Comparing Usyk to Ali is laughable.

[Pac=Duran]

Honestly, Usyk would beat the most of them.

prove me I am wrong. You canīt 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

[Pac=Duran]

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.

[famicommander]

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. Get a life you sad bas****.

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.

[hugh grant]

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

[Rad]

It’s laughable to compare 2 boxers on a boxing forum? Sounds like TS is a scared little b!tch

Usyk and Ali both fought and beat the best of their era, Usyk is doing it without losing.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

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?

Are you for real?

So desperate for an argument man, it’s laughable, you must have no social life at all.

[famicommander]

So I should redact the Norton wins from Ali’s resume because some sad c*** on a forum thinks he lost?

Are you for real?

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.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

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.

[famicommander]

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.

[garfios]

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.