HOLYFIELD beats Usyk at Cruiser or HW.

[ONOFF]

holyfield koed guys like tyson, qawi, de leon, ajs best kos...hmm... 41 year old klistchko who had been inactive for 2 years, whyte .40 year old povetkin? charles martin?- infact i will concede that joshua is more efficient in koing no hopers but the reality is joshua would be a fringe level contender in the 90s era despite all this modern advancement and semantics you want to put on it.

And then you simply say that you can't "compare AJ, Chisora, and Fury to Tyson, Bowe, Lewis…" If we can’t compare AJ, Fury, and Chisora to Tyson, Bowe, and Lewis ... isn’t that just another way of saying the outcome’s already decided in your mind, regardless of the facts?Might as well just admit that anything you'll say will be emotionally-driven, hypothetical & detached from reality. - i think YOU must be emotionally driven and in la la land if you think those guys are even close to their caliber, their names, resume and legacy will be discussed 100- 200 years now in boxing. no one will talk about aj or chisora in a few years, people might go on youtube to watch his trash talk and be entertained but noone is googling "fury ko highlights" in a decade from now lol or is that another unrealistic hypothetical.

lastly foreman was in his prime 4 years after his loss to ali? im pretty sure the 37 people who include joe frazier and norton, koing guys like wepner at only 20 years old in his 3 ord 4th fight as part of his 40 fight winning streak before the loss to ali was when he was in his prime. mate.

The way i see it, your arguments are quasi untouchable not because of logic, but because you've mythologized the past, you're arguing from a nostalgia-fueled gatekeeper mindset. Can you see the double standards of your own reasoning ?

For instance you’re cherry-picking Holyfield’s best KO wins and dismissing Joshua’s because the opponents were "older" or "inactive". If that's the argument, then you could also say that Holyfield defeated a past prime Tyson in 1996, Notably because he had already spent over three years in prison for a 1992 **** conviction prior to this fight. Qawi already had a loss vs Spinks, three years before facing Holyfield. He was considered to be in the latter part of his prime, too..

You say Joshua would be a 'fringe contender' in the 90s..Ok, but based on what ? What's the actual proof? Are you implying that the likes of Bruce Seldon, Buster Douglas, Oliver McCall, Michael Moorer, Shannon Briggs, Tommy Morrison, were so exceptionally talented that even Joshua wouldn't have stood a chance against these 90's champions? That he wouldn’t even contend?

You added: "despite all this modern advancement and semantics you want to put on it."

Well, the same “semantics” you reject...(rankings, accomplishments, Olympic pedigree) are the very tools boxing has always used to compare fighters.


He’s an Olympic gold medalist, unified world champion, and beat multiple top-10 ranked heavyweights, in the same sport, under the same rules. Isn’t it more realistic to ask how he would do against 90s styles, instead of writing him off based on nostalgia?

And legacy? If we’re measuring greatness by "YouTube searches" 100 years from now, then I guess Jake Paul is already top 10 ATG.

But, back to Foreman..

Let me get this straight.. So, "post-Ali" he wasn’t in his prime when he lost to Jimmy Young and had a breakdown, but he was already in his prime when he beat Chuck Wepner at age 20? That’s not consistency, that’s editing the timeline to protect the myth isn't it ? that's nonsensical unless you're selectively curating a narrative.

In other words, When Foreman is losing (to Jimmy Young), his prime is magically over. (at only 28)
When Foreman is winning (even as a very young prospect), his prime has magically already started. (in only his 4rth fight).

If your standard is: 'fighters I liked back then were just built different'...Then fair enough, i guess? But let’s call that what it is: personal belief, not objective comparison.

[JakeTheBoxer]

Holyfield has about 10 losses. I am sure Usyk could beat him.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Usyk been fighting top champs from his inception with perfect results. Not so Field who hung on to long to stink out his legacy.

[Joe Beamish]

It’s too hard to factor out the chemical enhancement that dominated the Holyfield era. At the time, I thought Holyfield was a freak of nature the way he went up in weight so effectively. Now I class him with guys like Mark McGuire.

[IronDanHamza]

It’s too hard to factor out the chemical enhancement that dominated the Holyfield era. At the time, I thought Holyfield was a freak of nature the way he went up in weight so effectively. Now I class him with guys like Mark McGuire.

Hate to give a spoiler alert but chemical enhancement dominates this era also.

[MalevolentBite]

holyfield was 41 years old

I know he was also ranked in the Top 5 by the IBF and the Ring. I am not discrediting holyfield for that lost.

[MalevolentBite]

I didn’t say you said he’d beat a prime Holyfield. Obviously he wouldn’t do that, any one with even a single brain cell knows that.

You LITERALLY responded to my point that he’s never dominated a top level fighter with the Holyfield fight what the fuck are you talking about?!?!?!!!!!!!!!! Go and read the thread back.

In that thread, the Julian Jackson one from the other day, (NOT the Canelo one from months ago), you praise Toney’s win over Holyfield as a dominant win over a top level fighter in response to my post and yet in this thread you DIRECTLY contradict that by refuting Dan_Cov’s point about southpaws by saying Holyfield was old vs Byrd when he was a year YOUNGER when he fought Byrd.

Why would you give Toney credit for his “blowout” win over Holyfield’s corpse but then downplay Byrd doing it by admitting he was old? When he was younger vs Byrd It makes NO sense.

It’s there in plain English mate. It is the literal epitome of a flip flopping contradiction. How you can’t see that is baffling.

Oh ok? That made no sense. Rewrite that.

[MalevolentBite]

But you're only pretending to be objective, aren't you? Otherwise, you wouldn't be moving the goalposts or making excuses to explain why Americans aren't dominating anymore. (Obviously the NFL doesn't count since no one else in the world plays it seriously.) Furthermore, FIBA vs NBA are moot points. Just look at the NBA itself then.

2024-25 MVP SGA (Canada) (Jokic was obviously robbed again, the guy should logically have 5 MVP titles by now but that would be a sacrilege since he'd have as many as the likes of Bill Russell and Michael Jordan)
2023-24 MVP Jokic (Serbia)
2022-23 MVP Embiid (Cameroon) (Though Jokic was robbed).
2021-22 MVP Jokic (Serbia)
2020-21 MVP Jokic (Serbia)
2019-20 MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo (Greece)
2018-19 MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo (Greece)

Do you start to see a pattern here ? The last time an american player won was in 2017. Find all the excuses you want, the reality is that the current percentage of American-born NBA players is approximately 75-78 percent, meaning less than 25% of foreigners are at the top of the food chain in an american sport where you guys are the vast majority. One of the biggest trade in NBA history was none other than Luka Doncic to the Los Angeles Lakers in exchange for Anthony Davis.

You say: "black americans stopped playing baseball hence the change culturally from the negro leagues to baseball in the 70s and 80s to now."
Sounds like cope to me. This is the classic “after this, therefore because of this” fallacy. It suggests that the decline in Black American participation in baseball caused the cultural changes in the sport simply because it happened afterward. But correlation ≠ causation.

"Black Americans stopped playing" is reductive and lazy analysis. Culture doesn't shift because one group "opts out" it shifts due to systemic, media-driven or economic and institutional factors. Also, If the absence of Black players explains a cultural or qualitative decline in baseball, then it implies they were innately responsible for its excellence right ? So that's a subtle nod to racial essentialism. In other words, it suggests Black athletes are culturally or biologically exceptional.

Now, you'd have a point as far as the 100m and 200m sprints at the Olympics are concerned.(mostly West African), and the same is true for East Africans (Kenyans, Ethiopians), but they only dominate long-distance running. But you're fooling yourself if you think it's equally true for any athletic disciplines. Some races will be better suited for running ( (fast-twitch muscle fibers, leg morphology, etc..) , others for swimming, ( longer torsos, broader shoulders, higher average body fat %) .. Or Strength Sports (e.g. powerlifting, Olympic lifting , Compact builds, limb leverage advantage.) ..

How can you say the NFL doesn't count when the NFL pulls in the most talent in the entire country. Theres entire regions that are dedicated to producing football players. Its like soccer in the rest of the world. The American football is basically a reilgion with their own day of the week. Entire counties in the south shut down for HIGH School games. Thats a big factor why other sports don't pull in athletics. High school football is a milestone in alot of American boys lives.

Thats not objective it's a fact. You must not be american. That's like saying another sport can rival soccer in Brazil or Italy or Spain. Its not happening.

Jokić is younger than me. Thats not my generation. I grew up with Kobe and Shaq. I can only speak on my generation. This current generation is ruined by AAU programs that funnels bad fundamentals and shooting long distances. NBA popularity among older Americans is down. Ratings are down. While NFL is growing. The NBA is pushing to become more global but the basketball American program isnt what it used to be. The Euro Step, lack of physical defense and physical play hurt it among older Americans who grew up with the Pistons and physical guards like Magic. The NBA as it now is geared more towards European play. They don't even do low post play anymore. Everyone is a mid range shooter. They dont even rule plays anyone.

Also, If the absence of Black players explains a cultural or qualitative decline in baseball, then it implies they were innately responsible for its excellence right ? So that's a subtle nod to racial essentialism. In other words, it suggests Black athletes are culturally or biologically exceptional.

What's wrong with that^ even Turki stated boxing was better when their was a black American heavyweight. Baseball was better when they had black Americans playing more. The lack of Black Americans does hampers baseball appeal to the urban demographics and media appeal in AMERICA which does directly influence culture. I am speaking from an American perspective.

But you're fooling yourself if you think it's equally true for any athletic disciplines. Some races will be better suited for running ( (fast-twitch muscle fibers, leg morphology, etc..) , others for swimming, ( longer torsos, broader shoulders, higher average body fat %) .. Or Strength Sports (e.g. powerlifting, Olympic lifting , Compact builds, limb leverage advantage.)

Each race has their best attributes. Nobody is saying blacks will dominate every single sport. However for sports Americans care about that brings in money Boxing, Baseball, Basketball , Track etc Black Americans do dominate. You take blacks off the table America loses alot of all time great athletes and gold medals. Now if you take Africans off the table France wouldnt have a world cup and most other countries too that have black players or players with African blood. But let's not get it twisted when blacks try they can excel in Golf, Tennis and etc. I am actually a very great swimmer. I won a swimming competition. Its not that blacks cant swim blacks are not exposed to water and some who are not from the island have a fear of drowning. Now skiing and winter Olympics thats all Europeans/whites.

I am fine with Europeans playing great in the nba but I gotta be objective these new blacks that play in the nba are like Deontay Wilder. Raw talent, bad fundamentals, un coach able and no gym strength. Look at Wilder and Kevin Durant then look at Ken Norton and Karl Malon. You will never seen those type of athletes again in American sports unless its on the NFL football field.

[MalevolentBite]

Ok i skipped that part..


I'll mention a few but the fact remains, you have several

Mike Tyson's competition was mostly American. Well over 70% of his opponents were from America. Compare that to Lennox Lewis's 44 professional bouts. The same is equally true for the likes of the Klitschko bros, Joshua, etc..

Mike Tyson resume was nothing but bums. He never faced a prime all time great in their prime American or European. Period. Hes a fraud and 90% american media made him bigger than he wss. So we are on the same page.

The 90's were "special". Mostly for American fans i guess. But you'll find future world champions—especially from the U.S. and U.K.—were beaten in the amateurs by Soviet, Cuban, and other Eastern Bloc fighters.

I don't put much clout in ameture boxing Olympic or golden gloves. Too many rigged decisions and point system. Pro boxing is different. Sean Porter beat Usyk in the ametures that doesn't mean anything now.

Prime example of this:
Rid**** Bowe—who was beaten twice by Alexander Miroshnichenko—eventually won their third fight at the 1988 Olympics, though Miroshnichenko still floored Bowe in the first round. Obviously, Bowe went on to have a far more successful professional career, but the point remains: he was able to start his pro career at 21, while Miroshnichenko had to wait several more years for that opportunity.

I anwered this above. So what was his pro record ?

Miroshnichenko also defeated Lennox Lewis (who, granted, wasn’t American).

Tyrell Biggs, the 1984 Olympic gold medalist who later fought Mike Tyson for the heavyweight title, lost to Alexander Yagubkin. While that might be dismissed as irrelevant, the fact is, Yagubkin simply couldn't turn professional.

Yagubkin also beat Michael Bentt convincingly at the World Cup in Seoul—the same Michael Bentt who had defeated Ray Mercer twice in the amateurs. And again, Yagubkin had no professional career.

Igor Vysotsky knocked out Tony Tubbs in the second round in 1976. Mike Tyson did the same in 1988. While we can write it off as a footnote in their careers, the fact remains: Vysotsky had no opportunity to fight professionally unless he defected from the USSR. I'm not suggesting he would’ve had a career comparable to Tyson’s, but that’s not the point.

The point is that, for decades, American boxers benefited from a significant competitive advantage simply because they had access to the professional circuit—an opportunity many elite fighters from the Soviet bloc were denied. I'm not blaming it entirely on America or claiming it was some sort of conspiracy theory against eastern euro boxers, but that was the actual situation back then. All I’m saying is that, for American boxers, the road to a professional career was wide open—a virtual boulevard compared to what Eastern Bloc fighters faced.

The american media is a powerful machine. I doesnt disgree.

However. Wilder become WBC champion after playing basketball and football. Once again. It goes back to my objective opinion. As someone who was raised in American culture and the urban culture. I am telling you from a personal experience boxing will never have abother great black American heavyweight because culturally we dont support boxing anymore and big kids are pushed to play American football. Even know theres a push to stop having young boys playing football due to CTE. ***** him self went on TV and said if I had a son I wouldnt let him play football. Now if they said about football you think anyone is pushing kids to do boxing at 12, 13 , 14 and etc ? Floyd Mayweather, Crawford, Haney are all too small for baseball and football. They probably didn't have access to golf and soccer. Boxing is the only sport their good do professionally and make money.

Mike tyson was born in 1966. The first Super Bowl, officially known as the AFL-NFL World Championship Game, was played on January 15, 1967.

Now ask your self what great american heavyweight have we had who was born 20 years after 1967? That would be 1987 thats around my generation. We have none. Between that generation gap when the NFL became a sporting god in America we haven't produced one legit American heavyweight great. Thats a fact.

[IronDanHamza]

Oh ok? That made no sense. Rewrite that.

Makes no sense how?

Holyfield was younger when he fought Byrd than he was when he fought Toney. What part of that are you not understanding?