HOLYFIELD beats Usyk at Cruiser or HW.

[ONOFF]

why didn't fury do it, easy- because fury is not holyfield, holyfield fought like a man possessed on his day, in your face eating, your shots, throwing combos and ripping to the body every minute of every round. lets not talk as if fury is this amazingly crafty fighter when in reality he is a bit stiff and can be ugly with his sloppiness. joshua is another bad example, he is a good fighter but isn't good at using his physical attributes, just like fury- both were afraid to pressure because of their damaged chin, holyfield had an iron chin.

You dismiss Joshua and Fury as ‘bad examples,’ but isn’t that just because they don’t support your conclusion?

Joshua has a higher KO ratio than Holyfield. Fury outweighed Usyk by 40 pounds. So what exactly would convince you? Or is this more about nostalgia than evidence?

If fights haven’t changed since the '90s.. (as you say), then doesn’t Usyk’s dominance across two divisions in this era make his accomplishments even harder to ignore?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m questioning the consistency of the logic. It’s an interesting take, but isn’t it built on assuming Usyk would just stand still and let Holyfield rip to the body at will?

Holyfield had an iron chin? Fair...But he was dropped by John Ruiz and staggered by Bowe. Neither of them were KO machines.

And I assume Tyson will be used as proof..But that’s exactly the point. Holyfield didn’t take Tyson’s shots — he neutralized him. Tied him up. Frustrated him. Took away his rhythm. That wasn’t chin, that was IQ.

So if we’re playing the strategy card, why assume it only works one way?

Usyk's not just another technician...He’s an Olympic gold medalist, undisputed at cruiser, twice undisputed at heavyweight. The only man to do that in the four-belt era. He doesn’t just adjust, he dissects.

And if you’re thinking "Holyfield would just do the same"... Buster Douglas beat Tyson too...and we both know how that story ended. Styles make fights, not myths. If nothing’s changed since the '90s, how did Usyk conquer two divisions in this exact system?

[ONOFF]

fights haven't changed much since the 1990s other than the tech we use, rings sizes are the same, gloves are the same, biased referees are plentiful. I cant see usyk dissecting a holyfield because he would not allow him the space to do that.

If the fallback is politics or judges, odd choice, considering Usyk built his résumé on foreign soil. Breidis in Latvia. Gassiev in Russia. Bellew in the UK. Joshua in London and Saudi. Fury in Riyadh. No crowd. No judges. No flags. Just skill.

Meanwhile, Holyfield’s defining wins? Mostly at home, under U.S. promoters, in U.S. venues. That’s not a flaw — but if we’re questioning venue and perception, shouldn’t we question that too?

And as for Usyk’s opposition ..isn't that just the last available exit? What does the ‘ideal’ opponent look like, exactly? A 6’9” heavyweight with elite footwork like Fury has never existed. Dismissing him for being ‘awkward’ sounds a lot like moving the goalposts. Joshua? Olympic gold, unified champ, multiple top-tier wins. But he ‘doesn’t count’ now?

Ali was dropped by Cooper. Lennox by Rahman. Joshua by Ruiz. Holyfield by Ruiz. Bowe couldn't outscore Golota. That’s boxing. It’s not perfection, it’s solving problems.

Funny how every time Usyk solves a puzzle, the puzzle gets called “not that impressive.” Yet when Holyfield wins, the opponent’s legacy grows in hindsight.

Strange how that works.

[ThunderFists]

You dismiss Joshua and Fury as ‘bad examples,’ but isn’t that just because they don’t support your conclusion?

Joshua has a higher KO ratio than Holyfield. Fury outweighed Usyk by 40 pounds. So what exactly would convince you? Or is this more about nostalgia than evidence?

If fights haven’t changed since the '90s.. (as you say), then doesn’t Usyk’s dominance across two divisions in this era make his accomplishments even harder to ignore?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m questioning the consistency of the logic. It’s an interesting take, but isn’t it built on assuming Usyk would just stand still and let Holyfield rip to the body at will?

Holyfield had an iron chin? Fair...But he was dropped by John Ruiz and staggered by Bowe. Neither of them were KO machines.

And I assume Tyson will be used as proof..But that’s exactly the point. Holyfield didn’t take Tyson’s shots — he neutralized him. Tied him up. Frustrated him. Took away his rhythm. That wasn’t chin, that was IQ.

So if we’re playing the strategy card, why assume it only works one way?

Usyk's not just another technician...He’s an Olympic gold medalist, undisputed at cruiser, twice undisputed at heavyweight. The only man to do that in the four-belt era. He doesn’t just adjust, he dissects.

And if you’re thinking "Holyfield would just do the same"... Buster Douglas beat Tyson too...and we both know how that story ended. Styles make fights, not myths. If nothing’s changed since the '90s, how did Usyk conquer two divisions in this exact system?

Joshua has a higher KO ratio than holyfield- holyfield has had 57 fights and 29 kos, holyfield has more kos than joshua has fights

fury is 40lbs heavier but it made no difference if you don't know how to use your weight and arwe sloppy, fury got a reputation of using his weight because most of the people he did that to were not crafty or high level fighters, wilder, whyte...john mcdermott?- the most craftiest fighter fury fought were he used his weight effectively was against cunningham and he got dropped for that.

usyk is a legend no doubt, but i cant compare the likes of aj chisora and fury to guys like tyson, bowe and lewis i think even old george foreman could get rid of of aj chisora and potentialy fury if he doesnt get on his bike the whole fight.

Holyfield had an iron chin? Fair...But he was dropped by John Ruiz and staggered by Bowe- doesn't really have a bearing on his chin tbh, marquez was known to get dropped many times but his chin was solid, same with inoue, who ate clean shots from donaire but got dropped by nery and cardenas unlike aj who gets tapped on the chin and his legs get lost beneath him.

[ONOFF]

Joshua has a higher KO ratio than holyfield- holyfield has had 57 fights and 29 kos, holyfield has more kos than joshua has fights

fury is 40lbs heavier but it made no difference if you don't know how to use your weight and arwe sloppy, fury got a reputation of using his weight because most of the people he did that to were not crafty or high level fighters, wilder, whyte...john mcdermott?- the most craftiest fighter fury fought were he used his weight effectively was against cunningham and he got dropped for that.

usyk is a legend no doubt, but i cant compare the likes of aj chisora and fury to guys like tyson, bowe and lewis i think even old george foreman could get rid of of aj chisora and potentialy fury if he doesnt get on his bike the whole fight.

Holyfield had an iron chin? Fair...But he was dropped by John Ruiz and staggered by Bowe- doesn't really have a bearing on his chin tbh, marquez was known to get dropped many times but his chin was solid, same with inoue, who ate clean shots from donaire but got dropped by nery and cardenas unlike aj who gets tapped on the chin and his legs get lost beneath him.

Ok, so you're saying that because Holyfield has more total KOs (29 in 57 fights) than Joshua has total fights, that somehow makes him the bigger puncher ? Even though Joshua stops a much higher percentage of his opponents? Isn’t that like saying someone who shoots 100 times and scores 30 goals is better than someone who scores 28 goals in just 32 shots? Isn’t the ratio the actual measure of efficiency?

Also, If Fury’s weight and physicality “made no difference,” why were fighters consistently smothered and leaned on until they faded? Was Usyk’s ability to neutralize that not the very thing that should earn him credit? (Fury actually used this tactic at some point vs Wilder to sap his energy..Forced Wilder to carry Fury’s weight between exchanges, it was part of Fury's trainer's strategy).

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.

You also say: "even old george foreman could get rid of of aj chisora and potentialy fury "

Isn't that fan fiction though ? I mean, again, where's the evidence ? Especially when “old George” went life and death with guys like Alex Stewart and lost to Tommy Morrison. (He basically won by a controversial majority decision after 10 rounds vs Stewart even though his face was badly swollen), prime Foreman also lost to Jimmy Young. In fact, he was so physically and mentally spent after that fight he claimed to have a religious vision in the dressing room and literally walked away from boxing to become a preacher. here's the link. https://www.boxing247.com/boxing-new.../215449

[ThunderFists]

Ok, so you're saying that because Holyfield has more total KOs (29 in 57 fights) than Joshua has total fights, that somehow makes him the bigger puncher ? Even though Joshua stops a much higher percentage of his opponents? Isn’t that like saying someone who shoots 100 times and scores 30 goals is better than someone who scores 28 goals in just 32 shots? Isn’t the ratio the actual measure of efficiency?

Also, If Fury’s weight and physicality “made no difference,” why were fighters consistently smothered and leaned on until they faded? Was Usyk’s ability to neutralize that not the very thing that should earn him credit? (Fury actually used this tactic at some point vs Wilder to sap his energy..Forced Wilder to carry Fury’s weight between exchanges, it was part of Fury's trainer's strategy).

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.

You also say: "even old george foreman could get rid of of aj chisora and potentialy fury "

Isn't that fan fiction though ? I mean, again, where's the evidence ? Especially when “old George” went life and death with guys like Alex Stewart and lost to Tommy Morrison. (He basically won by a controversial majority decision after 10 rounds vs Stewart even though his face was badly swollen), prime Foreman also lost to Jimmy Young. In fact, he was so physically and mentally spent after that fight he claimed to have a religious vision in the dressing room and literally walked away from boxing to become a preacher. here's the link. https://www.boxing247.com/boxing-new.../215449

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.

[Da Pimper]

Holyfield would lose to Usyk. But Evan Fields with his big bald metal head would have a good chance.

[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.