Terence Crawford vs Naoya Inoue vs Oleksandr Usyk resume deep dives

I didn't say they have similar styles. I used Huck as an example because they have some similar traits but their styles aren't similar. You use Huck's fight with Usyk to be critical of Huck, but he's fighting a master boxer. I was ringside on the 2nd row for Butler vs Rodriguez on the David Haye vs Tony Bellew undercard and Butler looked like he hadn't boxed a day in his life in that fight being totally dominated, making constant mistake after mistake after mistake. Almost novice like with the range control at times, getting hit with the jab at will yet constantly bringing his left arm down despite that after trying the same basic feint over and over again. And so on. And this is Rodrguez who's a decent fighter yes but he's not elite. So, no, disagree on that one aswell. I would not say Butler is as skilled as Huck at all. That wasn't how he fought vs Inoue though. That's a valid criticism though, that he wasn't consistent. But you're acting like a fighter can't improve. Since you brought up Huck, it seemed fair to compare their performances vs their respective great champion, and the Butler who fought Inoue demonstrated a lot of defensive acumen, as detailed above. I appreciate the more technical discussion, although I have very little interest in convincing you. I've provided detailed examples for you to look at; after that it's up to you what you do with that.

Another poster claimed that Mchunu is way better than any of Inoue's wins, and people like to pick on Butler in particular, who is actually pretty skilled. That's just not enough at 115-122. So the point was that one of Inoue's least respected wins actually has a well rounded basic skillset that's better than some of Usyk's better wins, although IMO he lacks power and a killer instinct which hamstring him at the world level. But let's talk Huck v Butler. Just look at how they do high guard. When Usyk would open up on Huck, look at Huck's hips. Does he turn at all to deflect shots? Where does he take them on the forearms? When he comes in, look at how often he smothered his own offense because he didn't know his own range correctly. See 2:00-1:50 of the first round. Then when they come out, look how Huck responds to the jabs of Usyk. He brings his parry out FAR from his face. Rookie mistake, because it opens you up to a jab feint into a hook, especially against a southpaw in open stance. You see Usyk pick up on that immediately, feinting the jab, and then moving that lead hand in a counter clockwise circle, since that's the movement pattern to throw a hook after a feinted jab. You'll see Zhang do the same thing in the second Joyce fight, because he saw from the first round that Joyce was circling in the wrong range and could be set up for a right hook. You can see these issues from the very first round, and they carry through the fight. When he punches, he either stays extended and tries to clinch, or he often would bring his hands back low. Again, basic mistakes. Then look at the Butler v Inoue fight. Look at how Butler turns his high guard into the punches to deflect them. It's not just staying static like Huck mostly did. When he parries punches, his hands don't stray far from his face. When he threw, he'd throw from the right range and then retreat on an angle, which Huck didn't do, and he'd bring his hands straight back to the same tight guard position. He moves his head while waiting to counter from lane to lane, which Huck doesn't do. He knows when to use lateral movement to keep the power puncher from being able to set his feet, and when to be in stance. TBH, it's a weird comparison because Huck and Butler don't have the same style at all. But Butler has far better defensive skills than Huck. Not sure why you picked him. I didn't say they have similar styles. I used Huck as an example because they have some similar traits but their styles aren't similar. You use Huck's fight with Usyk to be critical of Huck, but he's fighting a master boxer. I was ringside on the 2nd row for Butler vs Rodriguez on the David Haye vs Tony Bellew undercard and Butler looked like he hadn't boxed a day in his life in that fight being totally dominated, making constant mistake after mistake after mistake. Almost novice like with the range control at times, getting hit with the jab at will yet constantly bringing his left arm down despite that after trying the same basic feint over and over again. And so on. And this is Rodrguez who's a decent fighter yes but he's not elite. So, no, disagree on that one aswell. I would not say Butler is as skilled as Huck at all.

No I know that mate, I was just making the counter point. You know, Mchunu in particular, since you mentioned it, I thought was quite a slick, skillful fighter. He didn't live up to his potential and failed at the top end but I remeber when he totally outboxed Eddie Chambers (moving down in weight admittedly) that I thought he could go somewhere, and his fight with Makabu, who's now become quite underrated IMO after his loss to Bellew and so on, was really good. Is Butler more skilled than Mchunu? I mean yeah probably. It's a different skill set. Butler is a basic boxer who has good fundamentals, he's solid in most areas, jabs well, which sets up good body shots well, he's a decent mover, his foot positioning is solid, but I don't see how he's as skillful as Marco Huck for example, he I'd argue does almost everything Butler does way more efficiently. Or would you say different? Another poster claimed that Mchunu is way better than any of Inoue's wins, and people like to pick on Butler in particular, who is actually pretty skilled. That's just not enough at 115-122. So the point was that one of Inoue's least respected wins actually has a well rounded basic skillset that's better than some of Usyk's better wins, although IMO he lacks power and a killer instinct which hamstring him at the world level. But let's talk Huck v Butler. Just look at how they do high guard. When Usyk would open up on Huck, look at Huck's hips. Does he turn at all to deflect shots? Where does he take them on the forearms? When he comes in, look at how often he smothered his own offense because he didn't know his own range correctly. See 2:00-1:50 of the first round. Then when they come out, look how Huck responds to the jabs of Usyk. He brings his parry out FAR from his face. Rookie mistake, because it opens you up to a jab feint into a hook, especially against a southpaw in open stance. You see Usyk pick up on that immediately, feinting the jab, and then moving that lead hand in a counter clockwise circle, since that's the movement pattern to throw a hook after a feinted jab. You'll see Zhang do the same thing in the second Joyce fight, because he saw from the first round that Joyce was circling in the wrong range and could be set up for a right hook. You can see these issues from the very first round, and they carry through the fight. When he punches, he either stays extended and tries to clinch, or he often would bring his hands back low. Again, basic mistakes. Then look at the Butler v Inoue fight. Look at how Butler turns his high guard into the punches to deflect them. It's not just staying static like Huck mostly did. When he parries punches, his hands don't stray far from his face. When he threw, he'd throw from the right range and then retreat on an angle, which Huck didn't do, and he'd bring his hands straight back to the same tight guard position. He moves his head while waiting to counter from lane to lane, which Huck doesn't do. He knows when to use lateral movement to keep the power puncher from being able to set his feet, and when to be in stance. TBH, it's a weird comparison because Huck and Butler don't have the same style at all. But Butler has far better defensive skills than Huck. Not sure why you picked him.

Wasn't trying to claim authority over you in particular. In fact, I pointed that out precisely because I recognize your expertise in PEDs, and the point of the appeal is to point out that you can recognize the technical detail in a PED conversation and when it's lacking. So I expect you to be able to draw the comparison and engage in the discussion from that technical aspect. But as I'm speaking in particular about technical aspects, I'm not seeing even a single technical response. You can say "he's not as skilled" but you have yet to detail a single example, while I provided several. So, from your vast foundation of knowledge, explain what skills, specifically, Mchunu has demonstrated that Paul Butler hasn't. Money where your mouth is time. I want detail in the textbook skills of boxing. If you aren't going to do that, suffice it to say that you disagree and leave it at that. No I know that mate, I was just making the counter point. You know, Mchunu in particular, since you mentioned it, I thought was quite a slick, skillful fighter. He didn't live up to his potential and failed at the top end but I remeber when he totally outboxed Eddie Chambers (moving down in weight admittedly) that I thought he could go somewhere, and his fight with Makabu, who's now become quite underrated IMO after his loss to Bellew and so on, was really good. Is Butler more skilled than Mchunu? I mean yeah probably. It's a different skill set. Butler is a basic boxer who has good fundamentals, he's solid in most areas, jabs well, which sets up good body shots well, he's a decent mover, his foot positioning is solid, but I don't see how he's as skillful as Marco Huck for example, he I'd argue does almost everything Butler does way more efficiently. Or would you say different?

Obviously one can fight the top TBRB-ranked guys in one division and STILL have that be inferior compared to the level of competition available in other divisions. What is needed is a statistic to reflect that. Something that gives a number value to the depth of each weight class and ranks them against each other. That is a major point that fans dont grasp, there is no statistic that reflects class and no belt that means greatness, they want to compare fighters based on trophies rather than opponents and actually fighting ability they just love comparing lists, especially so in P4P lists where fans are quoting belts yet never consider fighting and beating great opponents is more than winning belts from good but average guys, I dont even consider undisputed unless the titles are taken off great opponent's, when a guy like Kambosis raves on about being undisputed it means nothing to me he was an average fighter that got a guy on a bad night, Haney winning them from him same deal where undisputed can be so much fluff and no substance, why isnt Ottke talked about with the likes of Leonard , he was undefeated and held world titles, its obvious why, but then why isnt the same criteria placed on all of them.

Ok so I respect where you're coming from here, and your argument is not invalid, but firstly, no I don't agree at all on the first point. Cruiserweight is shallow now, but there was a time recently where Cruiserweight was one of the best divisions in the entire sport. Divisions have up and down periods, there was a time 10 or so years ago where Bantamweight was the best division in boxing, then not too long after it was poor. Same for the Welterweight division. Same for almost any division. Historically speaking, the lower weight classes are often lacking in depth, generally because it's rare for a human being to be that size in general let alone elite athletes. The great thing for us as fans is when they are, its fantastic and we get fighters like Manny Pacquaio, and today Inoue. But realistically those divisions are often weak, and at the very least that argument can be used for many of Inoue's wins if that's the road that's going to be taken. You don't know my background in Boxing, I don't know your age, but if I was to hazard a guess I was probably around boxing at the forefront long before you were even born. I am no elite trainer, but I have vast experience inside many well known boxing gyms. So that argument from authority is not going to work here, I'm afraid. As for Paul Butler, nice guy and yes good fighter. But he's being painfully overrated here to suit this argument. I was there in Newcastle when he beat Stuart Hall for his title, but he is simply just not an elite fighter and no where near it, and he is no where near as skilled as most of Usyk's top wins either. Wasn't trying to claim authority over you in particular. In fact, I pointed that out precisely because I recognize your expertise in PEDs, and the point of the appeal is to point out that you can recognize the technical detail in a PED conversation and when it's lacking. So I expect you to be able to draw the comparison and engage in the discussion from that technical aspect. But as I'm speaking in particular about technical aspects, I'm not seeing even a single technical response. You can say "he's not as skilled" but you have yet to detail a single example, while I provided several. So, from your vast foundation of knowledge, explain what skills, specifically, Mchunu has demonstrated that Paul Butler hasn't. Money where your mouth is time. I want detail in the textbook skills of boxing. If you aren't going to do that, suffice it to say that you disagree and leave it at that.

No, I'm suggesting the talent pool at cruiserweight is basically non-existent from a skills standpoint. How often do you see guys at cruiserweight taking angles? Using more than basic head movement? Even basic basic things like working the body and jabbing from the right range? Heavyweight is even worse. You get highly hyped guys like Joe Joyce who don't know how to move their heads, and want to circle away from the power punch, but don't understand the concept of distance, and circle within the pocket right into the hook. To be blunt, the amount of technical knowledge about boxing in here isn't high. People say that fighters are average but can't actually ever detail why, because their opinion is based on watching it, not doing it or training it. I'm sure you've noticed the same kind of thing about PEDs. Your level of knowledge on that topic is WAY more informed than the vast majority of posters here. They say things like "x fighter is certainly doping" but then have zero factual details to back it up because they don't know what they're talking about. That's why you will rarely see me commenting with more than the occasional snarky comment about the topic, because I don't have extensive expertise in the topic. But I've spent decades in the combat sports and get paid to teach technique and improve power in combative techniques. Paul Butler, for instance, has excellent footwork. He's a hard guy to pin down, and his high guard is active and hard to penetrate. By active, I mean that he turns slightly with punches, letting them deflect off and taking much of the sting off, rather than just shelling up and taking the full force of it. That's not something you see commonly at cruiserweight, and certainly not something that Mchunu does well. I could list dozens of skills in the same way. When it comes to boxing tools in the toolbox, Paul Butler has more than many of Usyk's opponents. The notion that he's an "average" fighter at the weight class should tell you something about relative skill levels. You would NEVER have a title shot at 118 earned by two guys coming off bad losses at 115 fighting each other, having never had a single fight at 118. But cruiserweight is so shallow that Joe Smith Jr and Zurdo got to fight each other, coming off losses at 175, and the winner of that lackluster fight not only got an immediate title shot, but was able to win a title against a longstanding champ. And it's definitely not because Zurdo is some paragon of skill. He's got defensive deficiencies all over the place that Paul Butler simply doesn't. Is Paul Butler some great fighter? No. But he's factually got skills that fighters in higher weight classes don't. Part of that comes from the fact that as the weight classes increase, so do the chances of finding guys who can score a one-shot-stop, and who can get bailed out from technical deficiencies by physical advantages, such as reach or power. But BECAUSE my specialty is increasing power, I'd rather have someone who has the technical skills and NOT the power, because that's less complicated to improve than bad habits like pulling back in a straight line, dropping the glove when you punch, keeping your head in the same lane during offense, not knowing how to change cadence, etc, which have been built in over years. Under stress, a fighter will default to their lowest level of training, and mistakes WILL come out. If you disagree, fine, but understand that if I'm going to take you seriously, you need to be able to detail the technical aspects of your argument, just as you wouldn't take me seriously if I said "Ngannou must surely be doping because he looks really fit and muscular". Ok so I respect where you're coming from here, and your argument is not invalid, but firstly, no I don't agree at all on the first point. Cruiserweight is shallow now, but there was a time recently where Cruiserweight was one of the best divisions in the entire sport. Divisions have up and down periods, there was a time 10 or so years ago where Bantamweight was the best division in boxing, then not too long after it was poor. Same for the Welterweight division. Same for almost any division. Historically speaking, the lower weight classes are often lacking in depth, generally because it's rare for a human being to be that size in general let alone elite athletes. The great thing for us as fans is when they are, its fantastic and we get fighters like Manny Pacquaio, and today Inoue. But realistically those divisions are often weak, and at the very least that argument can be used for many of Inoue's wins if that's the road that's going to be taken. You don't know my background in Boxing, I don't know your age, but if I was to hazard a guess I was probably around boxing at the forefront long before you were even born. I am no elite trainer, but I have vast experience inside many well known boxing gyms. So that argument from authority is not going to work here, I'm afraid. As for Paul Butler, nice guy and yes good fighter. But he's being painfully overrated here to suit this argument. I was there in Newcastle when he beat Stuart Hall for his title, but he is simply just not an elite fighter and no where near it, and he is no where near as skilled as most of Usyk's top wins either.

You did not say most of these people aren't on Paul Butler's level skill wise :lol1: Paul Butler is barely even an average fighter. You aren't honestly suggesting that he's elite? No, I'm suggesting the talent pool at cruiserweight is basically non-existent from a skills standpoint. How often do you see guys at cruiserweight taking angles? Using more than basic head movement? Even basic basic things like working the body and jabbing from the right range? Heavyweight is even worse. You get highly hyped guys like Joe Joyce who don't know how to move their heads, and want to circle away from the power punch, but don't understand the concept of distance, and circle within the pocket right into the hook. To be blunt, the amount of technical knowledge about boxing in here isn't high. People say that fighters are average but can't actually ever detail why, because their opinion is based on watching it, not doing it or training it. I'm sure you've noticed the same kind of thing about PEDs. Your level of knowledge on that topic is WAY more informed than the vast majority of posters here. They say things like "x fighter is certainly doping" but then have zero factual details to back it up because they don't know what they're talking about. That's why you will rarely see me commenting with more than the occasional snarky comment about the topic, because I don't have extensive expertise in the topic. But I've spent decades in the combat sports and get paid to teach technique and improve power in combative techniques. Paul Butler, for instance, has excellent footwork. He's a hard guy to pin down, and his high guard is active and hard to penetrate. By active, I mean that he turns slightly with punches, letting them deflect off and taking much of the sting off, rather than just shelling up and taking the full force of it. That's not something you see commonly at cruiserweight, and certainly not something that Mchunu does well. I could list dozens of skills in the same way. When it comes to boxing tools in the toolbox, Paul Butler has more than many of Usyk's opponents. The notion that he's an "average" fighter at the weight class should tell you something about relative skill levels. You would NEVER have a title shot at 118 earned by two guys coming off bad losses at 115 fighting each other, having never had a single fight at 118. But cruiserweight is so shallow that Joe Smith Jr and Zurdo got to fight each other, coming off losses at 175, and the winner of that lackluster fight not only got an immediate title shot, but was able to win a title against a longstanding champ. And it's definitely not because Zurdo is some paragon of skill. He's got defensive deficiencies all over the place that Paul Butler simply doesn't. Is Paul Butler some great fighter? No. But he's factually got skills that fighters in higher weight classes don't. Part of that comes from the fact that as the weight classes increase, so do the chances of finding guys who can score a one-shot-stop, and who can get bailed out from technical deficiencies by physical advantages, such as reach or power. But BECAUSE my specialty is increasing power, I'd rather have someone who has the technical skills and NOT the power, because that's less complicated to improve than bad habits like pulling back in a straight line, dropping the glove when you punch, keeping your head in the same lane during offense, not knowing how to change cadence, etc, which have been built in over years. Under stress, a fighter will default to their lowest level of training, and mistakes WILL come out. If you disagree, fine, but understand that if I'm going to take you seriously, you need to be able to detail the technical aspects of your argument, just as you wouldn't take me seriously if I said "Ngannou must surely be doping because he looks really fit and muscular".

Usyk is the face of boxing. Sorry guys, Joshua and Fury are more known than anybody Inoue has fought. And a heavyweight is a king division. Speaking for Crawford, he only beat Spence that matters, so Usyk has better resume than him also. Any questions? If canelo finds some balls and beats Benavidez, than we can have a debate between Canelo and Usyk. Usyk is most definitely not the face of Boxing. I can ask my friends who Usyk is and they don't know him. If I say Usyk they don't know him. I'm talking popularity but Canelo, Joshua, Fury and Ryan Garcia are on another level compared to Usyk. I'm not talking Boxing skill or anything but from a casual fan and marketability standpoint.

he didnt look so skilled when he got soundly outboxed by carl frampton That was his 5th weight class. After that loss he moved down two entire divisions and then won two more world titles.

people have confused all the things in this thread. Usyk completed boxing and did it in style. Also, the author should use some time period while comparing, Usyk became pro with 400 Amateur wins and medals, and now 37 y.o :D Only because you are fan of other fighters doesn't mean you need to diminish his achievements. 1. Usyk 2. Bud 3. Inoue

Usyk is the face of boxing. Sorry guys, Joshua and Fury are more known than anybody Inoue has fought. And a heavyweight is a king division. Speaking for Crawford, he only beat Spence that matters, so Usyk has better resume than him also. Any questions? If canelo finds some balls and beats Benavidez, than we can have a debate between Canelo and Usyk. Yes, they are more well known in the west. Because they are also English champions, and are as you say are in the heavyweight division. Tyson Fury and AJ are nobodies in Japan and Asia. Popularity-wise the bantamweight division is king. You’re talking about popularity, not skill. And based on Fury’s performance vs a novice first time boxer. I wonder if he is even an elite fighter?

They way he beat Fulton and the rest are more impressive than Usyk barely getting by Fury. Not what I asked you.

Nery has always been a trash. And he is one of the best Inoue`s wins, lol. This argument about small divisions being always strong is a bad one.

So you're telling me that beating Luis Nery is better than beating Tyson Fury? :thinking: This is now bizarro world territory. They way he beat Fulton and the rest are more impressive than Usyk barely getting by Fury.

Usyk is the face of boxing. Sorry guys, Joshua and Fury are more known than anybody Inoue has fought. And a heavyweight is a king division. Speaking for Crawford, he only beat Spence that matters, so Usyk has better resume than him also. Any questions? If canelo finds some balls and beats Benavidez, than we can have a debate between Canelo and Usyk.

You haven't come up with an argument as to why bantamweight was weak, other than that you don't like Butler, who is maybe Inoue's 14th best win. Whereas my argument as to why heavyweight is weak is pretty obvious: -the reigning champion got dropped by a no-fight novice -Charles Martin won a world title -Joshua and Wilder started boxing as grown adults and were able to win Olympic medals and world heavyweight pro titles. Neither guy even chose boxing as their first sport. Joshua failed at soccer and track and field and fell back on boxing, Wilder failed at football and basketball and fell back on boxing. Mate I couldn't give a shit about your fallacy arguments about divisions being weak. The lower divisions are historically weak if we are talking about the depth of the divisions and that still holds true today. But I never used that argument, you did. To justify your other fallacy argument of moving the goal post as to when rankings matter.

If that makes you feel better mate then by all means :lol1: This forum is public so the arguments presented are very clear. You on the other hand will just move the goal post whenever it suits your argument. So, it's a pointless argument. Either rankings matter or they don't. Either divisons being weak matter of they don't. You'd be best to decide which one it is. You can't have both. You haven't come up with an argument as to why bantamweight was weak, other than that you don't like Butler, who is maybe Inoue's 14th best win. Whereas my argument as to why heavyweight is weak is pretty obvious: -the reigning champion got dropped by a no-fight novice -Charles Martin won a world title -Joshua and Wilder started boxing as grown adults and were able to win Olympic medals and world heavyweight pro titles. Neither guy even chose boxing as their first sport. Joshua failed at soccer and track and field and fell back on boxing, Wilder failed at football and basketball and fell back on boxing.

Butler was one of the weakest Inoue opponents, but he had a belt. Fulton, Nery, Donaire, Tapales. Those are all top names. Inoue not only beat, but destroyed them. While moving up, all in 1 year. Usyk barely split decisioned Fury. It’s not even a comparison of who has been more dominant. Or, otherwise, maybe his opponents sucked, if he just dominated them. So, beating Tapales is bigger than beating Fury??? LOL. The most of Inoue`s opponents are unknowns.

Butler was one of the weakest Inoue opponents, but he had a belt. Fulton, Nery, Donaire, Tapales. Those are all top names. Inoue not only beat, but destroyed them. While moving up, all in 1 year. Usyk barely split decisioned Fury. It’s not even a comparison of who has been more dominant. So you're telling me that beating Luis Nery is better than beating Tyson Fury? :thinking: This is now bizarro world territory.