Is Anthony Joshua the worst of the best?

[brundlefly]

James Toney never won any titles at HW.

You don't know what you're talking about, so I wont bother with debating anything further you have to say.

 

[brundlefly]

Right, except only a couple of the guys you listed were ever undisputed champs in any weight class. Michael Spinks & Roy were but that was at light heavyweight not heavyweight. While both were at one point heavyweight titlists they never unified all of the belts like Usyk did. Usyk was undisputed in two weight classes which has only been done by a few other fighters in history. Holyfield also did it in the three-belt era. Toney took the WBA heavyweight title off of John Ruiz but only kept it for a matter of days since he popped for an anabolic steroid and got stripped. His "win" (UD) was officially overturned by the commission to a No Contest.

1. spinks was undisputed at LHW. He then moved up to HW and beat WBA champ holmes who was NOT undisputed, but who had beaten witherspoon, berbick and weaver, all of whom were WBC champs, making holmes the defacto undisputed. That is FAR more impressive than what uysk has accomplished.
2. Being the undisputed HW champ doesn't make a fighter a "great HW." I mean, leon spinks was undisputed too. so was buster douglas. neither would be considered a great heavyweight champ.
3. I have no problem with somebody calling usyk a "great fighter." (I personally don't think he is, but I could see the argument) after all, he has accomplished a lot, just like the other guys I named. but to call him a "great heavyweight" is overrating him, because to be a great heavyweight you have to beat great HW fighters and champs like ali and tyson did, or beat ordinary HW fighters in a dominant fashion over many years like wlad did, or both, like foreman and lewis. usyk has done none of the three as hw champ.
4. Since when does the anti-haney/pro-ryan garcia camp agree that taking steroids nullifies a win?

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

1. spinks was undisputed at LHW. He then moved up to HW and beat holmes who was NOT undisputed, but who had beaten witherspoon, berbick and weaver, making him the defacto undisputed. That is FAR more impressive than what uysk has accomplished.
2. Being the undisputed HW champ doesn't make a fighter a "great HW." I mean, leon spinks was undisputed too. so was buster douglas. neither would be considered a great heavyweight champ.
3. I have no problem with somebody calling usyk a "great fighter." after all he has accomplished a lot, just like the other guys I named. but to call him a "great heavyweight" is overrating him, because to be a great heavyweight you have to beat great fighters and champs like ali and tyson did, or beat ordinary fighters in a dominant fashion over many years like wlad did, or both, like foreman and lewis. usyk has done none of the three as hw champ.
4. Since when does the anti-haney/pro-ryan garcia camp agree that taking steroids nullifies a win?

There's no such thing as de facto undisputed. It has a formal definition nowadays. Lineal used to be considered undisputed in effect but that was a long time ago. You either unify all of the belts or you don't. Douglas was undisputed but he only had to beat one fighter (Mike) to earn it. Holyfield then beat him to become undisputed at heavyweight. Leon Spinks is another one. In his day he only had to beat a past prime Ali in the two-belt era. Nowadays (four-belt era) we just call a fighter with two world titles a unified champ. Usyk actually cleaned out the top guys in two divisions on the way to becoming undisputed champ. Neither of the Spinks did this at heavyweight.

Also, I never called Usyk a "great heavyweight". A great fighter overall, yes, and the best of his generation at heavyweight until proven otherwise.

 

[brundlefly]

yeah, that is a ridiculous narrative to peddle

he got stopped because the injuries were starting to become that serious he could have risked his sight or even worse, it wasn't like he(Klitschko) was on top at the time and really starting to lay it on Lewis, it was completely the other way round

Klitschko was being battered from pillar to post in that last round and was clinging on for dear life

ref should have let hm carry on and he would have never fought again, the imagine how much you all would have cried about the ref/doctors?

that's exactly what i saw. it's why they stopped the fight. vitali was badly injured and he was exhausted and could have been severely even permanently hurt.

It's ridiculous to push the false narrative that it was vitaly who had lewis so hurt and in trouble that lewis was lucky to escape with the stoppage.

 

[brundlefly]

There's no such thing as de facto undisputed. It has a formal definition nowadays. Lineal used to be considered undisputed in effect but that was a long time ago. You either unify all of the belts or you don't. Douglas was undisputed but he only had to beat one fighter (Mike) to earn it. Holyfield then beat him to become undisputed at heavyweight. Leon Spinks is another one. In his day he only had to beat a past prime Ali in the two-belt era. Nowadays (four-belt era) we just call a fighter with two world titles a unified champ. Usyk actually cleaned out the top guys in two divisions on the way to becoming undisputed champ. Neither of the Spinks did this at heavyweight.

Also, I never called Usyk a "great heavyweight". A great fighter overall, yes, and the best of his generation at heavyweight until proven otherwise.

so, speaking of holmes what does "undisputed" mean in his particular case then? a division could have 5 or six different titleholders, but we still see "the man who beat the man who beat the man" as THE champ...and that's what holmes actually did. weaver, witherspoon and berbick were all wbc champs and holmes beat them all, which should make him informally recognized as undisputed HW champ. i mean, its just logic.

But you raise the fact that buster "only" had to beat one fighter (tyson) and spinks beat an "post prime" ali. So, you're actually arguing against your OWN point. because to you, "undisputed is undisputed" whether you had to beat one champ or six other champs or NO champs. that's YOUR argument, not mine.

I'm glad you don't consider usyk a great HW. But then you talk about ali being old, as if that's somehow relevant to being undisp;uted...so, if you're gonna bring that up, i'ma bring up the fact that AJ and fury are both sub-par as HW champs. Here's fury at 6-9, 275 lbs been boxing since he was ten and still needing 3 long counts to get past wilder, who was like 220 and started boxing at 20. even worse, fury fights ngannou in ngannou's FIRST pro fight. Fury gets dropped and arguably loses a hard fought distance fight. Fury is, objectively speaking, garbage. Now, AJ, started boxing at 18,which is a little better than wilder, but still too damn late. and it showed in how he got batted about the ring by the likes of andy ruiz and daniel dubois, neither of whom would be mistaken for quality HW contenders in any other era. usyk's comp at HW has been very weak. Beating those guys by close, controversial decisions is not what makes him a great fighter.

 

[brundlefly]

the link is in the post you quoted. try clicking on the word "literally". you'll notice it's also a different color, because it's a link.

hope this helps.

OK, i got it. he used the same exact quote talking about developing as a fighter.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

so, speaking of holmes what does "undisputed" mean in his particular case then? a division could have 5 or six different titleholders, but we still see "the man who beat the man who beat the man" as THE champ...and that's what holmes actually did. weaver, witherspoon and berbick were all wbc champs and holmes beat them all, which should make him informally recognized as undisputed HW champ. i mean, its just logic.

But you raise the fact that buster "only" had to beat one fighter (tyson) and spinks beat an "post prime" ali. So, you're actually arguing against your OWN point. because to you, "undisputed is undisputed" whether you had to beat one champ or six other champs or NO champs. that's YOUR argument, not mine.

I'm glad you don't consider usyk a great HW. But then you talk about ali being old, as if that's somehow relevant to being undisp;uted...so, if you're gonna bring that up, i'ma bring up the fact that AJ and fury are both sub-par as HW champs. Here's fury at 6-9, 275 lbs been boxing since he was ten and still needing 3 long counts to get past wilder, who was like 220 and started boxing at 20. even worse, fury fights ngannou in ngannou's FIRST pro fight. Fury gets dropped and arguably loses a hard fought distance fight. Fury is, objectively speaking, garbage. Now, AJ, started boxing at 18,which is a little better than wilder, but still too damn late. and it showed in how he got batted about the ring by the likes of andy ruiz and daniel dubois, neither of whom would be mistaken for quality HW contenders in any other era. usyk's comp at HW has been very weak. Beating those guys by close, controversial decisions is not what makes him a great fighter.

What does 'undisputed' mean in Holmes' particular case? Nothing. He competed across the two-belt & three-belt eras but never captured all of the alphabet world titles. Lineal champ is the man who beat the man. Notice it isn't called undisputed anymore. Otherwise, it'd be called undisputed and not lineal. No, you missed the point. You named some one-hit-wonders like Leon Spinks as if what he did at heavyweight is comparable to Usyk's reign. If you only had to beat a single fighter to become undisputed then you never had to unify any of them. A unification is when both fighters hold at least a single major world title and they fight with them on the line. Secondly, beating guys like Douglas & Leon Spinks wasn't difficult. The latter retired with 17 losses ffs. Douglas has a half-dozen.

AJ started boxing at 18. Sure. Usyk started at 15. What's your point? There's nothing controversial about any of Usyk's wins. Just because you seem to think that there was doesn't make it so. You clearly have an axe to grind with him. In terms of criticising his opposition, well, you can only beat who is in front of you. Anyone can nitpick a resume. If Usyk's was as bad as you like to pretend then he wouldn't be the heavyweight king and current P4P #1 rated fighter across the board. Only one other heavyweight in history has ever been rated P4P #1 and that was a prime Mike Tyson.

 

[brundlefly]

What does 'undisputed' mean in Holmes' particular case? Nothing. He competed across the two-belt & three-belt eras but never captured all of the alphabet world titles. Lineal champ is the man who beat the man. Notice it isn't called undisputed anymore. Otherwise, it'd be called undisputed and not lineal. No, you missed the point. You named some one-hit-wonders like Leon Spinks as if what he did at heavyweight is comparable to Usyk's reign. If you only had to beat a single fighter to become undisputed then you never had to unify any of them. A unification is when both fighters hold at least a single major world title and they fight with them on the line. Secondly, beating guys like Douglas & Leon Spinks wasn't difficult. The latter retired with 17 losses ffs. Douglas has a half-dozen.

AJ started boxing at 18. Sure. Usyk started at 15. What's your point? There's nothing controversial about any of Usyk's wins. Just because you seem to think that there was doesn't make it so. You clearly have an axe to grind with him. In terms of criticising his opposition, well, you can only beat who is in front of you. Anyone can nitpick a resume. If Usyk's was as bad as you like to pretend then he wouldn't be the heavyweight king and current P4P #1 rated fighter across the board. Only one other heavyweight in history has ever been rated P4P #1 and that was a prime Mike Tyson.

there is no official PFP ranking in boxing. it's all a matter of opinion. Therefore, you or Boxrec or somebody else rating this fighter or that fighter PFP #1 is nothing more than your personal preference and not based on anything more than speculation. my PFP ranking is no less valid than anybody elses.

You're also wrong about holmes. words like "lineal" and "undisputed" carry meaning and weight in boxing. they're not just technical terms or designations. if you beat all the other alphabet champs, regardless of whether you "captured all the alphabet world titles" or not, you deserve to be recognized as the defacto undisputed champion based on the fact you beat the other titlists/champions.

I know what a unification is. That's not the point. Your point was that usyk was "undisputed" and that designation set him apart from the other fighters I named. my point is simply being undisputed doesn't necessarily make a fighter exceptional or set them apart in any meaningful way.

You seem to be very invested in giving usyk far more praise and accolades for his accomplishments than his record merits. you rank him higher than other fighters who have accomplished as much as, or even more than him. maybe you need to apply the same standards equally for all fighters instead of having lower standards for certain fighters.

 

[brundlefly]

AJ started boxing at 18. Sure. Usyk started at 15. What's your point?

those three years make a big difference in learning and development. the age difference also contributed Usyk being able to build an record with 350 amateur fights compared to less than 50 for AJ.

my point is, AJ might have been a HW titlist but that was DESPITE dealing with serious handicaps in his ability to grow as a fighter.

There's nothing controversial about any of Usyk's wins. Just because you seem to think that there was doesn't make it so.

whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there was controversy over usyk-joshua II, usyk-fury I and usyk-dubois I.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

there is no official PFP ranking in boxing. it's all a matter of opinion. Therefore, you or Boxrec or somebody else rating this fighter or that fighter PFP #1 is nothing more than your personal preference and not based on anything more than speculation. my PFP ranking is no less valid than anybody elses.

You're also wrong about holmes. words like "lineal" and "undisputed" carry meaning and weight in boxing. they're not just technical terms or designations. if you beat all the other alphabet champs, regardless of whether you "captured all the alphabet world titles" or not, you deserve to be recognized as the defacto undisputed champion based on the fact you beat the other titlists/champions.

I know what a unification is. That's not the point. Your point was that usyk was "undisputed" and that designation set him apart from the other fighters I named. my point is simply being undisputed doesn't necessarily make a fighter exceptional or set them apart in any meaningful way.

You seem to be very invested in giving usyk far more praise and accolades for his accomplishments than his record merits. you rank him higher than other fighters who have accomplished as much as, or even more than him. maybe you need to apply the same standards equally for all fighters instead of having lower standards for certain fighters.

There isn't an official P4P ranking because the entire concept is mythical. It isn't even real. The only thing it's good for is gauging how a fighter is viewed by a publication's ratings panel and/or the general public. The most widely used lists are over at The Ring, BoxRec, ESPN & TBRB. You'll see that they all have Usyk as P4P #1. Currently he's the consensus king, like it or not.

I'm not wrong about Holmes. I recognize lineal champions but it's a purist's concept that historians will often entertain. You rarely even heard about it anymore up until recently when Tyson Fury kept banging on about how he was the lineal champion. The whole goal of becoming undisputed is to become lineal _along with_ holding all of the alphabet titles. Thus no other title claimants will exist to challenge the notion that you're the top dog in the division. BTW I'm going to completely ignore the last paragraph you wrote. It's bullshit.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

those three years make a big difference in learning and development. the age difference also contributed Usyk being able to build an record with 350 amateur fights compared to less than 50 for AJ.

my point is, AJ might have been a HW titlist but that was DESPITE dealing with serious handicaps in his ability to grow as a fighter.

whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there was controversy over usyk-joshua II, usyk-fury I and usyk-dubois I.

You're really reaching with that first bit. Joshua won an Olympic gold medal. Remember? He was a quick study. Not that it matters considering he's a professional now. BTW those 350 amateur fights also amount to much more wear & tear on Usyk. There was no controversy in any of those fights you just listed. Unless you don't know the rules of boxing and thought that shot by Dubois should've been ruled as a fair blow. There've been lots of similar shots in boxing history that were called low and yet nobody ever had an issue with it. It's at the ref's discretion. Period.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

There've been lots of similar shots in boxing history that were called low and yet nobody ever had an issue with it. It's at the ref's discretion. Period.

Case in point. Old school referee Arthur Mercante called these 2 "beltline" shots low and these weren't nearly as far south as the one Dubois hit Usyk with. See for yourself. @brundlefly

 

[brundlefly]

There isn't an official P4P ranking because the entire concept is mythical. It isn't even real. The only thing it's good for is gauging how a fighter is viewed by a publication's ratings panel and/or the general public. The most widely used lists are over at The Ring, BoxRec, ESPN & TBRB. You'll see that they all have Usyk as P4P #1. Currently he's the consensus king, like it or not.

Once again, my man. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL PFP RATINGS. It doesn't exist. it's ALL speculation and wishful thinking. It dont matter that the Ring and ESPN, and the RAF and the BBC and the Women's Rotary Club of Minneapolis rank Usyk #1 or whatever. It's not a real thing, so the fact you bring it up makes zero sense.

BTW I'm going to completely ignore the last paragraph you wrote. It's bullshit.

Yes, call it bullshit and also call it bullshit when you talk about me having "an axe to grind" with usyk.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Once again, my man. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL PFP RATINGS. It doesn't exist. it's ALL speculation and wishful thinking. It dont matter that the Ring and ESPN, and the RAF and the BBC and the Women's Rotary Club of Minneapolis rank Usyk #1 or whatever. It's not a real thing, so the fact you bring it up makes zero sense.

Yes, call it bullshit and also call it bullshit when you talk about me having "an axe to grind" with usyk.

I mean you're constantly talking about P4P and posting your own lists (favorites list that is). So, it must really mean more to you than nothing at all despite not being a real concept.

 

[Blastbeat]

You don't know what you're talking about, so I wont bother with debating anything further you have to say.

name the major title Toney won at HW then
he won the WBF belt but thats not a major organization
block me if you cant take criticism you little whiny coward.

and who the mother fuck is Usyk supposed to beat other than the top guys? again, thats you just being a hater. i bet if Wilder beat all those dudes youd be dickriding him for eternity.

 

[Blastbeat]

Once again, my man. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL PFP RATINGS. It doesn't exist. it's ALL speculation and wishful thinking. It dont matter that the Ring and ESPN, and the RAF and the BBC and the Women's Rotary Club of Minneapolis rank Usyk #1 or whatever. It's not a real thing, so the fact you bring it up makes zero sense.

Yes, call it bullshit and also call it bullshit when you talk about me having "an axe to grind" with usyk.

The Ring, ESPN and TBRB all have more authority and standing in determining a p4p list than you do. bitch about it all you want, youre wrong.

 

[brundlefly]

I'm not wrong about Holmes. I recognize lineal champions but it's a purist's concept that historians will often entertain.

You don't seem to be following my argument...look, imagine larry holmes is WBA champ and he beats tim witherspoon to defend his title. witherspoon later beats greg page to win the WBC title. so now, not only is holmes the existing wba champ from before, but he has also beaten the man who lays claim to the WBC title. But according to you, that DOESN'T make holmes undisputed. he would actually have to rematch witherspoon!...in order to unify the titles and become undisputed. but witherspoon is THE SAME MAN HE BEAT ALREADY! do you understand what i'm tellling you? witherspoon didn't change. he didn't become a different individual simply because he beat page and won the wbc title. he's the SAME GUY! witherpoon holds a title, yes. BUT SINCE HE ALREADY LOST TO HOLMES HE IS NOT A CHAMPION. A titleholder, yes, a champion, no.

If you are not able to grasp and digest and assimilate this concept, i doubt you truly understand boxing and what the sport stands for. this is not like tennis where a guy can win the wimbledon title and be recognized as wimbledon champ even though he lost in the french open to another guy. this is boxing where we have a fcukin heirarchy. one man defeats another man, it puts him ABOVE that man.

 

[brundlefly]

The Ring, ESPN and TBRB all have more authority and standing in determining a p4p list than you do. bitch about it all you want, youre wrong.

the primary difference between the Ring, ESPN etc., and me, is that they are going concerrns driven by a profit motive and therefore forced to capitulate to the demands and preferences of consumers, whereas I am a boxing fan who has NOTHING to lose or gain by being honest in my assessments and rankings. Therefore I can afford to be objective whereas they cannot.

 

[brundlefly]

I mean you're constantly talking about P4P and posting your own lists (favorites list that is). So, it must really mean more to you than nothing at all despite not being a real concept.

my pfp lists are my personal opinion created for fun. you don't see me citing pfp listings from this or that source to "prove" how good a particular boxer is.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

You don't seem to be following my argument...look, imagine larry holmes is WBA champ and he beats tim witherspoon to defend his title. witherspoon later beats greg page to win the WBC title. so now, not only is holmes the existing wba champ from before, but he has also beaten the man who lays claim to the WBC title. But according to you, that DOESN'T make holmes undisputed. he would actually have to rematch witherspoon!...in order to unify the titles and become undisputed. but witherspoon is THE SAME MAN HE BEAT ALREADY! do you understand what i'm tellling you? witherspoon didn't change. he didn't become a different individual simply because he beat page and won the wbc title. he's the SAME GUY! witherpoon holds a title, yes. BUT SINCE HE ALREADY LOST TO HOLMES HE IS NOT A CHAMPION. A titleholder, yes, a champion, no.

If you are not able to grasp and digest and assimilate this concept, i doubt you truly understand boxing and what the sport stands for. this is not like tennis where a guy can win the wimbledon title and be recognized as wimbledon champ even though he lost in the french open to another guy. this is boxing where we have a fcukin heirarchy. one man defeats another man, it puts him ABOVE that man.

LOL you think that's how this works with the alphabet titles? It doesn't. The reason becoming undisputed is so challenging is because you may have to collect them all one-by-one and then defend against each of your respective mandatories in the process. It's easy to end up getting stripped especially with the IBF. Sorry, Holmes has never been undisputed champion. Take a look at this exhaustive list and read the criteria.