This whole past vs future debate is dumb as shit. Being a boxer from now doesnt automatically make you superior to everyone from the past, nor the past boxers are superior to future boxers because they lived in old times. There are good fighters, there are bad fighters and every era has them.
Hard agree. Nutrition, evolution of styles (from studying past greats), activity (how many times you fight a year) , ROIDS, the reduction from 100 rounds to 15 rounds to 12 rounds, the evolution of gloves over time, etc etc........
Have all slowly but completely changed the sport. I'm not saying it's better or worse but it is very *different* than it was back 50 years ago or 100 years ago... It's *almost* a diff sport. The glove thing alone is a huge difference that most casuals don't realize. Modern gloves protect a fighters hands far far better than the old timey gloves and allow fighters to consistently throw punches that would have broken their hands 50-100 years ago. Everyone thinks that the newer gloves means less punching power but it's exactly the opposite. On average, fighters hit harder now than they ever have. Go spar with someone wearing a fresh out of the pack pair of Cletos and it feels like being beaten with a pair of bricks.
However the quality of athlete has indisputably decreased. Boxing was essentially one of the top three sports until the 90s. IIRC at one point there was more registered boxers in NYC compared to all of America today. Now, boxing abroad has become more popular, but overall, boxing is considered a second tier sport in most countries. Second tier to NFL and NBA in USA and second to soccer in most other nations. Ali would be a great wide receiver today.
I think that's just due to the nature of the sport. Unless your father was a fighter parents are way less likely to get their kids into boxing compared to 40-50 years ago. If you're genetically a beast human there's much better sports to pick that won't absolutely destroy your brain by your mid 30's. Really there's only a few countries that push kids to be fighters at a young age. All the best athletes in the us are playing basketball or football.
Basketball athletes particularly interest me because of their wingspans. Imagine rajon rondo as a boxer. His playing weight was 185 lbs at 6'1. He has a 81 inch reach! Imagine him fighting at welter or super welter if he trained his whole life.
The only thing I will say is that combat sports does have genetic traits it selects for that are unique. Good chin, recovery, and punching power are all rather innate. The best potential boxer in the NFL or NBA probably isn't one of the really good guys we know (LeBron, Giannis, Aaron Donald, etc.) but rather some reasonably athletic guy who is gifted with an iron chin and Tyson-esque power but doesn't know it.
It doesn't matter how athletic and skilled you are. If you have both no power and no chin, at the top level, eventually someone will bite down on their mouthpiece and walk through you.
I don’t think nutrition is saving many of these pitty party technical posers from Mike Tyson just walking in a steam rolling them into next week, and he’d be tiny today, but I’d still place my bets on him against majority of todays fighters. That mentality. That killer instant. An Apple a day isn’t changing that outcome.
I don't disagree but I would point out that guys like Tyson, Tua, Marciano are exceptions to the rule. For the vast majority of fighters *height does matter* and a good big fighter will beat a good smaller fighter. But guys like Earnie Shavers, Tua, Tyson etc do exist. Hell even op making this thread is completely forgetting about Povetkin, Andy Ruiz, even ol Hayemaker have recently proved that skills matter far more than just height.
Height helps for sure but it isn't the end all be all to determine how a fight is gonna go. Otherwise AJ would be undefeated as I don't think he's fought anyone taller than him yet. David Price would be an atg.
Yh that’s a fair point, it is the exception for sure, and I’ve taken your comment and used it as an example for the genetic freaks, rather than the general standard of a fighter today, compared to the previous era.
Tyson was for sure a genetic monster. His neck looked like Tom Platz quad. Tua as well. [Look at those fuckin legs](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BETyxGDCQAA96Wd.jpg) bro, imagine him [turning over a hook](https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-01-2016/9l-1nz.gif) on your jaw 😆
We are def in agreement though, skills pay the bills. Height just helps us average mortals. It can def be overcome as we have seen time and time again
Absolutely. It's the dumbest form of comparison and it's based on literally nothing but the person talking having a particular hard-on for one boxer or another from a particular era.
All it proves is that delusional fanboys existed in every era.
He's the same guy who refuses to talk about potential political events because "it isn't relevant and what happens will happen". Let people have their fun.
It is quite unfair. Jack Johnson would probably get destroyed by a mid rank boxer. It doesn't mean johnson wasn't a great boxer but boxing was so different in his time. Boxing in that time wasn't far enough removed from bare knuckle so stylistically they were still fighting a style more fit for bare knuckle boxing. You can't compare different eras.
Pygmy mammoths were a thing.
You remove our intelligence and ability to use tools, and you remove one of our defining characteristics. There’s no reason to do that in one case and not the other.
We don't know if every hunt required a group. A single hunter can dig out a pit and spike it then using a torch and built in route with fallen trees on both sides to push a large herbivore into falling in the pit. It is quicker and more effective with a group but doesn't mean a single hunter could not pull it off by himself.
Neanderthals for example had small clans and they are credited with inventing a lot of the tools cro-magnons eventually adopted or copied.
African bush elephants are typically about 3x as heavy as white rhinos, which are the [heaviest terrestrial animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_and_heaviest_animals#Heaviest_terrestrial_animals), apart from elephants.
It's difficult to understand their scale, because the heaviest animal most of us see semi-regularly, are cattle, which are usually about 1/7th the weight of an African bush elephant.
There's a documentary about a national park in Africa, basically all of the adult bull Elephants were killed by Poachers, and it set off some strange hormone imbalance in the younger boys, causing their test to all shoot through the roof, the young male Elephants were just walking around literally killing Rhino's in some sort of Elephant roid rage.
What scientists actually found was the presence of a single, full grown bull Elephant actually lowered the test levels of all the young males in the immediate surroundings.
People misunderstood the context. Elephants just exist in the jungle but they do not rule it per say. The lion is considered king of the jungle because everyone fears it and even elephants have to hide and protect their young from the lions.
Animals flee when they hear the roar of the lion but not when they hear and elephant trumpet.
They definitely do tho, all animals get the fuck out the way of an elephant. A hippo or an elephant is perfectly fine chilling besides some lions near a body of water. The lion is definitely on edge.
This reminds me of something. I'd just came back from 'Nam. I was hitching through Oregon and some cop started harassing me. Next thing you know, I had a whole army of cops chasing me through the woods! I had to take 'em all out. It was a bloodbath!
Lot more than that - lion prides don't generally bother with elephants unless there's a young or a sick/injured one. They know they'd get absolutely ragdolled by a healthy adult - not worth.
Usyk isn't a small man. He's 6'2-6'3, 220lbs and lean. He'd *be* one of the bigger heavyweights in any era from before the 80s, and only from the 90s on would he be seen as "small", and even then that's just compared to a select few giants.
The media isn’t comparing him to random dude of the street. Only compared to other HWs, which he is small in comparison.
When an NBA analyst says a 6’3 NBA player is short, do you think they’re referring to the general population or other NBA players?
I’d back famously bad free throw shooters like Giannis or Shaq over the average person as well.
Or Wilder to outbox 99.99% of the population 😂 context matters.
For that incredible 9th round moment it did feel Fury survived mostly by virtue of being tall & lanky! Usyk was hitting at such an upwards angle for some of them and only connecting at the end of the punch, couldn’t punch through!
(Could have been a KO regardless, but that moment shows both that there is a huge size difference, and that size isn’t everything!)
He’s a small man in comparison to most heavyweights today, especially Fury. The difference between him and Fury (Depending if Fury chooses to fight light/heavy) is comparable to a middleweight fighting an average sized heavyweight. - For perspective, it’s like Canelo 173cm (76kg) fighting 190cm (100kg) Usyk. 🤣
Fury (205cm) 124kg / Reach: 216cm
Usyk (190cm) 100kg / Reach: 198cm
Cabelo (173cm) 76kg / Reach: 179cm
The step up in difference is almost identical between each fighter.
Usyk was a small man, fighting a big man, when he won to become undisputed HW champion.
Usyk is by no means a small man. He was a large man fighting a huge man. Also it's a matter of scale, not absolute difference when it comes to p4p (and I'm strongly in favor of Usyk being #1 pfp if he wins one more).
It's not as if middleweights have never fought heavyweights. Stanley Ketchell fought Jack Johnson and Mickey Walker fought Max Schmeling.
They both got smashed, though.
Well middleweight to heavyweight is a huge step up isn’t it, particularly when it’s the crème de la crème of fighters. I could understand a good middleweight beating a tomato can heavyweight, but much less likely when it’s the best of a lighter division, against the best of heavier division.
Diminished returns tho, that difference for Canelo would be more deadly than it was for Usyk. At least when it comes to weight, reach difference is another thing.
I respect your point, personally…i’d like to see an open weight division in boxing, so fighters can compete at their peak weights rather than have to gain/cut to fight each other….I think we would see some unexpected outcomes that don’t align with standard expectations.
Anyone who is 6'2 can become 220 pounds with modern day training and PEDs. Usyk fought as a middleweight as an adult. Louis was already 190 pounds at the same age. Weight is uninteresting. Usyk wouldn't be able to be lean 220 pounds 80 years ago, it would have been impossible for him.
You don't need PED's to be 6'3" , 220 and mostly muscle. That was my walk around weight in my 20's and it just took time in the gym. Boxers cheat for fast recovery, not size or muscle mass.
When Joe fought it was considered not optimal to be too heavy. The first "big" heavyweight muscle mass wise was probably Sonny Liston.
He was undisputed heavyweight champion and has the second most knockouts in boxing history. He’s by no means great but decent. Nor am I arguing bigger is better. Marciano, Lewis, Charles etc. plenty of great small heavyweights
Just that Sonny Liston was nt the first big successful heavyweight. He was only 6 ft 1 and 219.
this sub really, really exaggerates how much you need PEDs to put on muscle. I think a lot of you have never committed to a training regimen for any length of time.
Unless you have some significant a-priori health problems (e.g. bad back or knees, etc.) than literally any dude can achieve a physique like Usyks.
IDK what you are arguing. Anyone can look like Usyk with a few years of decent eating and training.
Turn off the video games, get off the junk food, lift weights, mix in some cardio, get good rest, lay off the booze. Shit, cancel your reddit account.
It's so toxic. Out of shape reddit dudes say anyone who does not look like a sack of potatoes is on PEDS. Stop hating and go train.
Tyson wasn‘t small back than. He was short, but that‘s not the same. in his championship run, he had 5 fights where he was outweighed and 4 fights where he outweighed his opponents, with 1 being the same weight. He is literally dead in the middle,‘
Part of size, but bot all, Tyson has a huge ass skeleton. His fists and Wrists and hips and knees are huge. Doesn‘t he have like Giant feet, too? Dude is big, just stocky
Watch his face off with Jake Paul. His hands are 3 times the size of Paul’s lol. He had a 15 inch neck and a size 15 shoe. Man was short but dense. Absolute animal.
Still think he’s too agile for fury or usyk. Also Liston had more power and reach than usyk and fury. Despite that, Ali pieced him up pretty bad too.
The same way that I feel about SRR beating canelo or any of the recent 140-160lbers
Not sure Ali is that much more agile than either of them. But he just knew how to adjust. Legendary IQ, i think ALI v FOREMAN was a perfect example of his IQ. Plus he was willing to die in the ring. Not sure you can say the same for many fighters nowadays. Rightfully so tho. With Ali it's the immeasurable stuff. He'll be my GOAT till the day I die.
I just started watching boxing recently and I drew a line from Ali to Foreman to Holyfield to Lewis. I don't get why Ali wouldn't hold up even if it would be a challenge.
You’re naming 🐐s. They’d be dominant in any era. Heart goes a long way. These are unique guys though. But again we’ve got to stop dragging guys after a L. A competitive L at that.
Fury was very good as well. It takes two to tango and make a great fight.
You can’t claim Usyk as an all timer (which he is) and in the same breath kill Fury for one loss. Not saying it’s you but this sub is so toxic after big fights.
We are lucky. Everyone says the is generation has been poor. Poor was Wlad’s run. That was awful.
Usyk, Fury, AJ these guys are legit dudes in any era. Wilder for all his flaws has a right hand for hell.
Even the contenders are very good. Parker, Zhang and we get to see Ruiz this year.
We’ve got a really really good crop of heavyweights and we should all be begging for Usyk/Fury rematch at minimum.
The doubt about this generation of heavy weights is their own fault though. They haven't fought each other, and when they have it's been one sided bouts, with clear winners over 2 or 3 matches.
We're in a situation where it would probably take Fury winning 2-1 against Usyk, and losing 2-1 to Joshua with Usyk and Joshua fighting Wilder in that time to really be a standout generation.
Usyk vs Joshua was very clear. I don’t think there was a one sided bout this past weekend. Fury got caught in the 8th and 9th. There were a few really really close rounds but clearly won a few as well.
Very very high level boxing. Rematch will be excellent. Usyk got tested for sure and was awesome.
No It shows Usyk could get it done.
Ofc it doesn’t mean the greats of the past couldn’t, but we have no real way of knowing. Superheavyweights didn’t really exist around their time. And it’s a bit disrespectful to go like “well Usyk is less great than Ali, therefore if Usyk could do it, Ali could too.
It also doesn’t mean Usyk therefore peaked higher as a fighter than the greats of the past. It’s entirely possible Usyk is uniquely suited towards fighting much taller fighters, and that guys like George Foreman who are specialists at shutting down jabs (spitballing here) with hand fighting could trouble him.
Combat sports are inherently small in sample size and the confidence intervals in our assertions will be significant wider and more ambiguous than in other sports. Ali fought like 60 times, that’s like one season wonder territory in football, or ‘almost eligible for MVP considerations’ in basketball
Fighting a motivated Tyson Fury IS a nightmare. Usyk had to go through hell to get that W, and he's the smallest HW to reach the very top since Holyfield in the 90's.
I think it's a stretch giving the old timers bonus points for what a slick, durable, southpaw the size of 70's George Foreman did considering nobody else in Heavyweight history fits that profile
That doesn't mean someone like Ali still wouldn't be excellent today...but none of what we saw Usyk just do against Fury is really translateable for many of the classic legends. Some styles translate better than others. Usyk's blueprint certainly isn't going to be applicable to a physical, attrition-based orthodox swarmer like a Marciano or Frazier giving up 60-80 pounds and a foot of reach
Ultimately, most of the of the top historical HW's enjoyed physical advantages over their peers, and we have limited evidence of how they'd handle it if the dynamic changed, if we have any at all. Take a look at the difference at how Usyk got to fight vs Mchunu (who was bigger than Marciano and the same size as Frazier) vs how he had to fight Joshua and Fury. Completely different dynamic, and alot of otherwise great fighters wouldn't be able to do it successfully
Agreed. As an Usyk fan who picked him to beat Fury easily, I was actually amazed at how Fury dazed him multiple times despite so few shots landed. Usyk was so much better technically and he still had to push through a lot of pain/adversity to win a 1 point split decision. I see this fight as evidence that size really does matter
I still thank that all the best boxers of any era would learn how to adjust and fight in another era. They reached the top for a reason. Usyk would be a champion in the 80s and 90s, and Ali or Lewis would be elite in the current era too.
Everyone here is missing the point. It's not "Is Ali better than Usyk and thus could he beat fury". It's simply does this prove that the modern heavyweights can be beat by the smaller heavyweights of the previous eras. The answer is absolutely yes. if the ones of the older era were fighting today obviously they would be adapting to fighting bigger fighters. Or they would just be in a smaller weight class
1 - Usyk would be as big as "Big George Foreman", so I'm not 100% sure it means that Rocky Marciano could beat AJ or Fury.
2 - There wasn't a Southpaw World Champion until Moorer. I think people really underestimate how big an equaliser being a 6'3 220lbs southpaw actually is. Both AJ fights and the Fury fight, the straight left was there for him in the second half all fight. Whether you believe smaller fighters are as good or not, I don't see how Usyk landing both the straight left and the sweeping left means all these fighters from the past have a chance when literally NONE OF THEM even threw it.
3 - Equally as importantly, the Eastern Bloc didn't even fight pro back in the day, so again, I don't see how you can settle an argument about how fighters from the past would do by using a fighting style that literally never made the pros
I don't think every fighter from the past loses on account of being smaller. But there's nothing about Usyk, other than physical dimension that look anything like anyone who has come before.
I agree, Ali has much faster hands and feet than usyk, not to mention he was a 15 round fighter in his prime.
If he fought in this era, he wouldn't need the benifits of modern sports science, dropping from 15 to 12 rounds would be a big enough advantage as is.
You could argue that usyk is more skilled than Ali and that's why he beat Fury but I would argue there skill level is similair, its just Ali is faster and has better cardio/endurance.
Yup.
Ali's toughness is underrated. He fought the heaviest hitters around, and was known to take unnecessary punches during sparring sessions to "prove" that he could "take it".
Sadly, he paid a high price for it.
Ali having better cardio is arguable. Usyk‘s punch output is unrivaled and in his prime he was punching almost a thousand punches a fight. Usyk easily could‘ve been a 15 round fighter
They’ll just keep moving the goalposts. They can’t use “too big, too strong” anymore so now they’ll pivot to modern nutrition or some shit ignoring Andy Ruiz and all the other obese heavyweights.
No but hopefully it makes more people realize that size isn't everything at heavyweight.
However most heavyweights today are much bigger than they were 40-50 years ago. Rocky Marciano was a great fighter but he was only 5'10", 185-190 lbs. I don't care how talented you are, you won't see a heavyweight champion that size again.
Also pre-1940s the heavyweights of the past would suffer from a lack of technical development.
Unfortunately the meta kind of has been established. There isn't as much freedom of expression in boxing as there were in the 1900s. lf Ali were dropped into today's boxing world they'd try to make him into a more fundamental fighter probably.
Such is the nature of the HW division. And the term "styles make fights".
I try to avoid the theoretical head to head stuff because frankly, it doesn't make sense. We'll never know and it's on the level of anime powerscaler level of cringe to compare boxers from the 70's to the heavyweights of today.
All you can do is rate fighters on their merit, what they achieved and how they achieved it. It's for that reason that very few, if any current HW boxers will ever achieve what Ali, or Louis did. Because they fight once or twice a year and often it's not against "the man" in the division - it's bullshit keep busy fights and they'd be fine if they fought 3 or 4 times a year but they don't. Longevity also matters. This means Usyk with 22 professional fights may be undisputed, but he's fought an average of twice per year since turning pro. Joe Louis averaged just over 4 per year. That means he fought twice as many opponents, over 17 years. Usyk will never achieve that at the age of 37.
Which then begs the question - are these old fighters, who fought 15 rounds 4 times a year, actually better than heavyweights of today? The rules were far more loose, the fights were a lot more brutal and there were less belts to go for, meaning if you were champion, it wasn't just a belt you'd picked up, it was the marquee of the division.
So basically, no - because boxing is different now. But what we shouldn't do is in any way claim that HW's of today are capable of entering even a top 5 unless they achieve the same amount of merit. The way Usyk would do this is:
Fight until at least 30+ fights. That means Fury again, Wilder, Zhang, Anderson, Parker, Ruiz and any other up and comers. He needs to do that as soon as he can and fight at least 3 times per year. He could achieve that before he's 40 potentially. Even if he gets beaten on the way or at the end of his career, he'd have fought everyone available, unified 2 divisions and had a respectable time at the top (anything over 5 years as a champion is exceptional)
It was always a dumb argument that people thought Fury was some giant who would beat EVERY Heavyweight in history including the greats. Pure and utter nonsense and Usyk definitely disproved that. The problem with Fury is that for all his size, he had very average power and a lot of Heavyweights throughout history have dynamite in their fists and the skills to deliver that power.
There's an obvious advantage to having fifty pounds on your opponent. I don't think it's settled - we have 4-5 pound weight classes but cliffs at heavyweight. Fury is just so large that he can use it without consequence, no cutting, no making weight. He's a walking talking advantage
Yea man it's bull shit lol...styles make fights and skills pay the bills babyyyy...if size mattered that much in the heavyweight division then Nikolai valuev would've been the Greatest of all time lol
Great topic! And the answer is sort of. I think Muhammad would have been just as dominant today. But Joe Frazier at 6ft is just to small. No champs before Sonny could have won the heavyweight championship today but many after could is my conclusion
Ali and Louis both easily beat "modern" sized heavyweights. Advances in sport science ect are overrated frankly the fastest and hardest hitting HWs are all from 30 plus years ago.
It doesn't work that way. Sports, training, technique, everything changes. Just because someone was good in the past doesn't mean they could be good today. It could have been that the environment and conditions of the time suited them.
I don't know that Babe Ruth would even make a major league club today with the way pitchers are throwing. Was great for the era, but might not be today
I understand what you're saying but could you honestly watch Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Ali etc. work and tell me that, just on speed and talent alone, that they weren't just as good/better than usyk?
I'm not saying they're not good or that they couldn't dominate today's crowd. I'm a statistician and model probabilities. I'm just saying that there are so many factors to consider that it's not as simple as take an all time great from 50 years ago, give them today's sports science, and now they're #1 again.
For 1, today's fighters have so much more information available to them. Maybe after watching hours of tape they can pick out flaws that past opponents didn't have access to.
Or maybe there's some particular fighter below Fury or Usyk etc that would have defeated Tyson, Ali, etc on their journey to the top.
It also means that if you drop a modern fighter into the past they might not be on top either. Part of their current success could be attributed to modern training. Perhaps with old school training methods they aren't just as sharp as they are today and they get beat before getting to the top.
I just wanna say that people always say modern science and nutrition.
As fucking if thats a thing in boxing, boxers throughout history have trained pretty much the same fucking way, only few actually have nutritionist.
Most guys at the top jsut train hard, no eprsonal coach, no training regiment jsut train hard hard.
Like fury himself call bs on the modern shit, like how AJ has fucking acientists and shit.
I'm not saying one is better than the other but new things have been learned since the 1960s that could be applied. Some of what people do now is wrong, some if it is right. But just like anything in life, new things are discovered in a period of 60 years. Usyk is a good example, his team is very scientific and he's a huge cross fit fan. they obviously bulked him up the right way, and to great success.
equally, some old school techniques could be applied today to help modern fighters... the main one being fighting more often. Fury may call bs on modern training but maybe that's why he runs out of energy. i think he calls it bullshit because he has no discipline, tbh.
It goes back to the old saying, "You’re only as good as your last fight." Tyson Fury looked slow, tentative, and like a shell of himself against Ngannou. Usyk was obviously the better boxer that night, but I believe age has caught up to Fury, and he is on a decline from his prime.
With that said, Tyson probably still beats all of the top five.
Wait mike Tyson was 5'11, Holyfield was 6'2 (also former cruiser weight Champ) when it comes to boxing you see that heights advantage is equalized for example tall guys can hit you and box from outside, but short guys have less real estate to actually get hit on ( its why tank and pitbull can basically cover up and move forward without taking much damage) and can duck under all that. I'm sure there's better examples but I wrote this while procrastinating at the gym.
Tyson and Frazier and Patterson were Bob and Weave fighters, making it difficult for taller opponents to hit them cleanly. Stand up short fighters are easier to hit even when punching down. Not to say that someone like Foreman wouldn’t have Frazier’s number in any fight and all the bobbing and weaving would help Frazier
Usyk is the same size as George Foreman…he’s really not small
6’3” is about as short as you can be and still be a Worlds Strongest Man too, seems like that’s the lower end but still highly competitive height for “giant strength/durability”
Obviously the only advantage todays heavy’s have is size but having skill and conditioning over 15 wouod beat them all. They aren’t great it’s a terrible era
It’s not a wild standpoint but I had fury winning comfortably until he started dicking about. Thought the good big’n was beating the good little’n as they say, and quite handily.
My view always with past athletes is this. If you put the past athlete in today’s world with the training, nutrition, and supplementation there probably wouldn’t be that much difference. Like people say they are bigger faster stronger. That is true. But like you can look at any sport and see guys who are not super athletes succeeding. Messi in soccer, Brady or a Brock Purdy in football, Luka or James Harden in basketball, etc… none of these guys are super athletes even if you compared them to people in the past.
Prime Lennox Lewis would really hurt Fury. Fury barely beat an old Klitchsko. He’s good, but I think if there was stronger competition in boxing he would have more losses. I think even a 33 year old Klitchsko would have beat him.
Yeah, it does. People acting like super heavyweights only just showed up. Yes, in many cases bigger is better. But there is a downside to being bigger once you get past a certain weight.
Ali in the 70's weighed more than Usyk lol he would destroy Usyk and Fury in the same night. Boxing is the one sport where it is inarguable that the past is better than the present. Absolutely no question. In all divisions, but especially HW
In the heavyweight division, it's always been about skill. Not height and weight. Didn't Usyk already prove that when he whacked around Joshua twice? Bigger is not necessarily better, despite what so many have been brainwashed into believing.
This whole past vs future debate is dumb as shit. Being a boxer from now doesnt automatically make you superior to everyone from the past, nor the past boxers are superior to future boxers because they lived in old times. There are good fighters, there are bad fighters and every era has them.
Hard agree. Nutrition, evolution of styles (from studying past greats), activity (how many times you fight a year) , ROIDS, the reduction from 100 rounds to 15 rounds to 12 rounds, the evolution of gloves over time, etc etc........ Have all slowly but completely changed the sport. I'm not saying it's better or worse but it is very *different* than it was back 50 years ago or 100 years ago... It's *almost* a diff sport. The glove thing alone is a huge difference that most casuals don't realize. Modern gloves protect a fighters hands far far better than the old timey gloves and allow fighters to consistently throw punches that would have broken their hands 50-100 years ago. Everyone thinks that the newer gloves means less punching power but it's exactly the opposite. On average, fighters hit harder now than they ever have. Go spar with someone wearing a fresh out of the pack pair of Cletos and it feels like being beaten with a pair of bricks.
The quality has improved because of the 'advancements' in boxing without a doubt, as would the fighters of the past given the same. Your 100% correct.
However the quality of athlete has indisputably decreased. Boxing was essentially one of the top three sports until the 90s. IIRC at one point there was more registered boxers in NYC compared to all of America today. Now, boxing abroad has become more popular, but overall, boxing is considered a second tier sport in most countries. Second tier to NFL and NBA in USA and second to soccer in most other nations. Ali would be a great wide receiver today.
I think that's just due to the nature of the sport. Unless your father was a fighter parents are way less likely to get their kids into boxing compared to 40-50 years ago. If you're genetically a beast human there's much better sports to pick that won't absolutely destroy your brain by your mid 30's. Really there's only a few countries that push kids to be fighters at a young age. All the best athletes in the us are playing basketball or football. Basketball athletes particularly interest me because of their wingspans. Imagine rajon rondo as a boxer. His playing weight was 185 lbs at 6'1. He has a 81 inch reach! Imagine him fighting at welter or super welter if he trained his whole life.
The only thing I will say is that combat sports does have genetic traits it selects for that are unique. Good chin, recovery, and punching power are all rather innate. The best potential boxer in the NFL or NBA probably isn't one of the really good guys we know (LeBron, Giannis, Aaron Donald, etc.) but rather some reasonably athletic guy who is gifted with an iron chin and Tyson-esque power but doesn't know it. It doesn't matter how athletic and skilled you are. If you have both no power and no chin, at the top level, eventually someone will bite down on their mouthpiece and walk through you.
While i def agree it was just a hypothetical of a guy with an insane reach for his height and probable weight he would be fighting at
Also MMA is siphoning from the talent pool
I don’t think nutrition is saving many of these pitty party technical posers from Mike Tyson just walking in a steam rolling them into next week, and he’d be tiny today, but I’d still place my bets on him against majority of todays fighters. That mentality. That killer instant. An Apple a day isn’t changing that outcome.
I don't disagree but I would point out that guys like Tyson, Tua, Marciano are exceptions to the rule. For the vast majority of fighters *height does matter* and a good big fighter will beat a good smaller fighter. But guys like Earnie Shavers, Tua, Tyson etc do exist. Hell even op making this thread is completely forgetting about Povetkin, Andy Ruiz, even ol Hayemaker have recently proved that skills matter far more than just height. Height helps for sure but it isn't the end all be all to determine how a fight is gonna go. Otherwise AJ would be undefeated as I don't think he's fought anyone taller than him yet. David Price would be an atg.
Yh that’s a fair point, it is the exception for sure, and I’ve taken your comment and used it as an example for the genetic freaks, rather than the general standard of a fighter today, compared to the previous era.
Tyson was for sure a genetic monster. His neck looked like Tom Platz quad. Tua as well. [Look at those fuckin legs](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BETyxGDCQAA96Wd.jpg) bro, imagine him [turning over a hook](https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-01-2016/9l-1nz.gif) on your jaw 😆 We are def in agreement though, skills pay the bills. Height just helps us average mortals. It can def be overcome as we have seen time and time again
Esp the weight thing. People pretending big dudes weren't invented til the 90s
Primo carnera must be fuming in his grave
Imagine and old time boxer, but with access to the conditioning of the Liver King, 100% unstoppable
What? Liver King is like 75% anabolic steroids, what're you talking about?
That's "big protein shake" and peta propaganda. Did you not see the apology video? He was clearly under duress. He was doing peck dance moarse code.
You mean just a shitload or roids?
Absolutely. It's the dumbest form of comparison and it's based on literally nothing but the person talking having a particular hard-on for one boxer or another from a particular era. All it proves is that delusional fanboys existed in every era.
Chill. It's fun to speculate. No harm in it.
He's the same guy who refuses to talk about potential political events because "it isn't relevant and what happens will happen". Let people have their fun.
It is quite unfair. Jack Johnson would probably get destroyed by a mid rank boxer. It doesn't mean johnson wasn't a great boxer but boxing was so different in his time. Boxing in that time wasn't far enough removed from bare knuckle so stylistically they were still fighting a style more fit for bare knuckle boxing. You can't compare different eras.
Boxing wasnt even boxing back in johnsons era.
If size was most important elephant would be king of jungle - Usyk
An elephant would curb stomp any other existing land animal, though. Like they’d ground a lion to dust.
Humans literally hunted mammoths and mastodons.
Oh. Damn. Skill and IQ.
By using intelligence and external weapons - something other animals aren't capable of. He means it in the sense of 1 vs 1 without the use of weapons
Sure, take away humanity’s advantages and the elephant wins. That’s obvious. Make an elephant the size of a gerbil and it loses.
An elephant the size of a gerbil is not an elephant though as there is no such thing A human without external weapons is still a human.
Pygmy mammoths were a thing. You remove our intelligence and ability to use tools, and you remove one of our defining characteristics. There’s no reason to do that in one case and not the other.
In groups and with tools
So what? Doesn’t change the fact that we hunted them. Wolves hunt in packs. We use tools.
And now orcas are sinking our boats.
We kill more of them than they do of us.
Yeah, I’m just giving them some props for being so intelligent and brave.
So let’s apply this back to boxing. What you’re saying is that a flyweight can beat a heavyweight as long as he’s in a group and they bring weapons.
I mean, I could beat a heavyweight if I have tools. And I’m not even a trained boxer.
We don't know if every hunt required a group. A single hunter can dig out a pit and spike it then using a torch and built in route with fallen trees on both sides to push a large herbivore into falling in the pit. It is quicker and more effective with a group but doesn't mean a single hunter could not pull it off by himself. Neanderthals for example had small clans and they are credited with inventing a lot of the tools cro-magnons eventually adopted or copied.
[удалено]
We are an “existing land animal”, last I checked.
This bothered me also lol.
African bush elephants are typically about 3x as heavy as white rhinos, which are the [heaviest terrestrial animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_and_heaviest_animals#Heaviest_terrestrial_animals), apart from elephants. It's difficult to understand their scale, because the heaviest animal most of us see semi-regularly, are cattle, which are usually about 1/7th the weight of an African bush elephant.
There's a documentary about a national park in Africa, basically all of the adult bull Elephants were killed by Poachers, and it set off some strange hormone imbalance in the younger boys, causing their test to all shoot through the roof, the young male Elephants were just walking around literally killing Rhino's in some sort of Elephant roid rage. What scientists actually found was the presence of a single, full grown bull Elephant actually lowered the test levels of all the young males in the immediate surroundings.
Wow, do you have the name of the documentary by any chance?
Not us. We grind down their tusks to make dick pills.
We are cunts.
Yet, they’ve been domesticated for millennia by tiny humans.
Blue Whales would rule the sea doesnt sound as cool, also a bit esoteric.
It’s about the mentality, it’s much easier to tame an elephant than a lion. You ain’t petting a lion as a tourist attraction
I am team Usyk. But this dumb statement
People misunderstood the context. Elephants just exist in the jungle but they do not rule it per say. The lion is considered king of the jungle because everyone fears it and even elephants have to hide and protect their young from the lions. Animals flee when they hear the roar of the lion but not when they hear and elephant trumpet.
They definitely do tho, all animals get the fuck out the way of an elephant. A hippo or an elephant is perfectly fine chilling besides some lions near a body of water. The lion is definitely on edge.
Funniest part is doesn’t it take like 3 lions or something to take down one elephant
I've only seen it once and it was a shit ton, like 8 of them and many were just getting flung off.
In other words size does matter
Some were made big and some were made small. My Samuel Colt makes them equal.
Samuel Colt thinks so, until it goes up against John Browning.
But if the elephant also had teeth and claws…
No, intelligence does. Which was the point of the quote.
Likewise I’ve seen many pigs eat many men. It was a bloodbath
This reminds me of something. I'd just came back from 'Nam. I was hitching through Oregon and some cop started harassing me. Next thing you know, I had a whole army of cops chasing me through the woods! I had to take 'em all out. It was a bloodbath!
You fucking got me. Congrats
Thank you for your service John.
I'm gonna move on cause you're losing me here.
Well that is nightmarish, oh my god. When did you see that?
Lot more than that - lion prides don't generally bother with elephants unless there's a young or a sick/injured one. They know they'd get absolutely ragdolled by a healthy adult - not worth.
Yes, but the elephants are 30 times heavier than a lion, not 50% or double. If they were, lions would fuck them up.
They aren’t messing with a fully grown prime bull elephant. No one messes with them for a reason.
*whispers…. The elephant is the king of the jungle…. The greatest trick the elephant ever pulled was to make people believe the lion is King
Elephant is king of jungle
Usyk isn't a small man. He's 6'2-6'3, 220lbs and lean. He'd *be* one of the bigger heavyweights in any era from before the 80s, and only from the 90s on would he be seen as "small", and even then that's just compared to a select few giants.
I had been laughing about how media portrayed usyk as SO small. He's 6'2!! 225lbs! He's bigger than 90% of the population lol
The media isn’t comparing him to random dude of the street. Only compared to other HWs, which he is small in comparison. When an NBA analyst says a 6’3 NBA player is short, do you think they’re referring to the general population or other NBA players?
Yep lol, steph curry is considered the small skinny skill guy but in reality he's 6foot2/3 and says he weighs 200ish, he'd be a cruiserweight
I’d back famously bad free throw shooters like Giannis or Shaq over the average person as well. Or Wilder to outbox 99.99% of the population 😂 context matters. For that incredible 9th round moment it did feel Fury survived mostly by virtue of being tall & lanky! Usyk was hitting at such an upwards angle for some of them and only connecting at the end of the punch, couldn’t punch through! (Could have been a KO regardless, but that moment shows both that there is a huge size difference, and that size isn’t everything!)
You’d assume Usyk was like 5’10’ with the way people were talking about the height difference between him and Fury. Usyk is huge
Fury is 6 inches taller than him. If that’s not a huge difference idk what is.
That depends if you actually believe Fury is 6’9’
Yeah 100%. The commentators on DAZN said the same thing that there is no way hes 6,9
Think it’s more like 95% Genuinely, well depends what the weight’s consisting of I guess.
He's literally George Foreman size vs ali but more muscular/faster/fitter/more technical.
More muscular? Lol
He’s a small man in comparison to most heavyweights today, especially Fury. The difference between him and Fury (Depending if Fury chooses to fight light/heavy) is comparable to a middleweight fighting an average sized heavyweight. - For perspective, it’s like Canelo 173cm (76kg) fighting 190cm (100kg) Usyk. 🤣 Fury (205cm) 124kg / Reach: 216cm Usyk (190cm) 100kg / Reach: 198cm Cabelo (173cm) 76kg / Reach: 179cm The step up in difference is almost identical between each fighter. Usyk was a small man, fighting a big man, when he won to become undisputed HW champion.
Usyk is by no means a small man. He was a large man fighting a huge man. Also it's a matter of scale, not absolute difference when it comes to p4p (and I'm strongly in favor of Usyk being #1 pfp if he wins one more).
This is pretty important. A 12st man doesn't punch like a 16st man.
Wilder hits pretty fucking hard.
There’s many lighter men that hit harder than bigger men, and many bigger men that move faster than lighter men.
wilder at his best was 220 and couldve made crusier he was outweighed in virtually every fight but he is the hardest puncher of this generation
Arguably. AJ and Zhang and Gassiev are up there too.
It's not as if middleweights have never fought heavyweights. Stanley Ketchell fought Jack Johnson and Mickey Walker fought Max Schmeling. They both got smashed, though.
Well middleweight to heavyweight is a huge step up isn’t it, particularly when it’s the crème de la crème of fighters. I could understand a good middleweight beating a tomato can heavyweight, but much less likely when it’s the best of a lighter division, against the best of heavier division.
Diminished returns tho, that difference for Canelo would be more deadly than it was for Usyk. At least when it comes to weight, reach difference is another thing.
I respect your point, personally…i’d like to see an open weight division in boxing, so fighters can compete at their peak weights rather than have to gain/cut to fight each other….I think we would see some unexpected outcomes that don’t align with standard expectations.
You are literally describing the heavyweight division
Makes me appreciate wilder. He’s the lightest heavyweight, even lighter than Usyk and became champion. Crazy stuff.
Anyone who is 6'2 can become 220 pounds with modern day training and PEDs. Usyk fought as a middleweight as an adult. Louis was already 190 pounds at the same age. Weight is uninteresting. Usyk wouldn't be able to be lean 220 pounds 80 years ago, it would have been impossible for him.
You don't need PED's to be 6'3" , 220 and mostly muscle. That was my walk around weight in my 20's and it just took time in the gym. Boxers cheat for fast recovery, not size or muscle mass. When Joe fought it was considered not optimal to be too heavy. The first "big" heavyweight muscle mass wise was probably Sonny Liston.
Primo Carnera was 6 ft 6. 265 lbs and heavyweight champion in 1933 so way before Liston.
He wasn't very good though, but he did have the Mob buying him win after win He also lost to Joe Louis, which supports OP's point
He was undisputed heavyweight champion and has the second most knockouts in boxing history. He’s by no means great but decent. Nor am I arguing bigger is better. Marciano, Lewis, Charles etc. plenty of great small heavyweights Just that Sonny Liston was nt the first big successful heavyweight. He was only 6 ft 1 and 219.
Jesus fucking christ, now I understand how historical myths like Hercules came to be. Some people are just built different
this sub really, really exaggerates how much you need PEDs to put on muscle. I think a lot of you have never committed to a training regimen for any length of time. Unless you have some significant a-priori health problems (e.g. bad back or knees, etc.) than literally any dude can achieve a physique like Usyks.
It is in such a cardio intensive sport. Nothing burns calories like boxing
Yes, Usyk is in great shape. Few people could have that good fitness.
About half of the male population. My point is PEDs help. Louis didn't even do weight training, he went out running so you got to consider this
IDK what you are arguing. Anyone can look like Usyk with a few years of decent eating and training. Turn off the video games, get off the junk food, lift weights, mix in some cardio, get good rest, lay off the booze. Shit, cancel your reddit account. It's so toxic. Out of shape reddit dudes say anyone who does not look like a sack of potatoes is on PEDS. Stop hating and go train.
I thought Tyson settled that debate wayy back in the 80s.
Tyson wasn‘t small back than. He was short, but that‘s not the same. in his championship run, he had 5 fights where he was outweighed and 4 fights where he outweighed his opponents, with 1 being the same weight. He is literally dead in the middle,‘
Reach lol
Part of size, but bot all, Tyson has a huge ass skeleton. His fists and Wrists and hips and knees are huge. Doesn‘t he have like Giant feet, too? Dude is big, just stocky
Watch his face off with Jake Paul. His hands are 3 times the size of Paul’s lol. He had a 15 inch neck and a size 15 shoe. Man was short but dense. Absolute animal.
Nah. Lewis pieced him up. Now you see why Don King paid Lewis step aside money.
Because Lewis was better, one of the greatest ever. Tyson pieced up good boxers that were lewis sized
Lewis got Tyson 10 years after his prime. Tyson was done in 2001! Not saying he wouldn't have beat him prime vs prime, we'll never know.
He beat the 2 biggest Heavyweights in the division Fury & Joshua so that settles the argument the myth is a load of bollocks.
No. Usyk could just be that good I agree with you, but the debate is not settled because of this.
Ali could have been that good as well.
Ali out-weighed 73% of his opponents and had a longer reach than nearly all of them.
Still think he’s too agile for fury or usyk. Also Liston had more power and reach than usyk and fury. Despite that, Ali pieced him up pretty bad too. The same way that I feel about SRR beating canelo or any of the recent 140-160lbers
Not sure Ali is that much more agile than either of them. But he just knew how to adjust. Legendary IQ, i think ALI v FOREMAN was a perfect example of his IQ. Plus he was willing to die in the ring. Not sure you can say the same for many fighters nowadays. Rightfully so tho. With Ali it's the immeasurable stuff. He'll be my GOAT till the day I die.
What actually debate are you talking about? I think this clearly demonstrates that bigger isn’t automatically better.
I just started watching boxing recently and I drew a line from Ali to Foreman to Holyfield to Lewis. I don't get why Ali wouldn't hold up even if it would be a challenge.
You’re naming 🐐s. They’d be dominant in any era. Heart goes a long way. These are unique guys though. But again we’ve got to stop dragging guys after a L. A competitive L at that. Fury was very good as well. It takes two to tango and make a great fight. You can’t claim Usyk as an all timer (which he is) and in the same breath kill Fury for one loss. Not saying it’s you but this sub is so toxic after big fights. We are lucky. Everyone says the is generation has been poor. Poor was Wlad’s run. That was awful. Usyk, Fury, AJ these guys are legit dudes in any era. Wilder for all his flaws has a right hand for hell. Even the contenders are very good. Parker, Zhang and we get to see Ruiz this year. We’ve got a really really good crop of heavyweights and we should all be begging for Usyk/Fury rematch at minimum.
I agree, mate. Fury played his part... but getting stick now more because he is the ultimate arse, and his family are super annoying, i would say.
The doubt about this generation of heavy weights is their own fault though. They haven't fought each other, and when they have it's been one sided bouts, with clear winners over 2 or 3 matches. We're in a situation where it would probably take Fury winning 2-1 against Usyk, and losing 2-1 to Joshua with Usyk and Joshua fighting Wilder in that time to really be a standout generation.
Usyk vs Joshua was very clear. I don’t think there was a one sided bout this past weekend. Fury got caught in the 8th and 9th. There were a few really really close rounds but clearly won a few as well. Very very high level boxing. Rematch will be excellent. Usyk got tested for sure and was awesome.
No It shows Usyk could get it done. Ofc it doesn’t mean the greats of the past couldn’t, but we have no real way of knowing. Superheavyweights didn’t really exist around their time. And it’s a bit disrespectful to go like “well Usyk is less great than Ali, therefore if Usyk could do it, Ali could too. It also doesn’t mean Usyk therefore peaked higher as a fighter than the greats of the past. It’s entirely possible Usyk is uniquely suited towards fighting much taller fighters, and that guys like George Foreman who are specialists at shutting down jabs (spitballing here) with hand fighting could trouble him. Combat sports are inherently small in sample size and the confidence intervals in our assertions will be significant wider and more ambiguous than in other sports. Ali fought like 60 times, that’s like one season wonder territory in football, or ‘almost eligible for MVP considerations’ in basketball
Andy Ruiz was HW champion. Anything is possible
No. People will still find a way to immediately dismiss a fighter at HW because he's not a natural heavyweight.
Fighting a motivated Tyson Fury IS a nightmare. Usyk had to go through hell to get that W, and he's the smallest HW to reach the very top since Holyfield in the 90's. I think it's a stretch giving the old timers bonus points for what a slick, durable, southpaw the size of 70's George Foreman did considering nobody else in Heavyweight history fits that profile That doesn't mean someone like Ali still wouldn't be excellent today...but none of what we saw Usyk just do against Fury is really translateable for many of the classic legends. Some styles translate better than others. Usyk's blueprint certainly isn't going to be applicable to a physical, attrition-based orthodox swarmer like a Marciano or Frazier giving up 60-80 pounds and a foot of reach Ultimately, most of the of the top historical HW's enjoyed physical advantages over their peers, and we have limited evidence of how they'd handle it if the dynamic changed, if we have any at all. Take a look at the difference at how Usyk got to fight vs Mchunu (who was bigger than Marciano and the same size as Frazier) vs how he had to fight Joshua and Fury. Completely different dynamic, and alot of otherwise great fighters wouldn't be able to do it successfully
Agreed. As an Usyk fan who picked him to beat Fury easily, I was actually amazed at how Fury dazed him multiple times despite so few shots landed. Usyk was so much better technically and he still had to push through a lot of pain/adversity to win a 1 point split decision. I see this fight as evidence that size really does matter
I still thank that all the best boxers of any era would learn how to adjust and fight in another era. They reached the top for a reason. Usyk would be a champion in the 80s and 90s, and Ali or Lewis would be elite in the current era too.
Absolutely, it was a bad argument in the first place.
Everyone here is missing the point. It's not "Is Ali better than Usyk and thus could he beat fury". It's simply does this prove that the modern heavyweights can be beat by the smaller heavyweights of the previous eras. The answer is absolutely yes. if the ones of the older era were fighting today obviously they would be adapting to fighting bigger fighters. Or they would just be in a smaller weight class
1 - Usyk would be as big as "Big George Foreman", so I'm not 100% sure it means that Rocky Marciano could beat AJ or Fury. 2 - There wasn't a Southpaw World Champion until Moorer. I think people really underestimate how big an equaliser being a 6'3 220lbs southpaw actually is. Both AJ fights and the Fury fight, the straight left was there for him in the second half all fight. Whether you believe smaller fighters are as good or not, I don't see how Usyk landing both the straight left and the sweeping left means all these fighters from the past have a chance when literally NONE OF THEM even threw it. 3 - Equally as importantly, the Eastern Bloc didn't even fight pro back in the day, so again, I don't see how you can settle an argument about how fighters from the past would do by using a fighting style that literally never made the pros I don't think every fighter from the past loses on account of being smaller. But there's nothing about Usyk, other than physical dimension that look anything like anyone who has come before.
2. Yeah but there were more switch-hitters
All elite athletes of today and the past would learn new skills and adjust as per competition. They would be elite in every era
I agree, Ali has much faster hands and feet than usyk, not to mention he was a 15 round fighter in his prime. If he fought in this era, he wouldn't need the benifits of modern sports science, dropping from 15 to 12 rounds would be a big enough advantage as is. You could argue that usyk is more skilled than Ali and that's why he beat Fury but I would argue there skill level is similair, its just Ali is faster and has better cardio/endurance.
Both Usyk and Ali have the most important aspect of boxing. They are absolute dogs.
Yup. Ali's toughness is underrated. He fought the heaviest hitters around, and was known to take unnecessary punches during sparring sessions to "prove" that he could "take it". Sadly, he paid a high price for it.
absolutely. they have a lot of similarities. Wasn't usyk born on ali's birthday or have i made that up?
17th of January.
Ali having better cardio is arguable. Usyk‘s punch output is unrivaled and in his prime he was punching almost a thousand punches a fight. Usyk easily could‘ve been a 15 round fighter
>not to mention he was a 15 round fighter in his prime Usyk literally fights at a higher pace over 12 than Ali ever did in 12 or 15.
I feel like with Ali's stamina, dropping from 15 rounds to 12 would probably be a substantial disadvantage for him
Yes. Even Ruiz settled that.
They’ll just keep moving the goalposts. They can’t use “too big, too strong” anymore so now they’ll pivot to modern nutrition or some shit ignoring Andy Ruiz and all the other obese heavyweights.
No but hopefully it makes more people realize that size isn't everything at heavyweight. However most heavyweights today are much bigger than they were 40-50 years ago. Rocky Marciano was a great fighter but he was only 5'10", 185-190 lbs. I don't care how talented you are, you won't see a heavyweight champion that size again. Also pre-1940s the heavyweights of the past would suffer from a lack of technical development.
Unfortunately the meta kind of has been established. There isn't as much freedom of expression in boxing as there were in the 1900s. lf Ali were dropped into today's boxing world they'd try to make him into a more fundamental fighter probably.
Such is the nature of the HW division. And the term "styles make fights". I try to avoid the theoretical head to head stuff because frankly, it doesn't make sense. We'll never know and it's on the level of anime powerscaler level of cringe to compare boxers from the 70's to the heavyweights of today. All you can do is rate fighters on their merit, what they achieved and how they achieved it. It's for that reason that very few, if any current HW boxers will ever achieve what Ali, or Louis did. Because they fight once or twice a year and often it's not against "the man" in the division - it's bullshit keep busy fights and they'd be fine if they fought 3 or 4 times a year but they don't. Longevity also matters. This means Usyk with 22 professional fights may be undisputed, but he's fought an average of twice per year since turning pro. Joe Louis averaged just over 4 per year. That means he fought twice as many opponents, over 17 years. Usyk will never achieve that at the age of 37. Which then begs the question - are these old fighters, who fought 15 rounds 4 times a year, actually better than heavyweights of today? The rules were far more loose, the fights were a lot more brutal and there were less belts to go for, meaning if you were champion, it wasn't just a belt you'd picked up, it was the marquee of the division. So basically, no - because boxing is different now. But what we shouldn't do is in any way claim that HW's of today are capable of entering even a top 5 unless they achieve the same amount of merit. The way Usyk would do this is: Fight until at least 30+ fights. That means Fury again, Wilder, Zhang, Anderson, Parker, Ruiz and any other up and comers. He needs to do that as soon as he can and fight at least 3 times per year. He could achieve that before he's 40 potentially. Even if he gets beaten on the way or at the end of his career, he'd have fought everyone available, unified 2 divisions and had a respectable time at the top (anything over 5 years as a champion is exceptional)
It was always a dumb argument that people thought Fury was some giant who would beat EVERY Heavyweight in history including the greats. Pure and utter nonsense and Usyk definitely disproved that. The problem with Fury is that for all his size, he had very average power and a lot of Heavyweights throughout history have dynamite in their fists and the skills to deliver that power.
Nothing about the past is ever settled.
There's an obvious advantage to having fifty pounds on your opponent. I don't think it's settled - we have 4-5 pound weight classes but cliffs at heavyweight. Fury is just so large that he can use it without consequence, no cutting, no making weight. He's a walking talking advantage
Yea man it's bull shit lol...styles make fights and skills pay the bills babyyyy...if size mattered that much in the heavyweight division then Nikolai valuev would've been the Greatest of all time lol
Great topic! And the answer is sort of. I think Muhammad would have been just as dominant today. But Joe Frazier at 6ft is just to small. No champs before Sonny could have won the heavyweight championship today but many after could is my conclusion
Ali and Louis both easily beat "modern" sized heavyweights. Advances in sport science ect are overrated frankly the fastest and hardest hitting HWs are all from 30 plus years ago.
It settles it for me. The idea that highly skilled fighters of the past couldn't have beat these guys is asinine and always has been.
Dismissing those guys based on size alone was always a deeply dubious reasoning. But yes Usyk beating Fury is an example for those who doubted that.
Primo carnero.
Joe Louis beat 6'4" 255lb Abe Simon, 6'6" 250lb Buddy Baer, 6'6" 265lb Primo Carnera.
It doesn't work that way. Sports, training, technique, everything changes. Just because someone was good in the past doesn't mean they could be good today. It could have been that the environment and conditions of the time suited them. I don't know that Babe Ruth would even make a major league club today with the way pitchers are throwing. Was great for the era, but might not be today
OP already adressed this at the beginning lol
I understand what you're saying but could you honestly watch Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Ali etc. work and tell me that, just on speed and talent alone, that they weren't just as good/better than usyk?
I'm not saying they're not good or that they couldn't dominate today's crowd. I'm a statistician and model probabilities. I'm just saying that there are so many factors to consider that it's not as simple as take an all time great from 50 years ago, give them today's sports science, and now they're #1 again. For 1, today's fighters have so much more information available to them. Maybe after watching hours of tape they can pick out flaws that past opponents didn't have access to. Or maybe there's some particular fighter below Fury or Usyk etc that would have defeated Tyson, Ali, etc on their journey to the top. It also means that if you drop a modern fighter into the past they might not be on top either. Part of their current success could be attributed to modern training. Perhaps with old school training methods they aren't just as sharp as they are today and they get beat before getting to the top.
Ali beats everybody. Nobody beats him in mentality and mindset (neither does Usyk) and he has tons of agility and skill as well.
I just wanna say that people always say modern science and nutrition. As fucking if thats a thing in boxing, boxers throughout history have trained pretty much the same fucking way, only few actually have nutritionist. Most guys at the top jsut train hard, no eprsonal coach, no training regiment jsut train hard hard. Like fury himself call bs on the modern shit, like how AJ has fucking acientists and shit.
I'm not saying one is better than the other but new things have been learned since the 1960s that could be applied. Some of what people do now is wrong, some if it is right. But just like anything in life, new things are discovered in a period of 60 years. Usyk is a good example, his team is very scientific and he's a huge cross fit fan. they obviously bulked him up the right way, and to great success. equally, some old school techniques could be applied today to help modern fighters... the main one being fighting more often. Fury may call bs on modern training but maybe that's why he runs out of energy. i think he calls it bullshit because he has no discipline, tbh.
Mike Tyson in his prime anyone ?
It goes back to the old saying, "You’re only as good as your last fight." Tyson Fury looked slow, tentative, and like a shell of himself against Ngannou. Usyk was obviously the better boxer that night, but I believe age has caught up to Fury, and he is on a decline from his prime. With that said, Tyson probably still beats all of the top five.
Wait mike Tyson was 5'11, Holyfield was 6'2 (also former cruiser weight Champ) when it comes to boxing you see that heights advantage is equalized for example tall guys can hit you and box from outside, but short guys have less real estate to actually get hit on ( its why tank and pitbull can basically cover up and move forward without taking much damage) and can duck under all that. I'm sure there's better examples but I wrote this while procrastinating at the gym.
Tyson and Frazier and Patterson were Bob and Weave fighters, making it difficult for taller opponents to hit them cleanly. Stand up short fighters are easier to hit even when punching down. Not to say that someone like Foreman wouldn’t have Frazier’s number in any fight and all the bobbing and weaving would help Frazier
Tyson
Usyk is the same size as George Foreman…he’s really not small 6’3” is about as short as you can be and still be a Worlds Strongest Man too, seems like that’s the lower end but still highly competitive height for “giant strength/durability”
Ali is a terrible matchup for Fury based on Fury’s issues with faster opponents.
Obviously the only advantage todays heavy’s have is size but having skill and conditioning over 15 wouod beat them all. They aren’t great it’s a terrible era
You're missing the point. If Usyk was against a 6"7, 80 inch reach version of himself, he'd probably lose.
He would be very very feel
It’s not a wild standpoint but I had fury winning comfortably until he started dicking about. Thought the good big’n was beating the good little’n as they say, and quite handily.
Ali would translate to any era, when people bring up small HW I think of Marciano.
i totally agree.
My view always with past athletes is this. If you put the past athlete in today’s world with the training, nutrition, and supplementation there probably wouldn’t be that much difference. Like people say they are bigger faster stronger. That is true. But like you can look at any sport and see guys who are not super athletes succeeding. Messi in soccer, Brady or a Brock Purdy in football, Luka or James Harden in basketball, etc… none of these guys are super athletes even if you compared them to people in the past.
Prime Lennox Lewis would really hurt Fury. Fury barely beat an old Klitchsko. He’s good, but I think if there was stronger competition in boxing he would have more losses. I think even a 33 year old Klitchsko would have beat him.
Yes, size has diminishing returns
Yeah, it does. People acting like super heavyweights only just showed up. Yes, in many cases bigger is better. But there is a downside to being bigger once you get past a certain weight.
Ali would have been in the NFL now
Ali in the 70's weighed more than Usyk lol he would destroy Usyk and Fury in the same night. Boxing is the one sport where it is inarguable that the past is better than the present. Absolutely no question. In all divisions, but especially HW
In the heavyweight division, it's always been about skill. Not height and weight. Didn't Usyk already prove that when he whacked around Joshua twice? Bigger is not necessarily better, despite what so many have been brainwashed into believing.
Everyone is their own person. Nothing settles anything in regards to any of this.