BoxRec

Jip wrote:

greg wrote:...ever, ever? threads like this usually crop up like mushrooms after a hard rain once the favourite boxer wins

You bdont understand. It has nothing to do with favourite boxer.

It has something to do with recognizing greatness.

..let's just wait at least till the end of this tournament..

EO asks the question "Why mention Spinks or Moorer, they weren't Cruiserweights?"

That introduces another question: "Is a Cruiserweight only someone who has competed in the Cruiserweight division i.e. since it's been known as such, or is it anyone who has fought at a weight, and against an opponent who also fulfills the weight requirement of the modern Cruiserweight?"

When you think about it most of history's Heavyweight champions tipped the scales at a weight consistent with the modern or even the original Cruiserweight limit. When you compare Heavyweights of different eras it doesn't do the old timers any favours. Who could envisage the great Rocky Marciano overpowering a Joe Frazier or a Mike Tyson, but compare him to the modern Cruiser (who still outweighs him by about a stone) and it starts to look a lot more interesting. Perhaps an entertaining comparison might be Usyk against Floyd Patterson or Joe Louis for example.

greg wrote:

Jip wrote:

greg wrote:...ever, ever? threads like this usually crop up like mushrooms after a hard rain once the favourite boxer wins

You bdont understand. It has nothing to do with favourite boxer.

It has something to do with recognizing greatness.

..let's just wait at least till the end of this tournament..

Okay

candyslim wrote:EO asks the question "Why mention Spinks or Moorer, they weren't Cruiserweights?"

That introduces another question: "Is a Cruiserweight only someone who has competed in the Cruiserweight division i.e. since it's been known as such, or is it anyone who has fought at a weight, and against an opponent who also fulfills the weight requirement of the modern Cruiserweight?"

When you think about it most of history's Heavyweight champions tipped the scales at a weight consistent with the modern or even the original Cruiserweight limit. When you compare Heavyweights of different eras it doesn't do the old timers any favours. Who could envisage the great Rocky Marciano overpowering a Joe Frazier or a Mike Tyson, but compare him to the modern Cruiser (who still outweighs him by about a stone) and it starts to look a lot more interesting. Perhaps an entertaining comparison might be Usyk against Floyd Patterson or Joe Louis for example.

Same weight is same weight, it is equal.

Therefore you can do those fantasy matches between louis and usyk etc.

Then I suggest Mr Usyk really has his work cut out !

I am not sure if Usyk can take the kind of shots that Huck landed thrown by Gassiev or Dorticos or Kudryashov. The Briedis v Perez winner will be the best boxer that Usyk will face in the tournament. At this point I am picking Briedis to get past Perez and upset Usyk.

A lot will happen between now and the second round.

Gass or dort dont punch much harder than huck.

Its hiw usyk chooses to fight. When you fight offensive than you will be open to Counter at times. When you fight like a pu;__y like floyd than you moving around focused on defence low punch rats in order to safe energy and than u get hit much less. Usyk could figjt defensive make it a boring ud. He has the defensive skills and footwork. I hope he doesnt do it. A great entertaining fight is more important to me than win or lose of the boxer i favour

Usyk got hit flush too much by a P4P barroom brawler. He needs to tighten up his defense or he will end up chocolatitoed.

Jip wrote:Gass or dort dont punch much harder than huck.

Its hiw usyk chooses to fight. When you fight offensive than you will be open to Counter at times. When you fight like a pu;__y like floyd than you moving around focused on defence low punch rats in order to safe energy and than u get hit much less. Usyk could figjt defensive make it a boring ud. He has the defensive skills and footwork. I hope he doesnt do it. A great entertaining fight is more important to me than win or lose of the boxer i favour

I do not know for Dorticos, but you are wrong about Gassiev, he is an extremely powerful puncher. Of course, he has some flaws - stamina, before all............

I hate these premature greatest threads

Holyfield would maul him

I honestly think he's too open to not be kod by the hayemaker

The guys good but let him have his career and get some more wins

Ya know Jip...just because you apparently JUST started watching Boxing a year or two ago doesn't mean that every single fighter you've seen with your own eyes is the best there's ever been.

I started following the sport back in 2001

My first appearances on Boxing forums didn't consist of me going around going

Lennox Lewis is the Best Heavyweight EVER!

Bernard Hopkins is the best Middleweight EVER!

Read up on the sports history. Watch the sports history (a lot of it is on Youtube). There's a lot there.

The sports history is so rich that it's seldom you'll even see one of the 100 best boxers of all time come along in your lifetime. So your insistence that so many of TODAY'S fighters are THE VERY BEST or among the very best of all time is ridiculous.

Granted the Cruiserweight divisions history isn't too deep...but Usyk still has some doing to top Holyfield.

Winning the next two fights will go a good distance in that direction.

gilgamesh wrote:Ya know Jip...just because you apparently JUST started watching Boxing a year or two ago doesn't mean that every single fighter you've seen with your own eyes is the best there's ever been.

I started following the sport back in 2001

My first appearances on Boxing forums didn't consist of me going around going

Lennox Lewis is the Best Heavyweight EVER!

Bernard Hopkins is the best Middleweight EVER!

Read up on the sports history. Watch the sports history (a lot of it is on Youtube). There's a lot there.

The sports history is so rich that it's seldom you'll even see one of the 100 best boxers of all time come along in your lifetime. So your insistence that so many of TODAY'S fighters are THE VERY BEST or among the very best of all time is ridiculous.

Haha 2001....you a newbie hahaha....oh lord have mercy...2001

People thought Huck was landing big shots? Didn't really see that myself...some people (like those who think Dimitrenko lit up Parker) seem to forget that getting hit occasionally is normal for all but the most gifted defensive fighters.

Huck is a solid puncher anyway; it reflects well on your chin if you can apparently take big shots from him without flinching. Think of how he was rocking Povetkin around the ring, how heavily he dropped Glowacki, him shaking up Afolabi, stopping Arslan, etc. Huck being a spot fighter who goes through long inactive periods is what's prevented him from scoring more stoppages.

Ossyrules wrote:I hate these premature greatest threads

Holyfield would maul him

I honestly think he's too open to not be kod by the hayemaker

The guys good but let him have his career and get some more wins

Best is too far, but who would you have as the #2 CW?

Jip wrote:
Haha 2001....you a newbie hahaha....oh lord have mercy...2001

I've watched as intently as just about anybody would or could during that time, and have an extensive Boxing film collection of fights and fighters from well before my time.

I'm only 30. Everybody starts watching at some point. I've been watching for over half of my life.

crusader wrote:People thought Huck was landing big shots? Didn't really see that myself...some people (like those who think Dimitrenko lit up Parker) seem to forget that getting hit occasionally is normal for all but the most gifted defensive fighters.

Huck is a solid puncher anyway; it reflects well on your chin if you can apparently take big shots from him without flinching. Think of how he was rocking Povetkin around the ring, how heavily he dropped Glowacki, him shaking up Afolabi, stopping Arslan, etc. Huck being a spot fighter who goes through long inactive periods is what's prevented him from scoring more stoppages.

Usyk flinched. He did the classic smile after getting caught move as well as acting as though he was shook, melodramatically. Also, it was clear when he got caught because he always counter attacked hard, which I like.

Really, I like pretty much everything about Usyk. He is versatile, tough, skilled, highly gifted, and he has character.

If Briedis gets by Perez, the next round is a very interesting fight.

Usyk has been a joker since his amateur days and a smile can just be a way to discourage your opponent by communicating that the shot didn't bother you. People overthink things when they suggest that there must be some deeper concealment of pain contained in such as response.

Plus, if Huck was really landing the type of shots you suggested, a smile is still a pretty good reaction.

Jip wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Ya know Jip...just because you apparently JUST started watching Boxing a year or two ago doesn't mean that every single fighter you've seen with your own eyes is the best there's ever been.

I started following the sport back in 2001

My first appearances on Boxing forums didn't consist of me going around going

Lennox Lewis is the Best Heavyweight EVER!

Bernard Hopkins is the best Middleweight EVER!

Read up on the sports history. Watch the sports history (a lot of it is on Youtube). There's a lot there.

The sports history is so rich that it's seldom you'll even see one of the 100 best boxers of all time come along in your lifetime. So your insistence that so many of TODAY'S fighters are THE VERY BEST or among the very best of all time is ridiculous.

Haha 2001....you a newbie hahaha....oh lord have mercy...2001

Were you even born then kid?

crusader wrote:Usyk has been a joker since his amateur days and a smile can just be a way to discourage your opponent by communicating that the shot didn't bother you. People overthink things when they suggest that there must be some deeper concealment of pain contained in such as response.

Plus, if Huck was really landing the type of shots you suggested, a smile is still a pretty good reaction.

Not sure what you are trying to get at. I am saying that if Usyk gets nailed flush by Huck that many times, how much is he going to get hit by Gassiev or especially Briedis?

I thought that Briedis was just as impressive v Huck.

gilgamesh wrote:

Jip wrote:
Haha 2001....you a newbie hahaha....oh lord have mercy...2001

I've watched as intently as just about anybody would or could during that time, and have an extensive Boxing film collection of fights and fighters from well before my time.

I'm only 30. Everybody starts watching at some point. I've been watching for over half of my life.

You watched a lot of tape. So you know the difference between holyfield & usyk at cw. If you forgot than take a film of your collection and watch how holyfield fought at cw, he looked very impressiv right. Usyk just looks more impressiv. Thats all. Usyk just a better boxer.

Tanzio wrote:

crusader wrote:Usyk has been a joker since his amateur days and a smile can just be a way to discourage your opponent by communicating that the shot didn't bother you. People overthink things when they suggest that there must be some deeper concealment of pain contained in such as response.

Plus, if Huck was really landing the type of shots you suggested, a smile is still a pretty good reaction.

Not sure what you are trying to get at. I am saying that if Usyk gets nailed flush by Huck that many times, how much is he going to get hit by Gassiev or especially Briedis?

I thought that Briedis was just as impressive v Huck.

Crusader is saying that taking big shots from a good puncher like huck is a + when u take them like usyk took.

And jip says that there aint difference in hucks, gassievs or breidis punching power. Also the question can gassiev and breidis take usyks power? Hucks face looked tomato red swollen, got beat up real bad. Usyk on the opposite looked untouched. Usyk tkod huck, breidis ud huck, what is more impressiv....

crusader wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:I hate these premature greatest threads

Holyfield would maul him

I honestly think he's too open to not be kod by the hayemaker

The guys good but let him have his career and get some more wins

Best is too far, but who would you have as the #2 CW?

It's so subjective but quite wide open. Do you rate cruiser achievements, or who was the best while they were at the weight. A lot of guys move up and don't stick around. Leaving career cruisers chance to technically scoop more accomplishments

Without putting too much thought I think David haye is in the conversation for number 2

Jip wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

crusader wrote:Usyk has been a joker since his amateur days and a smile can just be a way to discourage your opponent by communicating that the shot didn't bother you. People overthink things when they suggest that there must be some deeper concealment of pain contained in such as response.

Plus, if Huck was really landing the type of shots you suggested, a smile is still a pretty good reaction.

Not sure what you are trying to get at. I am saying that if Usyk gets nailed flush by Huck that many times, how much is he going to get hit by Gassiev or especially Briedis?

I thought that Briedis was just as impressive v Huck.

Crusader is saying that taking big shots from a good puncher like huck is a + when u take them like usyk took.

And jip says that there aint difference in hucks, gassievs or breidis punching power. Also the question can gassiev and breidis take usyks power? Hucks face looked tomato red swollen, got beat up real bad. Usyk on the opposite looked untouched. Usyk tkod huck, breidis ud huck, what is more impressiv....

We will see. Fortunately, I like them all.

Briedis softened Huck up, considerably. He still has to get by Perez, who I consider a better boxer and more dangerous than the Huck Usyk stopped.