• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Boxing Thread



"Rico is first, second is whoever wins between Wardley and Dubois and the third fight is my friend 'Greedy Belly', Tyson Fury,"
 
We're watching this here. The turnaround between the last fight and this build up is unbearable and I have to say that boxing needs to tighten their presentation way up.
 
Very bad stoppage from the ref. Rico was out working him the whole fight and even rocking him with some shots. Let him finish the round
 
Last edited:
Gp1 said:
Enlighten us boxer. But I want a technical basis, boxing fundamentals.
Click to expand...
I would push back on "Usyk is probably the most technical heavyweight in history" by saying he is one of the most technically complete heavyweights ever, but "the most" is a much harder claim.

Usyk's case is obvious.

He has elite footwork, angles, southpaw craft, stamina, feints, timing, distance control, defense, and ring IQ. He moved up from cruiserweight, beat much bigger men, became heavyweight champion, and did it without relying on heavyweight size or one punch power.

That is historic.

But "most technical heavyweight ever" depends on what kind of technique we are talking about.

If we are talking footwork, angles, rhythm changes, southpaw positioning, and making bigger men reset all night, Usyk has a real argument.

But heavyweight technique is broader than that.

Larry Holmes had one of the greatest jabs in boxing history and built an entire heavyweight system around range, timing, pacing, recovery, and control.

Lennox Lewis was a master big man technician. Jab, clinch, distance, right hand placement, patience, ring control, and risk management. He fought like a heavyweight chess player.

Joe Louis may still have the best punching mechanics ever at heavyweight. Balance, leverage, combination punching, economy, timing, and finishing ability.

Muhammad Ali's technique gets underrated because people focus on the athleticism. But his distance control, footwork, clinch survival, feints, psychological control, and ability to improvise under pressure were all elite.

Evander Holyfield was a brilliant technician too, especially as an undersized heavyweight. Combination punching, counters, body work, inside fighting, rhythm changes, and tactical adaptability.

The other thing that complicates this is era quality.

Usyk is fighting in a heavyweight era where the top men are huge, athletic, and physically difficult. Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua, Daniel Dubois, and other modern heavyweights are much bigger than most historical heavyweights. So Usyk's technique looks incredible because he is using movement, angles, timing, and discipline to beat men who outweigh him and often have major reach advantages.

That strengthens his case.

But older fighters often had deeper technical ecosystems around them.

Joe Louis fought in an era where fighters were more active, fought more often, and came up through a much busier professional schedule. That can sharpen fundamentals because fighters saw more styles and had to solve more problems in real time.

Ali fought in maybe the deepest heavyweight era ever. Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Patterson, Terrell, Quarry, Bonavena, Shavers, Lyle. That era had elite punchers, pressure fighters, boxers, maulers, awkward rhythm fighters, and championship level toughness everywhere. Ali's technique was tested against a wider variety of dangerous styles than Usyk's has been so far.

Holmes came after Ali and still had to deal with a serious heavyweight field, then lasted long enough to compete across multiple generations. His jab, pacing, and survival skills were tested over a long championship reign.

Lewis fought in a very strong big man era. Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe-adjacent politics, Mercer, Tua, Morrison, Bruno, Golota, Rahman, McCall, Klitschko. His technical style was built for controlling large, dangerous heavyweights. That matters because Lewis was not using cruiserweight movement to outmaneuver big men. He was using heavyweight-specific technique to dominate other heavyweights.

Holyfield may be the most direct comparison to Usyk because he was also an undersized former cruiserweight who moved up and beat bigger men. But Holyfield fought in a deeper and more dangerous heavyweight era than Usyk's current era: Bowe, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Moorer, Mercer, Lewis, Douglas, Ruiz, Rahman. His technical versatility had to survive wars, inside fights, brawls, boxing matches, and size disadvantages.

That is why era matters.

Usyk's modern résumé is great, but the heavyweight division today is not as deep technically as some past eras. It has size, power, and athleticism, but not necessarily the same density of elite styles that Ali, Holyfield, or Lewis had to navigate.

So the cleaner argument is:

Usyk may be the most technically complete modern heavyweight mover, and maybe the best ever at bringing cruiserweight footwork, angles, feints, and volume into the heavyweight division. But calling him the most technical heavyweight in history ignores other forms of heavyweight technique and the fact that fighters like Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis, and Holyfield proved their craft across deeper or more varied heavyweight eras.

Usyk has a case.

But he does not clearly own the category.
 
TY gpt
RedC said:
I would push back on "Usyk is probably the most technical heavyweight in history" by saying he is one of the most technically complete heavyweights ever, but "the most" is a much harder claim.

Usyk's case is obvious.

He has elite footwork, angles, southpaw craft, stamina, feints, timing, distance control, defense, and ring IQ. He moved up from cruiserweight, beat much bigger men, became heavyweight champion, and did it without relying on heavyweight size or one punch power.

That is historic.

But "most technical heavyweight ever" depends on what kind of technique we are talking about.

If we are talking footwork, angles, rhythm changes, southpaw positioning, and making bigger men reset all night, Usyk has a real argument.

But heavyweight technique is broader than that.

Larry Holmes had one of the greatest jabs in boxing history and built an entire heavyweight system around range, timing, pacing, recovery, and control.

Lennox Lewis was a master big man technician. Jab, clinch, distance, right hand placement, patience, ring control, and risk management. He fought like a heavyweight chess player.

Joe Louis may still have the best punching mechanics ever at heavyweight. Balance, leverage, combination punching, economy, timing, and finishing ability.

Muhammad Ali's technique gets underrated because people focus on the athleticism. But his distance control, footwork, clinch survival, feints, psychological control, and ability to improvise under pressure were all elite.

Evander Holyfield was a brilliant technician too, especially as an undersized heavyweight. Combination punching, counters, body work, inside fighting, rhythm changes, and tactical adaptability.

The other thing that complicates this is era quality.

Usyk is fighting in a heavyweight era where the top men are huge, athletic, and physically difficult. Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua, Daniel Dubois, and other modern heavyweights are much bigger than most historical heavyweights. So Usyk's technique looks incredible because he is using movement, angles, timing, and discipline to beat men who outweigh him and often have major reach advantages.

That strengthens his case.

But older fighters often had deeper technical ecosystems around them.

Joe Louis fought in an era where fighters were more active, fought more often, and came up through a much busier professional schedule. That can sharpen fundamentals because fighters saw more styles and had to solve more problems in real time.

Ali fought in maybe the deepest heavyweight era ever. Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Patterson, Terrell, Quarry, Bonavena, Shavers, Lyle. That era had elite punchers, pressure fighters, boxers, maulers, awkward rhythm fighters, and championship level toughness everywhere. Ali's technique was tested against a wider variety of dangerous styles than Usyk's has been so far.

Holmes came after Ali and still had to deal with a serious heavyweight field, then lasted long enough to compete across multiple generations. His jab, pacing, and survival skills were tested over a long championship reign.

Lewis fought in a very strong big man era. Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe-adjacent politics, Mercer, Tua, Morrison, Bruno, Golota, Rahman, McCall, Klitschko. His technical style was built for controlling large, dangerous heavyweights. That matters because Lewis was not using cruiserweight movement to outmaneuver big men. He was using heavyweight-specific technique to dominate other heavyweights.

Holyfield may be the most direct comparison to Usyk because he was also an undersized former cruiserweight who moved up and beat bigger men. But Holyfield fought in a deeper and more dangerous heavyweight era than Usyk's current era: Bowe, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Moorer, Mercer, Lewis, Douglas, Ruiz, Rahman. His technical versatility had to survive wars, inside fights, brawls, boxing matches, and size disadvantages.

That is why era matters.

Usyk's modern résumé is great, but the heavyweight division today is not as deep technically as some past eras. It has size, power, and athleticism, but not necessarily the same density of elite styles that Ali, Holyfield, or Lewis had to navigate.

So the cleaner argument is:

Usyk may be the most technically complete modern heavyweight mover, and maybe the best ever at bringing cruiserweight footwork, angles, feints, and volume into the heavyweight division. But calling him the most technical heavyweight in history ignores other forms of heavyweight technique and the fact that fighters like Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis, and Holyfield proved their craft across deeper or more varied heavyweight eras.

Usyk has a case.

But he does not clearly own the category.
Click to expand...

1 - I didn't asked ChatGPT.
2 - I'm talking about boxing fundamentals / text book boxing techniques. Not competitiveness level, not performance, etc. Watching his fights is like watching a boxing class text book in what boxing should look like, especially when you consider he does that in HW (where the physical aspect stands out.)
3 - A real answer here would be Usyk, Joe Louis, Floyd Patterson (which wrote a fucking boxing encyclopedia) and Lewis (when you consider the recent era). But Usyk has the advantage of refining his craft with technology and modern training routines.

Ask the Chat to redo the service now.
 
Last edited:
Gp1 said:
TY gpt


1 - I didn't asked ChatGPT.
2 - I'm talking about boxing fundamentals / text book boxing techniques. Not competitiveness level, not performance, etc. Watching his fights is like watching a boxing class text book in what boxing should look like, especially when you consider he does that in HW (where the physical aspect stands out.)
3 - A real answer here would be Usyk, Joe Louis, Floyd Patterson (which wrote a fucking boxing encyclopedia) and Lewis (when you consider the recent era). But Usyk has the advantage of refining his craft with technology and modern training routines.

Ask the Chat to redo the service now.
Click to expand...
My issue is the recency bias behind some of these claims. People are too quick to call today's fighters the most technical, the best, or the greatest, when the more accurate phrasing is often one of the most technical, one of the best, or one of the greatest.

That distinction matters, because these claims need context. You can praise a modern fighter without pretending the current era is automatically superior. In Usyk's case, I think he is an elite, highly sophisticated technical boxer, but that still has to be weighed against the overall depth and quality of heavyweight talent in his era compared to stronger historical periods.

So my problem is not giving modern fighters credit. My problem is when people make absolute claims without accounting for era, opposition quality, stylistic depth, and the possibility that the division as a whole may not be as technically rich as it was in certain past eras.
 
RedC said:
My issue is the recency bias behind some of these claims. People are too quick to call today's fighters the most technical, the best, or the greatest, when the more accurate phrasing is often one of the most technical, one of the best, or one of the greatest.

That distinction matters, because these claims need context. You can praise a modern fighter without pretending the current era is automatically superior. In Usyk's case, I think he is an elite, highly sophisticated technical boxer, but that still has to be weighed against the overall depth and quality of heavyweight talent in his era compared to stronger historical periods.

So my problem is not giving modern fighters credit. My problem is when people make absolute claims without accounting for era, opposition quality, stylistic depth, and the possibility that the division as a whole may not be as technically rich as it was in certain past eras.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that's not what I'm talking about. And that's exactly why i said strictly about pure technical aspect. And by that i mean fundamentals, which may be the kind of explanation that was lacking on the first post.
 
Syphon Filter said:
Rico got robbed, he was winning wide and easily so they had to do a fake stoppage.
Click to expand...

IMHO It was an early stoppage, especially when you consider that we had a belt on the line. But by the end of the 10th round the fight was already on a 6-4 for Rico.

With 2 knockdowns in 11th, it would be a 10-7 for Usyk, so he would be ahead on points.

Edit. And the referee gave Rico 20 seconds, or more, for him to recover after the first knowdown.

Usyk seemed to be in cruise control for the entire fight without much head movement, without speeding up too much... When someone told him about the scorecard he went on to decide.

But many kudos for Rico, I wasn't expecting his gas and his strategy to last for so many rounds.
 
Last edited:
Gp1 said:
IMHO It was an early stoppage, especially when you consider that we had a belt on the line. But by the end of the 10th round the fight was already on a 6-4 for Rico.

With 2 knockdowns in 11th, it would be a 10-7 for Usyk, so he would be ahead on points.

Edit. And the referee gave Rico 20 seconds, or more, for him to recover after the first knowdown.

Usyk seemed to be in cruise control for the entire fight without much head movement, without speeding up too much... When someone told him about the scorecard he went on to decide.

But many kudos for Rico, I wasn't expecting his gas and his strategy to last for so many rounds.
Click to expand...
As for the ref he stopped it after the bell. Bad stoppage he was on the ropes still trying to defend regardless if it was 20 seconds. Look at the fury's first knockdown when wilder dropped his ass .

Even with that knockdown I still had Rico up and two judges had it even on their cards which is crazy to me. They needed that other ref from the Torres fight. He counted even though Torres was already seeing Jesus .
 
Js562 said:
As for the ref he stopped it after the bell. Bad stoppage he was on the ropes still trying to defend regardless if it was 20 seconds. Look at the fury's first knockdown when wilder dropped his ass .

Even with that knockdown I still had Rico up and two judges had it even on their cards which is crazy to me. They needed that other ref from the Torres fight. He counted even though Torres was already seeing Jesus .
Click to expand...

Two judges got 95-95 and one 96-94 Rico. With the 11th it would be a draw or split for Usyk. I believe that on the 12th Peter Fury would have corrected Rico but it remains to be seen if he still had the energy to continue performing well in the last round.

Rico got a little greedy at the end, he didn't paced well enough and was forced to switch stances. He was tired and that's when Usyk got him. Usyk was not that well too on that fight, he said it at the end the received a msg from his daughter that his family was in a bunker as Russia was bombing Ukraine + imho he underestimated Rico/thought that Rico's gas was going to run out much sooner. I belive that his main coach wasn't even on his corner.

But just the fact the Rico fought well for 10 rounds and was winning the front hand game against a monster like Usyk was something commendable.
 
Gp1 said:
Two judges got 95-95 and one 96-94 Rico. With the 11th it would be a draw or split for Usyk. I believe that on the 12th Peter Fury would have corrected Rico but it remains to be seen if he still had the energy to continue performing well in the last round.

Rico got a little greedy at the end, he didn't paced well enough and was forced to switch stances. He was tired and that's when Usyk got him. Usyk was not that well too on that fight, he said it at the end the received a msg from his daughter that his family was in a bunker as Russia was bombing Ukraine + imho he underestimated Rico/thought that Rico's gas was going to run out much sooner. I belive that his main coach wasn't even on his corner.

But just the fact the Rico fought well for 10 rounds and was winning the front hand game against a monster like Usyk was something commendable.
Click to expand...
Guess we'll never know now the way it ended. Yes I agree with you on Usyk underestimating Rico as well . Both Rico and Usyk were facing problems in that fight on the outside. Rico with his mother passing during camp and Usyk daughter in Ukraine .

Yeah that's another reason why I said why to the stoppage. Went to championship rounds against the undisputed champ and you decide to stop it like that. 😑
 
RedC said:
I would push back on "Usyk is probably the most technical heavyweight in history" by saying he is one of the most technically complete heavyweights ever, but "the most" is a much harder claim.

Usyk's case is obvious.

He has elite footwork, angles, southpaw craft, stamina, feints, timing, distance control, defense, and ring IQ. He moved up from cruiserweight, beat much bigger men, became heavyweight champion, and did it without relying on heavyweight size or one punch power.

That is historic.

But "most technical heavyweight ever" depends on what kind of technique we are talking about.

If we are talking footwork, angles, rhythm changes, southpaw positioning, and making bigger men reset all night, Usyk has a real argument.

But heavyweight technique is broader than that.

Larry Holmes had one of the greatest jabs in boxing history and built an entire heavyweight system around range, timing, pacing, recovery, and control.

Lennox Lewis was a master big man technician. Jab, clinch, distance, right hand placement, patience, ring control, and risk management. He fought like a heavyweight chess player.

Joe Louis may still have the best punching mechanics ever at heavyweight. Balance, leverage, combination punching, economy, timing, and finishing ability.

Muhammad Ali's technique gets underrated because people focus on the athleticism. But his distance control, footwork, clinch survival, feints, psychological control, and ability to improvise under pressure were all elite.

Evander Holyfield was a brilliant technician too, especially as an undersized heavyweight. Combination punching, counters, body work, inside fighting, rhythm changes, and tactical adaptability.

The other thing that complicates this is era quality.

Usyk is fighting in a heavyweight era where the top men are huge, athletic, and physically difficult. Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua, Daniel Dubois, and other modern heavyweights are much bigger than most historical heavyweights. So Usyk's technique looks incredible because he is using movement, angles, timing, and discipline to beat men who outweigh him and often have major reach advantages.

That strengthens his case.

But older fighters often had deeper technical ecosystems around them.

Joe Louis fought in an era where fighters were more active, fought more often, and came up through a much busier professional schedule. That can sharpen fundamentals because fighters saw more styles and had to solve more problems in real time.

Ali fought in maybe the deepest heavyweight era ever. Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Patterson, Terrell, Quarry, Bonavena, Shavers, Lyle. That era had elite punchers, pressure fighters, boxers, maulers, awkward rhythm fighters, and championship level toughness everywhere. Ali's technique was tested against a wider variety of dangerous styles than Usyk's has been so far.

Holmes came after Ali and still had to deal with a serious heavyweight field, then lasted long enough to compete across multiple generations. His jab, pacing, and survival skills were tested over a long championship reign.

Lewis fought in a very strong big man era. Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe-adjacent politics, Mercer, Tua, Morrison, Bruno, Golota, Rahman, McCall, Klitschko. His technical style was built for controlling large, dangerous heavyweights. That matters because Lewis was not using cruiserweight movement to outmaneuver big men. He was using heavyweight-specific technique to dominate other heavyweights.

Holyfield may be the most direct comparison to Usyk because he was also an undersized former cruiserweight who moved up and beat bigger men. But Holyfield fought in a deeper and more dangerous heavyweight era than Usyk's current era: Bowe, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Moorer, Mercer, Lewis, Douglas, Ruiz, Rahman. His technical versatility had to survive wars, inside fights, brawls, boxing matches, and size disadvantages.

That is why era matters.

Usyk's modern résumé is great, but the heavyweight division today is not as deep technically as some past eras. It has size, power, and athleticism, but not necessarily the same density of elite styles that Ali, Holyfield, or Lewis had to navigate.

So the cleaner argument is:

Usyk may be the most technically complete modern heavyweight mover, and maybe the best ever at bringing cruiserweight footwork, angles, feints, and volume into the heavyweight division. But calling him the most technical heavyweight in history ignores other forms of heavyweight technique and the fact that fighters like Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis, and Holyfield proved their craft across deeper or more varied heavyweight eras.

Usyk has a case.

But he does not clearly own the category.
Click to expand...
Just Imagine if Usyk had an even more impressive resume at Crusier weight who are all the same size as previous Heavyweights era🤔
 
Before everyone starts shitting on Usyk consider he's 39 here's a bit of historical context about the super duper all time greats that all American and British fans cum there pants to every night.

Lennox Lewis retired age 37
Mike Tyson losing to Bums Danny Williams and Kevin Mcbridge at age 38 to 39.
Muhammed Ali Age 38 to 39 suffering from Parkinsons taking one sides beat downs by Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick.
Riddick Bowe retired age 32.

Kickboxers have crossed over before a certain individual named Vitali Klitschko did okay...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zuffa Boxing 01 | Walsh vs Ocampo
0
181
Kacho replied
Zuffa Boxing debuts Jan. 23 at UFC Apex
7
583
DKehoe replied
Unhinged Bios Official Thread
10
355
SJRB replied
  • Locked
Can we has back our Iran thread?
2 3
100
1K
LearnandBurn replied
NBA Thread 2026: There will be ballin'
2
81
2K
German Shocks replied
Top Bottom