If Dubois were to defeat Usyk in their rematch

It's a very, very close shave between those at the top in this Gen, but it's all been covered before. And of course, It's just my opinion. It's based on a careful analysis of relative aggregate accomplishment; predicated on quality of opposition, naturally; and other factors that include Wilder's greater number of title defenses, greater number of wins and greater number of knockouts, more time at the top, his perfect obligation fulfillment to the WBC contenders (only), his dramatic knockout capabilities, olympic pedigree, and never once having suffered a loss in this prime. They all did the Szpilka & Washington thing; in between top opponents; Fury and Ortiz in Wilder's case; but Joshua and Dubois and Parker and Ortiz and Whyte each suffered epically perportioned smash down knockout losses when smack in the middle of their prime, which Wilder never did, and Wilder's slightly lighter opponent quality score (which is a real thing, if somewhat exaggerated) just misses overcoming that fact. I've seen all of the aforementioned train and fight live on multiple occasions, and personally feel exceptionally confident in what my senses show me, with no agenda at all. .....but I could be wrong. Naturally. It's strictly a judgment call. I mean, yes Wilder going 42-0 fights without a loss (if we are generous about the first Fury fight) and getting a belt does count for something, but he has a real lack of eye catching big wins and I think there is a high degree of doubt about how well he would have done if he had fought a wider range of top 5-10 level guys before Fury completely ruined him. Does he ever beat Parker or Zhang? what about Dubois? Joyce? how does he do against his own American contemporaries in Ruiz, Miller, Kownacki and Martin? going further back what if he had stepped up against Wlad? Jennings? Haye? what if the Povetkin fight had actually come to fruition? He somehow managed to fight such a small sample of worthwhile names of the era in spite of having so many fights. It feels like every few months another current HW has put together a better top 3-5 wins than he did.

Hypothetically........ If Dubois were to defeat Usyk in their rematch; by stoppage or wide UD; what will the chatter be? My guess?: Not many wins. Not enough great wins at heavyweight. Both Joshua and Fury were past it when Usyk squeezed by them. Another hype job. Overrated. Not big enough. Boxing sucks. Prefer fighters with panties on, nuts in they face. ​ The answer to your question is all of the above. They would throw out every excuse in the book on why Usyk lost to Triple D accept for saying that Dubois was the better man that night.

Close friend of mine is a Qanon/Trump/FlatEarther/GravityIsn'tReal/EvolutionIsn'tReal/AllGovernmentAreSatanistPedohiles/AllScienceIsNotRealExceptThePartsThatSupportMyBats h1tTheoriesInSomeWay guy. Worst part about it is he's a bright dude, just smokes way too much weed and has way too much free time. I no longer find joy in debating him, I used to find it amusing but the cognitive dissonance and extreme confirmation bias combined with pure and utter wild outlandish delusion has become too much. Conspiracists don't have a clue about the scientific method, they're more like religious people who see dark forces everywhere and think if only they could be ousted utopia would be restored. With a complex and chaotic event like 9/11 one would expect all manner of misreporting as it occurred. That's why careful investigations are required to gain a better understanding of what happened. Conspiracy theorists hold on to those initial trivial mistakes in reporting as a "sign" of something.

i dont think douby will win but its heavy boxing and douby does have power and on his best form run so he has a bit of a shot of course

Some well meaning person actually spent their own money to obtain dust from the WTC7 building with a proper chain of custody and sent it to an independent lab to have it tested. Unsurprisingly there was nothing unusual found. The resident Truther trolls were initially put on the backfoot until they found some tortuous link from the lab to the "government" so they could dismiss the finding and maintain their confirmation bias. Close friend of mine is a Qanon/Trump/FlatEarther/GravityIsn'tReal/EvolutionIsn'tReal/AllGovernmentAreSatanistPedohiles/AllScienceIsNotRealExceptThePartsThatSupportMyBats h1tTheoriesInSomeWay guy. Worst part about it is he's a bright dude, just smokes way too much weed and has way too much free time. I no longer find joy in debating him, I used to find it amusing but the cognitive dissonance and extreme confirmation bias combined with pure and utter wild outlandish delusion has become too much.

That is a No True Scotmans Fallacy indeed. And sounds very entertaining, wish I could have read that and wasted even more time than I do now. Love me abit of James Randi, that's a straight up icon. Always wanted to meet him. Some well meaning person actually spent their own money to obtain dust from the WTC7 building with a proper chain of custody and sent it to an independent lab to have it tested. Unsurprisingly there was nothing unusual found. The resident Truther trolls were initially put on the backfoot until they found some tortuous link from the lab to the "government" so they could dismiss the finding and maintain their confirmation bias.

I used to frequent the James Randi critical thinking forum where they had a sub-forum dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Obviously it was continually trolled by 9/11 Truthers and there are/were people seriously arguing that the planes were holograms and that the buildings were detonated by "mini-nukes". Those who thought that was going "too far" would argue "that's not real 9/11 Truth". Because of course all respectable Truthers "know" it was just a controlled demolition and that the planes were flown by "patsies" (or whatever). That's a No True Scotsman Fallacy. That is a No True Scotmans Fallacy indeed. And sounds very entertaining, wish I could have read that and wasted even more time than I do now. Love me abit of James Randi, that's a straight up icon. Always wanted to meet him.

That is not a No True Scotsman Fallacy. I know you discovered a fallacy book of some sort on your first ever trip to the library recently but you have not even the first clue what any of these fallacies actually are when you attempt to cite them. I used to frequent the James Randi critical thinking forum where they had a sub-forum dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Obviously it was continually trolled by 9/11 Truthers and there are/were people seriously arguing that the planes were holograms and that the buildings were detonated by "mini-nukes". Those who thought that was going "too far" would argue "that's not real 9/11 Truth". Because of course all respectable Truthers "know" it was just a controlled demolition and that the planes were flown by "patsies" (or whatever). That's a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

It clearly is a no true scotsman fallacy. Wilder lost. Therefore wilder was not in his prime because a prime wilder can't lose. Don't think you understand what fallacies are which is why you keep making them. It's OK keep trying to learn. I'm here to help No actually, it's really not. The No True Scotsman fallacy is an argument where you deny that a counterexample to a generalization claim is a genuine counterexample by redefining the group or category you are generalizing. Why would you think, that "Wilder lost therefore was not in his prime because a prime Wilder can't lose" would be a No True Scotsman Fallacy? Like seriously, I want to know how your underdeveloped brain has managed to make that connection? You know, the keyword in that fallacy is the word "true". You're aware of that, right? It's kind of IN THE NAME. So obviously the key example to this fallacy argument would be "No true scotman adds sweetener to his porridge", to which a reply to that would be "But I know a scotsman who does in fact put sweetener in his porridge" to which the fallacy argument in the response would be "Yes but no TRUE scotsman would do that". The fallacy there being how to we define what a "true" scotmans is? I.e, a "real" man would not do that. Or, a "real woman" would not behave that way. However nobody can define what a "real" (and for this fallacy argument "true") version of what's being argued is. Another example without using the literal definition would be "No true muslim drinks alcohol", well I do know many muslims who do drink alcohol, "Well they are not true muslims" and thereby lies, you guessed it; the fallacy argument in question. Your example, isn't even close :lol1: It's just so adorable, honestly, when you attempt to connect an argument to a fallacy that you think you understand and are just so comically miles off :lol1: Genuinely honestly adorable. I could just pinch your fat, morbidly obese cheeks.

I give Daniel a 40% chance to win but he can't go in there and try to box. He has to make it a ugly fight and attack the body. I wouldnt call Uysk overrated or give him an excuse. I would be kinda sad, that he didnt retire undefeated. You were already undisputed in two divisions. You already beaten Daniel. Why keep rolling the dice. Retire on top like Ward, Floyd and etc. Get out the game before the game ends you. I would hate to see that.

That is not a No True Scotsman Fallacy. I know you discovered a fallacy book of some sort on your first ever trip to the library recently but you have not even the first clue what any of these fallacies actually are when you attempt to cite them. It clearly is a no true scotsman fallacy. Wilder lost. Therefore wilder was not in his prime because a prime wilder can't lose. Don't think you understand what fallacies are which is why you keep making them. It's OK keep trying to learn. I'm here to help

According to this guy wilder spent his entire prime fighting bums(and looking horrid) and the exact moment he stepped up to top competition he became shot. Of course laughable fanboy logic. It's basically the no true Scotsman fallacy. Wilder lost therefore wilder was not prime. That is not a No True Scotsman Fallacy. I know you discovered a fallacy book of some sort on your first ever trip to the library recently but you have not even the first clue what any of these fallacies actually are when you attempt to cite them.

So Wilder's 'prime' ended after the first Fury fight (which he arguably lost), that's convenient. I like how the alphabets suddenly mean something to you when it suits your argument. According to this guy wilder spent his entire prime fighting bums(and looking horrid) and the exact moment he stepped up to top competition he became shot. Of course laughable fanboy logic. It's basically the no true Scotsman fallacy. Wilder lost therefore wilder was not prime.

It's a very, very close shave between those at the top in this Gen, but it's all been covered before. And of course, It's just my opinion. It's based on a careful analysis of relative aggregate accomplishment; predicated on quality of opposition, naturally; and other factors that include Wilder's greater number of title defenses, greater number of wins and greater number of knockouts, more time at the top, his perfect obligation fulfillment to the WBC contenders (only), his dramatic knockout capabilities, olympic pedigree, and never once having suffered a loss in this prime. They all did the Szpilka & Washington thing; in between top opponents; Fury and Ortiz in Wilder's case; but Joshua and Dubois and Parker and Ortiz and Whyte each suffered epically perportioned smash down knockout losses when smack in the middle of their prime, which Wilder never did, and Wilder's slightly lighter opponent quality score (which is a real thing, if somewhat exaggerated) just misses overcoming that fact. I've seen all of the aforementioned train and fight live on multiple occasions, and personally feel exceptionally confident in what my senses show me, with no agenda at all. .....but I could be wrong. Naturally. It's strictly a judgment call. So Wilder's 'prime' ended after the first Fury fight (which he arguably lost), that's convenient. I like how the alphabets suddenly mean something to you when it suits your argument.

wilder ahead of usyk? and usyk out of the top 3? something seems broken in my head Nothings broken. You just disagree.

Dubois is a scary physical beast. Seems to have a good head, and the good poise and comfort in the spotlight. He has all the tools. But does he have the right trainer? Emanuel Steward RIP with Dubois would be a lethal combination.

How on ****ing earth is Wilder top 3 in either scenario? because he put together a bunch of title defences against guys like Artur Szpilka and Gerald Washington? It's a very, very close shave between those at the top in this Gen, but it's all been covered before. And of course, It's just my opinion. It's based on a careful analysis of relative aggregate accomplishment; predicated on quality of opposition, naturally; and other factors that include Wilder's greater number of title defenses, greater number of wins and greater number of knockouts, more time at the top, his perfect obligation fulfillment to the WBC contenders (only), his dramatic knockout capabilities, olympic pedigree, and never once having suffered a loss in this prime. They all did the Szpilka & Washington thing; in between top opponents; Fury and Ortiz in Wilder's case; but Joshua and Dubois and Parker and Ortiz and Whyte each suffered epically perportioned smash down knockout losses when smack in the middle of their prime, which Wilder never did, and Wilder's slightly lighter opponent quality score (which is a real thing, if somewhat exaggerated) just misses overcoming that fact. I've seen all of the aforementioned train and fight live on multiple occasions, and personally feel exceptionally confident in what my senses show me, with no agenda at all. .....but I could be wrong. Naturally. It's strictly a judgment call.

Well it would throw the hwt division into chaos like after McCall KOed Lennox and when Buster KOed Tyson. It's been a really long time since the HWT title didn't follow the script. Foreman vs Moorer was supposedly an upset but it almost felt staged in a way. Because Foreman was really the A side and Moorer a non draw. Funny how Moorer did not demand the rematch. Usyk is getting old and Dubois is a beast. A big upset is possible. But Usyk has that confidence aura which seems like nobody alive can beat him right now.

If Daniel Dubois dominates: 1. Tyson Fury, England 34-2-1 (24) 2. Daniel Dubois, England 23-2-0 (21) 3. Deontay Wilder, USA 43-4-1 (42) wilder ahead of usyk? and usyk out of the top 3? something seems broken in my head

It all depends on how he wins 'If Daniel Dubois blast Oleksandr Uysk II out inside 4 to 6 rounds. Which is actually the most likely type of win for Dubois, and then I think the reaction to the fight will be similar to when Dubois beat Joshua. Nobody in the boxing media, has really discredited Daniel Dubois for his win over Anthony Joshua. It was quite simply not a great technical performance by Joshua, and Dubois capitalized on this he had his Any Given Saturday: In reference to the NFL Movie: Any Given Sunday 1999'. And when you really analyse Dubois vs Uysk II stylistically 'Daniel Dubois wining by stoppage inside 4 to 6 rounds, is actually the most likely type of win for Dubois. Because I personally don't think Dubois has the endurance or overall game to consistently win rounds against Uysk like the way Fury and Joshua did to a certain extent. Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua outside of Oleksandr Uysk, are the two most proven and component skill for skill boxers in the Heavyweight Division. Daniel Dubois has proven that he has power, brute strength and is a determined fighter. But he has never proven in any of his prior fights in his career, that at World to Elite level he is a great skill for skill boxer'. Note: Daniel Dubois even against Anthony Joshua on his best night 'Did not really prove he was skill for skill a World to Elite level boxer, Joshua even while hurt and concussed was still able to fight his way back into the fight before making a unforced error and wading into Dubois's power punch in round 5. In terms of aggression, and displaying solid power? Daniel Dubois performed very well vs Anthony Joshua. But I would not exactly rate his performance as a sophisticated offensive destruction of Joshua, it was nowhere near the level of offensive mastery as Mike Tyson vs Michael Spinks 1988'. To conclude: So the reaction to the fight all depends of how Daniel Dubois wins the fight 'If he blasts him out? People within the boxing community will react in a similar fashion to how they did in regards to his performance against Anthony Joshua. If Dubois somehow wins over the distance, and has the ability to score points and win rounds against Uysk? Then many people will suggest that Oleksandr Uysk II has decreased in his form, and should retire from the game'. For me personally I am backing Oleksandr Uysk II to win again 'Ether over the distance or by stoppage in the latter rounds. If Uysk is in solid from, and he has maintained his conditioning from recent fights. Then I would not be surprised this potential rematch win is way more dominant than the first fight' etc.