Comparing Usyk to Ali is laughable.

Usyk is knocking in the door being a top 8 all time heavyweight. Oleksandr Usyk’s case for being a top-12 all-time heavyweight is strong but depends on how you weigh different factors. His resume is elite: undisputed cruiserweight champion, undisputed heavyweight champion (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF), and wins over top-tier opponents like Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury, and Daniel Dubois. There is no question as he has beaten each man twice. His technical mastery—footwork, angles, and punch accuracy, combined with his ring IQ and natural 12+ round stamina where he does not need any breaks and forces the other man to match his never ending movement or be out angled and not have their feet set to throw a punchh—is arguably unmatched in the division’s history. He’s also got an Olympic gold medal (2012) and a perfect 24-0, 15 KO's. At 6'3" 255 pounds he is neither short, or lacking reach. Very few heavies were faster handed and and had swifter feet. Very few had better reflexes. You could count them on one head. His chin is very good. Beating Fury in their rematch (December 2024) further solidified his legacy, making him the first to unify all four major belts in the four-belt era and defend them. However, ranking him top-12 all-time invites debate due to the heavyweight division’s storied history. Legends like Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Lennox Lewis, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Vitlai Klitscko, and Wladimir Klitschko dominate such lists in my opinion. Each has a mix of dominance, longevity, cultural impact, or iconic fights that Usyk, at 38 with only eight heavyweight bouts, doesn’t fully match yet. No heavyweight has matched his cruiser-to-heavyweight undisputed double, and his win over Fury, a 6’9” giant, showcases his ability to overcome size disadvantages with skill.f opposition. However he needs more title defenses to crack the upper echelon. He has not finished boxing yet ( he has 1.5 - 2 more good years left in my opinion ) and can rate a bit higher. How? By beating younger pros like Parker, Kayabel, Hrgovic, and Jarolov and having them carve out their own legacy when he retires. He has ducked no man and had no oops moments ( losses, draws, or questionable decisions ) like every one else does above him on the all time list. IMO, he is a top 12 all time great heavyweight. He would likey beat Tucker, Berbick, Valuev, Morrison, Moorer, Ruiz, Lyle, Shavers, Spinks, and Tua. Arguments can be made for the other names you listed. - Dr Z This is the perfect HW era for a guy to "dominate" Usyk is good. Not top 10 good. Those bold names :lol1: Are they supposed to mean something ?!?!?

Honestly, Usyk would beat the most of them. prove me I am wrong. You can´t so.. Take your complaints up with ProBum and have her shut down that "Fantasy Fight" section. Tim Witherspoon > Usyk Prove me wrong " 'Spoon has loses...haha" So would Usyk if he fought in a real HW era

I understand that. I still think that all three fights were close enough, maybe with a bit of bias, but not a complete robbery. 2 certainly isn’t a robbery. Ali arguably could have won 1 too. I felt Norton got jobbed in fight 3, but it’s all opinion at the end of the day. Regardless of what we think the official result stands.

So then Peterson deserves full credit for his win over Khan? Taylor over Catterall? That's what the resume says. Clown shoes. You can keep calling me pathetic all you want but you're engaging in the same exact behavior, except also demonstrating an extreme lack of reading comprehension and/or basic reasoning while you do it. Again, you made this topic to make the case for Ali over Usyk. Then you mentioned clear robberies in support of that argument. That's really, really dumb. Where did I say Ali deserves full credit? I was simply listing his resume you incoherent *****. People will acknowledge official results over your irrelevant opinion. Period. Peterson-Khan weren’t no robbery too, same as Ali-Norton 2, close fights. You’ll be talking about “the man in the hat” next. :lol1:

I understand that. I still think that all three fights were close enough, maybe with a bit of bias, but not a complete robbery. It was pure reputation. If the other guy was anyone else Norton has three solid UD wins. Ali got rounds he didn't earn because he was Ali.

Yes, we can and should erase the first two GGG fights from Canelo's resume. There is absolutely no argument that Canelo won more than 5 rounds in either fight and it's a joke to just accept the BS that we're fed by the powers that be in the sport. You can acknowledge the official outcome but to try to use the fights to argue in Canelo's favor just makes you look like you didn't watch the fights. It would be like a Lamont Peterson fan bragging about the Khan fight. Just sad. I understand that. I still think that all three fights were close enough, maybe with a bit of bias, but not a complete robbery.

I’m not arguing at all I’m laughing at how pathetic you are. I have no problem if you think Norton won all 3 fights. I personally think he won 2 of the 3. Regardless, nobody is going to amend Muhammad Ali’s resume because some nobody on a forum thinks he lost that fight. If I list a resume, I’m gonna list the official resume because that’s what actually matters. So then Peterson deserves full credit for his win over Khan? Taylor over Catterall? That's what the resume says. Clown shoes. You can keep calling me pathetic all you want but you're engaging in the same exact behavior, except also demonstrating an extreme lack of reading comprehension and/or basic reasoning while you do it. Again, you made this topic to make the case for Ali over Usyk. Then you mentioned clear robberies in support of that argument. That's really, really dumb.

It takes two to tango, genius. You've been "arguing" for the same amount of time except you don't actually have an argument. And, if you could read, you'd already know what you "should" do. You "should" build a case in favor of Ali without mentioning clear robberies. Mention the wins he actually earned legitimately, not the ones he was handed on pure reputation. Again, extremely uncomplicated. I’m not arguing at all I’m laughing at how pathetic you are. I have no problem if you think Norton won all 3 fights. I personally think he won 2 of the 3. Regardless, nobody is going to amend Muhammad Ali’s resume because some nobody on a forum thinks he lost that fight. If I list a resume, I’m gonna list the official resume because that’s what actually matters.

So I should redact the Norton wins from Ali’s resume because some sad c*** on a forum thinks he lost? :lol1: Are you for real? :lol1: So desperate for an argument man, it’s laughable, you must have no social life at all. It takes two to tango, genius. You've been "arguing" for the same amount of time except you don't actually have an argument. And, if you could read, you'd already know what you "should" do. You "should" build a case in favor of Ali without mentioning clear robberies. Mention the wins he actually earned legitimately, not the ones he was handed on pure reputation. Again, extremely uncomplicated.

I'm completely coherent. Acknowledging the result of the fight is not the same thing as using the fight to argue in favor of his resume. Canelo factually "beat" Golovkin and "drew" with him in the first two fights but anyone using those fights as an argument in favor of his legacy looks like a clown because everyone knows they were robberies. And that's exactly what you're doing in saying that Ali is better than Usyk by virtue of his HOF wins. Several of those wins should have been losses, so they do not contribute coherently to an argument in favor of Ali over Usyk. A third grader could understand. And a third grader could make a better case than you did for Ali. So I should redact the Norton wins from Ali’s resume because some sad c*** on a forum thinks he lost? :lol1: Are you for real? :lol1: So desperate for an argument man, it’s laughable, you must have no social life at all.

It’s laughable to compare 2 boxers on a boxing forum? Sounds like TS is a scared little b!tch :rofl: Usyk and Ali both fought and beat the best of their era, Usyk is doing it without losing.

Ali fought everyone. Usyk will need to try do that too. Best ajit and parker and That's about it.

I listed Ali’s accomplishments, which factually include two wins over Norton. Acknowledging the result, no personal opinion, just listing his resume. I.E Ali’s overall resume is better than Usyk’s overall resume, and Ali’s resume includes two wins over Ken Norton, so why wouldn’t I acknowledge them when I’m listing his wins over HOF’er? How incoherent are you? Apparently you have no issue with this yet you’re here in page 11. :lol1: Get a life you sad bas****. :lol1: I'm completely coherent. Acknowledging the result of the fight is not the same thing as using the fight to argue in favor of his resume. Canelo factually "beat" Golovkin and "drew" with him in the first two fights but anyone using those fights as an argument in favor of his legacy looks like a clown because everyone knows they were robberies. And that's exactly what you're doing in saying that Ali is better than Usyk by virtue of his HOF wins. Several of those wins should have been losses, so they do not contribute coherently to an argument in favor of Ali over Usyk. A third grader could understand. And a third grader could make a better case than you did for Ali.

Well as long as Hrgovic takes his training seriously which he clearly did not after rolling Dubios in the gym only to see Dubois chin and guts hold up that night, and his stamina darined do to poor training... I would say it's a 50 / 50 fight for Hrgovic next year when Usyk is 39. DDD took Hrgovic's bombs but not Usky's? Sometimes boxing logic does not apply. But enough on that this is your thread on comparing Usyk to Ali is laughable. Yes you can compare all time greats in the same division to each other. ​ Usyk only sits down on punches when he has you hurt. Dubois was a sitting duck like Bellew and Usyks precision is unmatched.

Honestly, Usyk would beat the most of them. prove me I am wrong. You can´t so.. He'd whoop everyone of them with ease but lose to Lennox and maybe to Vitali, and im not really even sure about this because Usyk is so crafty and will adjust to anything. Usyk is one of the greats

Well as long as Hrgovic takes his training seriously which he clearly did not after rolling Dubios in the gym only to see Dubois chin and guts hold up that night, and his stamina darined do to poor training... I would say it's a 50 / 50 fight for Hrgovic next year when Usyk is 39. DDD took Hrgovic's bombs but not Usky's? Sometimes boxing logic does not apply. But enough on that this is your thread on comparing Usyk to Ali is laughable. Yes you can compare all time greats in the same division to each other. ​ Hrgovic is very average. You know it deep down. The whole world saw it vs Dubois. Usyk beats him easily.

For the tenth time You made a topic saying Ali is better than Usyk, then listed the Norton fights which he deserved to lose 3 times as a reason why. That's no different that a Canelo fanboy listing the draw and robbery win over Golovkin as a reason why Canelo is great, rather than digging into Canelo's legitimate resume and making an intelligent case. You can't pretend like you didn't insinuate that the Norton fights are part of the reason why Ali is greater than Usyk. That's what you did, and that's what I took issue with in plain English multiple times. This really, really isn't complicated. I listed Ali’s accomplishments, which factually include two wins over Norton. Acknowledging the result, no personal opinion, just listing his resume. I.E Ali’s overall resume is better than Usyk’s overall resume, and Ali’s resume includes two wins over Ken Norton, so why wouldn’t I acknowledge them when I’m listing his wins over HOF’er? How incoherent are you? Apparently you have no issue with this yet you’re here in page 11. :lol1: Get a life you sad bas****. :lol1:

Hrgovic got dog walked by the guy Usyk just blitzed in 5 rounds. :lol1: Are you seriously saying Hrgovic beats Usyk? Well as long as Hrgovic takes his training seriously which he clearly did not after rolling Dubios in the gym only to see Dubois chin and guts hold up that night, and his stamina darined do to poor training... I would say it's a 50 / 50 fight for Hrgovic next year when Usyk is 39. DDD took Hrgovic's bombs but not Usky's? Sometimes boxing logic does not apply. But enough on that this is your thread on comparing Usyk to Ali is laughable. Yes you can compare all time greats in the same division to each other. ​

I said Ali has beaten 7 HOF’ers. Which he did. Factually. I acknowledged the official results i.e Norton x2. I didn’t express any personal opinion just that Ali beat Norton twice. Which OFFICIALLY he did. You then took exception to it because you’re one sad little man, who’s desperate to create arguments on a boxing forum. Again, what was your issue with me listing an official result? And where did I express any personal opinion on the outcome of those fights? For the tenth time You made a topic saying Ali is better than Usyk, then listed the Norton fights which he deserved to lose 3 times as a reason why. That's no different that a Canelo fanboy listing the draw and robbery win over Golovkin as a reason why Canelo is great, rather than digging into Canelo's legitimate resume and making an intelligent case. You can't pretend like you didn't insinuate that the Norton fights are part of the reason why Ali is greater than Usyk. That's what you did, and that's what I took issue with in plain English multiple times. This really, really isn't complicated.

Let them fight. Then we will see who is right. Hrgovic got dog walked by the guy Usyk just blitzed in 5 rounds. :lol1: Are you seriously saying Hrgovic beats Usyk?