Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag: Why Evander Holyfield beats Oleksandr Usyk; memories of Dwight Muhammad Qawi

[JonDP]

Stopped reading this guy years ago. Inevitably, he’s going to glorify and favor black American fighters. Just no credibility.

[brankobugarski]

Holyfield has found a way to loose 10 times. Some of those losses were at his peak (read Moorer, Bowe). So far, Usyk has always found a way to win against his contemporaries. Those are the facts. Now we can argue about the quality of the opposition and how good one era was compared to the other but that is all subjective stuff that cannot be proven one way or the other. Hypothetical matchups also cannot be proven either.

[MalevolentBite]

Are you telling me Qawi was better than Breidis, Huck, Bellew and Glowacki? Qawi's best wins came at 175 over a faded Saad Muhammad and inmate James Scott. And don't even get me started on heavyweight. Leave the drugs alone, young man.

That was a faded Huck and bellew is trash.

[BlackRobb]

Just look at the combinations Qawi throws. You don’t see that at cruiserweight today.

Freaking Zurdo Ramirez is currently a champion in that weight class. That doesn’t impress me as some great new and improved era.

What combinations did he throw against Holyfield and Spinks? Dude highpoint was stopping a washed Saad Muhammad at 175.

[ShoulderRoll]

What combinations did he throw against Holyfield and Spinks? Dude highpoint was stopping a washed Saad Muhammad at 175.

Go watch the video I posted. He even landed a few on George Foreman and rocked him.

[BlackRobb]

There are two separate questions that some.folks are collapsing, whose record at cruiserweight was better and who would win.

I think Usyk's achievements at CW are slightly better than Holyfield, who was campaigning at what wasn't the best CW era, as has been mentioned. The Qawi wins were impressive, and that Qawi who fought Evander in the first bout would have also troubled Usyk, tho the Ukrainean would have prevailed because of his defensive prowess, something Holyfield didn't have.

But head to head, that's a separate topic, Holyfield was a train at CW, and the point that Bread man makes about Evander's roughhousing is a good one. But would he be able to be consistently enough in Usyk's face for that to reap it's benefits? I don't think so, precisely because Holyfield struggled with leftists. I see a tough fight with Usyk winning clearly on points.

For context, please keep in mind that this is the same Bread Man who called Crawford-Spence a 50/50 fight going in. I take what he says with a grain of fkn salt.

[JimRaynor]

It's a 50/50 fight, Holyfield was brilliant in his prime, tremendous heart. To say with confidence that either Usyk would win or Holyfield would win is silly.

[James Hunt]

Breadman too woke.

[TonyRespectful]

There are two separate questions that some.folks are collapsing, whose record at cruiserweight was better and who would win.

I think Usyk's achievements at CW are slightly better than Holyfield, who was campaigning at what wasn't the best CW era, as has been mentioned. The Qawi wins were impressive, and that Qawi who fought Evander in the first bout would have also troubled Usyk, tho the Ukrainean would have prevailed because of his defensive prowess, something Holyfield didn't have.

But head to head, that's a separate topic, Holyfield was a train at CW, and the point that Bread man makes about Evander's roughhousing is a good one. But would he be able to be consistently enough in Usyk's face for that to reap it's benefits? I don't think so, precisely because Holyfield struggled with leftists. I see a tough fight with Usyk winning clearly on points.

Truthfully I don't care about the Cruiserweight division but rather how Usyk and Holyfield would have done against each other at Heavyweight. And would Evan Fields enhancements matter.

[The D3vil]

it wouldn't have been easy, but I think Usyk would have beaten Holyfield. Mr Fields didn't have a good record against southpaws. He lost to Byrd and Moorer, neither of whom were as good as Usyk.

LOL, he lost to Michael Moorer right before he had to retire with a heart condition

He lost to Byrd in 2002, when he was FORTY YEARS OLD

Stopped reading this guy years ago. Inevitably, he’s going to glorify and favor black American fighters. Just no credibility.

Then, why are you here?

It's funny you're in the comments section of something you stopped reading years ago

Holyfield has found a way to loose 10 times. Some of those losses were at his peak (read Moorer, Bowe). So far, Usyk has always found a way to win against his contemporaries. Those are the facts. Now we can argue about the quality of the opposition and how good one era was compared to the other but that is all subjective stuff that cannot be proven one way or the other. Hypothetical matchups also cannot be proven either.

He lost to Rid**** fxckin' Bowe, one of the best HWs of all-time.

Usyk struggled with Chazz Witherspoon, Derek Chisora, & barely beat a past his prime Tyson Fury in the first fight.

Holyfield lost to Moorer with a heart condition that forced him to retire for 2 years.

For context, please keep in mind that this is the same Bread Man who called Crawford-Spence a 50/50 fight going in. I take what he says with a grain of fkn salt.

90% of the boxing media & fans called Crawford/Spence 50/50

Breadman too woke.

You idiots have no idea what woke even means.

Can y'all read a book or even google something for once in your lives?