer? Bernard hopkins lost his debut and went life and death with mercado before his run.

Im sure youve argued countless times about how fighters nowdays are afraid to take losses while arguing wlads a bum for losing some fights

Pacquiao looked very mortal all the way up to Featherweight too. It wasn't until he came to America, and had better training and sparring that he really became the great fighter he is. In his early days when he was fighting at 122 on down....like his first 48 or so fights. He was quite vulnerable.

Fighters aren't born great. It's often a long, hard road to greatness.

[Cojimar 1946]

First of all, no they aren't about the same size. Take a look at Jersey Joe Walcott. He weighed around 200 pounds and looked much bigger. He was all muscle. Walcott was a great athlete. He could moved around the ring very well.

Schmeling was naturally bigger than Jones too.

Jones usually weighed 175 or less. Yes I know he weighed 193 of John Ruiz. These guys aren't John Ruiz.
But lets forget about size. What do think happens when Walcott and Schmeling hit Jones? Its over. I liked Roy Jones. Loved it when he beat Toney. He was colorful and of course talented. But there is no way that he going to be able to take punches from these guys. Jones wouldn't even fight DM when he was the only threat out there at 175 for more than 5 years. No way he would step foot in the ring with Schmeling or Walcott.

Light heavyweights routinely rehydrate to the 180s and 190s so Jones would have faced guys the size of Walcott and Schmelling at light heavyweight. Neither are really regarded as huge hitters anyway. He shouldn't have to take much given his defense to begin with making it a likely non factor.

[gilgamesh]

Schmeling the mighty Heavyweight Champion who won his title on getting punched in the balls

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

First of all, no they aren't about the same size. Take a look at Jersey Joe Walcott. He weighed around 200 pounds and looked much bigger. He was all muscle. Walcott was a great athlete. He could moved around the ring very well.

Schmeling was naturally bigger than Jones too.

Jones usually weighed 175 or less. Yes I know he weighed 193 of John Ruiz. These guys aren't John Ruiz.
But lets forget about size. What do think happens when Walcott and Schmeling hit Jones? Its over. I liked Roy Jones. Loved it when he beat Toney. He was colorful and of course talented. But there is no way that he going to be able to take punches from these guys. Jones wouldn't even fight DM when he was the only threat out there at 175 for more than 5 years. No way he would step foot in the ring with Schmeling or Walcott.

Light heavyweights routinely rehydrate to the 180s and 190s so Jones would have faced guys the size of Walcott and Schmelling at light heavyweight. Neither are really regarded as huge hitters anyway. He shouldn't have to take much given his defense to begin with making it a likely non factor.

They wouldnt lay a glove on roy jones. Hed humiliate them like he did toney

[gilgamesh]

First of all, no they aren't about the same size. Take a look at Jersey Joe Walcott. He weighed around 200 pounds and looked much bigger. He was all muscle. Walcott was a great athlete. He could moved around the ring very well.

Schmeling was naturally bigger than Jones too.

Jones usually weighed 175 or less. Yes I know he weighed 193 of John Ruiz. These guys aren't John Ruiz.
But lets forget about size. What do think happens when Walcott and Schmeling hit Jones? Its over. I liked Roy Jones. Loved it when he beat Toney. He was colorful and of course talented. But there is no way that he going to be able to take punches from these guys. Jones wouldn't even fight DM when he was the only threat out there at 175 for more than 5 years. No way he would step foot in the ring with Schmeling or Walcott.

Light heavyweights routinely rehydrate to the 180s and 190s so Jones would have faced guys the size of Walcott and Schmelling at light heavyweight. Neither are really regarded as huge hitters anyway. He shouldn't have to take much given his defense to begin with making it a likely non factor.

They wouldnt lay a glove on roy jones. Hed humiliate them like he did toney

I mean Montell Griffin gave him a fight so I can't say Schmeling wouldn't give him a fight, but I do think Roy would ultimately beat him.

Walcott would either be trickier and harder to deal with or easier to deal with because Roy would be too quick for his attempts to outquick him. Could go either way really.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Light heavyweights routinely rehydrate to the 180s and 190s so Jones would have faced guys the size of Walcott and Schmelling at light heavyweight. Neither are really regarded as huge hitters anyway. He shouldn't have to take much given his defense to begin with making it a likely non factor.

They wouldnt lay a glove on roy jones. Hed humiliate them like he did toney

I mean Montell Griffin gave him a fight so I can't say Schmeling wouldn't give him a fight, but I do think Roy would ultimately beat him.

Walcott would either be trickier and harder to deal with or easier to deal with because Roy would be too quick for his attempts to outquick him. Could go either way really.

Anyone can have an off night. Look at the rematch.

Jones humiliated him too

[gilgamesh]

They wouldnt lay a glove on roy jones. Hed humiliate them like he did toney

I mean Montell Griffin gave him a fight so I can't say Schmeling wouldn't give him a fight, but I do think Roy would ultimately beat him.

Walcott would either be trickier and harder to deal with or easier to deal with because Roy would be too quick for his attempts to outquick him. Could go either way really.

Anyone can have an off night. Look at the rematch.

Jones humiliated him too

I don't think it was an anomaly though. There was something about what Griffin did that worked at least to some degree, and could potentially work better.

You'd always want to pressure Roy, and cut off his ability to use his speed on you. Anybody trying to catch him at center ring is doomed. He's too fast.

[Ambling Alp II]

I cant stand the klitschkos so shame on you for making me defend one

You keep harping on 3 of wlads losses. He reinvented himself after those and went on a historic run. Fixating on those is disingenuous

Do you harp on lennox losing to rahman and mccall and arguably mercer? Bernard hopkins lost his debut and went life and death with mercado before his run.

Im sure youve argued countless times about how fighters nowdays are afraid to take losses while arguing wlads a bum for losing some fights

Yes I keep harping on the tree losses because they happened. One time is one thing. Two is pushing it. Three times says a lot. There is not one heavyweight champion who had this many losses like this and is considered great. Not one.
Reinvented himself? He beat one stiff-mediocre fighter after another. this was nothing "historic about it" except that it went on for so long.

Yes I do count Lewis' losses against him. Have said so many times. Don't him #1. Do rate rate him much, much higher than Klitschko. However, those losses were to nearly as bad of opponents. The McCall fight is a bit of a gray area because the fight should not have been stopped. I do think he should not have been given the decision against Mercer. However, that was a great fight and Lewis performed well. Thats a big difference from being crushed by people like Sanders and Brewster.

We should have the weigh the good against the bad for everyone. Lewis' losses were not as embarrassing gnd there were less of them. . Klitschko's wins were not as good as Lewis wins'. And no, we don't need to go through all the stiffs with pretty records that Klitschko beat. The guy barely survived Samuel Peter.

There might be a reason that W. Klitschko ducked Lennox Lewis. whenever I bring this up, the Klitschko fans never respond.

[Ambling Alp II]

Schmeling the mighty Heavyweight Champion who won his title on getting punched in the balls

That is what you got from Schmeling's career? wow. Not all the big wins and good performances. I know cojimar was like this, but thought you were different. Just because a guy was before our time doesn't mean he was better or worse than someone from out time. The world did not begin the day you were born.

I don't what to say. Walcott is going to lose to Roy Jones. wow. Jones who apparently was never hit in his career or knocked out. Trying to excuse Klitschko 3 humiliating loss to stiffs with Ali lose one decision to Ken Norton.

it's not that we aren't on the same page. We are not using the same book.
This has been more than beaten to death. No sense on going on.

[gilgamesh]

Schmeling the mighty Heavyweight Champion who won his title on getting punched in the balls

That is what you got from Schmeling's career? wow. Not all the big wins and good performances. I know cojimar was like this, but thought you were different. Just because a guy was before our time doesn't mean he was better or worse than someone from out time. The world did not begin the day you were born.

I don't what to say. Walcott is going to lose to Roy Jones. wow. Jones who apparently was never hit in his career or knocked out. Trying to excuse Klitschko 3 humiliating loss to stiffs with Ali lose one decision to Ken Norton.

it's not that we aren't on the same page. We are not using the same book.
This has been more than beaten to death. No sense on going on.

Schmeling was obviously a good fighter. I've seen a fair amount of his performances. I do honestly suspect he could pressure Roy, and give him a lot of the same troubles Griffin gave him in their 1st bout, but I think that Roy would be catching Max a lot more.

I recently watched Schmeling vs Louis 1. That was definitely an excellent performance, and the highlight of Schmeling's career.

I'm well aware of how good Walcott was and wasn't. I'm aware it took him 4 attempts at the Heavyweight title before he could win it, and then he couldn't keep it.

Walcott had some slick tricks. The walk away right hand being his most famous, but he was a crafty fighter who would be able to give Roy his share of troubles. I think it's fair to say though that he would've never seen anything like Roy Jones.

He has about the same amount of overall fights of Roy Jones, and he has less wins and more losses, and don't tell me he fought better competition than Roy Jones because Roy Jones was a World Championship level fighter for a solid decade.

[Cojimar 1946]

Jones only prime loss is a dq in a fight he was winning whereas Walcott was losing to guys like Layne and Ray etc. Where is the logic in Jones not being able to beat Walcott when Rex Layne of all people managed to pull it off?

[keithmoonhangover]

Jones only prime loss is a dq in a fight he was winning whereas Walcott was losing to guys like Layne and Ray etc. Where is the logic in Jones not being able to beat Walcott when Rex Layne of all people managed to pull it off?

When do you have Jones' prime ending?

[Cojimar 1946]

Jones only prime loss is a dq in a fight he was winning whereas Walcott was losing to guys like Layne and Ray etc. Where is the logic in Jones not being able to beat Walcott when Rex Layne of all people managed to pull it off?

When do you have Jones' prime ending?

2002

[keithmoonhangover]

Jones only prime loss is a dq in a fight he was winning whereas Walcott was losing to guys like Layne and Ray etc. Where is the logic in Jones not being able to beat Walcott when Rex Layne of all people managed to pull it off?

When do you have Jones' prime ending?

2002

So, you don't think he was in his prime when he got sparked by Tarver?

[Cojimar 1946]

When do you have Jones' prime ending?

2002

So, you don't think he was in his prime when he got sparked by Tarver?

No because immediately afterwards he was dominated by Reggie Johnson who wasn't anything special. It's hard to explain that away if Roy was still close to his prime. It's not like it was a lucky punch either as he lost every round.

[keithmoonhangover]

2002

So, you don't think he was in his prime when he got sparked by Tarver?

No because immediately afterwards he was dominated by Reggie Johnson who wasn't anything special. It's hard to explain that away if Roy was still close to his prime. It's not like it was a lucky punch either as he lost every round.

So, Tyson wasn't in his prime when he lost to Douglas?

[giacomino]

2002

So, you don't think he was in his prime when he got sparked by Tarver?

No because immediately afterwards he was dominated by Reggie Johnson who wasn't anything special. It's hard to explain that away if Roy was still close to his prime. It's not like it was a lucky punch either as he lost every round.

I think you mean Glenn Johnson. He pitched a shutdown against Reggie Johnson five years earlier.

[Cojimar 1946]

So, you don't think he was in his prime when he got sparked by Tarver?

No because immediately afterwards he was dominated by Reggie Johnson who wasn't anything special. It's hard to explain that away if Roy was still close to his prime. It's not like it was a lucky punch either as he lost every round.

So, Tyson wasn't in his prime when he lost to Douglas?

Tyson scored excellent wins subsequently. Jones fought on for years and years and never did anything else of note.
Moreover an on-form Douglas is probably one of Tyson's best opponents, I certainly can't say the same for Glen Johnson.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I cant stand the klitschkos so shame on you for making me defend one

You keep harping on 3 of wlads losses. He reinvented himself after those and went on a historic run. Fixating on those is disingenuous

Do you harp on lennox losing to rahman and mccall and arguably mercer? Bernard hopkins lost his debut and went life and death with mercado before his run.

Im sure youve argued countless times about how fighters nowdays are afraid to take losses while arguing wlads a bum for losing some fights

Yes I keep harping on the tree losses because they happened. One time is one thing. Two is pushing it. Three times says a lot. There is not one heavyweight champion who had this many losses like this and is considered great. Not one.
Reinvented himself? He beat one stiff-mediocre fighter after another. this was nothing "historic about it" except that it went on for so long.

Yes I do count Lewis' losses against him. Have said so many times. Don't him #1. Do rate rate him much, much higher than Klitschko. However, those losses were to nearly as bad of opponents. The McCall fight is a bit of a gray area because the fight should not have been stopped. I do think he should not have been given the decision against Mercer. However, that was a great fight and Lewis performed well. Thats a big difference from being crushed by people like Sanders and Brewster.

We should have the weigh the good against the bad for everyone. Lewis' losses were not as embarrassing gnd there were less of them. . Klitschko's wins were not as good as Lewis wins'. And no, we don't need to go through all the stiffs with pretty records that Klitschko beat. The guy barely survived Samuel Peter.

There might be a reason that W. Klitschko ducked Lennox Lewis. whenever I bring this up, the Klitschko fans never respond.

He absolutely reinvented himself. He was a lot more boring but methodical and effective. He gassed badly in 2 of his losses.

I dislike him as a fighter. He was awfully boring. His run was historic for length
i also rate lennox higher

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I mean Montell Griffin gave him a fight so I can't say Schmeling wouldn't give him a fight, but I do think Roy would ultimately beat him.

Walcott would either be trickier and harder to deal with or easier to deal with because Roy would be too quick for his attempts to outquick him. Could go either way really.

Anyone can have an off night. Look at the rematch.

Jones humiliated him too

I don't think it was an anomaly though. There was something about what Griffin did that worked at least to some degree, and could potentially work better.

You'd always want to pressure Roy, and cut off his ability to use his speed on you. Anybody trying to catch him at center ring is doomed. He's too fast.

In all sincerity, not just trying to be hyperbolic for funs sake:

In a 5 fight series id take rjj 3 to 2 over walcott

Id take rjj over max 4 to 1

Theyd hit hi.

[DrDuke]

Usyk wins that version of Holyfield confidently.

[Cojimar 1946]

I cant stand the klitschkos so shame on you for making me defend one

You keep harping on 3 of wlads losses. He reinvented himself after those and went on a historic run. Fixating on those is disingenuous

Do you harp on lennox losing to rahman and mccall and arguably mercer? Bernard hopkins lost his debut and went life and death with mercado before his run.

Im sure youve argued countless times about how fighters nowdays are afraid to take losses while arguing wlads a bum for losing some fights

Yes I keep harping on the tree losses because they happened. One time is one thing. Two is pushing it. Three times says a lot. There is not one heavyweight champion who had this many losses like this and is considered great. Not one.
Reinvented himself? He beat one stiff-mediocre fighter after another. this was nothing "historic about it" except that it went on for so long.

Yes I do count Lewis' losses against him. Have said so many times. Don't him #1. Do rate rate him much, much higher than Klitschko. However, those losses were to nearly as bad of opponents. The McCall fight is a bit of a gray area because the fight should not have been stopped. I do think he should not have been given the decision against Mercer. However, that was a great fight and Lewis performed well. Thats a big difference from being crushed by people like Sanders and Brewster.

We should have the weigh the good against the bad for everyone. Lewis' losses were not as embarrassing gnd there were less of them. . Klitschko's wins were not as good as Lewis wins'. And no, we don't need to go through all the stiffs with pretty records that Klitschko beat. The guy barely survived Samuel Peter.

There might be a reason that W. Klitschko ducked Lennox Lewis. whenever I bring this up, the Klitschko fans never respond.

Okay but what's the rationale for having someone like Lewis with multiple bad losses by kayo no less over the undefeated Usyk? Unilke Holyfield he never beat a prime/near prime great. Holyfield was faded by the time he fought Lewis and Tyson was totally shot. You also clearly don't rate Vitali as great so that's not a great win in your book.