Your Top 5 overrated fighters...

Pretty simple, and should be a good way of revealing more on fighters the board may not have been aware of you not rating.

Mine, in order:

01) Roy Jones Jr: Unfortunately didn't stretch himself, looked good against pap opposition, fought bum after bum and almost bought boxing to its knees.

02) Manny Pacquiao: For someone so highly rated i find it a bit random that he has such a huge problem with a counterpuncher style of fighter.

03) Tito Trinidad: Stuffed by Bhop, robbed DLH and is still seen by some to be a great.

04) Mike Tyson: Prime this prime that. 2 years we should judge him on? I don't think so.

05) Barry Mcguigan: Seems to get rated as a great for his out of ring exploits rather than what he did in the ring.

McGuigan I agree with, Trinidad I do to an extent.

Other 3 you're talking out of your backside. Truth is they've all operated at the very top of their game, beat pretty much everyone put in front of them and truly dominated. They have their faults, for sure, but then who doesn't?

What are they being overrated next to? There needs to be some kind of context.

Trinidad to an extent - but he was one hell of WW/LMW - and its easy to forget that in the light of the Hopkins pounding.

RJJ, Manny, Tyson - utter codswallop. All 3 have reached the very pinnacle of the sport - and bad fighters don't do that.

As for overrated its too subjective a term. If the majority were to leap up and say RJJ could beat anyone ever at any weight - that would be overrating and you would be correct. They don't so you're wrong.

With Pacquiao - how many other fighters in history have been as effective at so many weights? Its easy to forget with his WW career that he shouldn't be fighting north of 140. So rating someone as excellent for such a run in so many weight classes is not unreasonable.

As for Tyson - we make too many excuses for "peak Tyson" - and sure - when you hear that "peak Tyson would beat Dempsey, Jeffries and Tunney on the same night" then that would be overrating. But the majority of boxing fans have a realistic interpretation - that Tyson was a great, but not a top 10 all time HW. He was incredible at his peak - but not unbeatable.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As overrating needs context - I would say this board are guilty of overrating Hamed. Backing him to beat all the great Mexicans + Pacquiao flies in the face of the evidence of his career. The idea of Ingle Hamed has been born as some marauding destroyer - that no one else could deal with. Now don't get me wrong - he was incredibly exciting. However - at the end of the day he was easily outboxed and didn't seem to have the heart to come back afterwards. He had the talent to do more, certainly I agree with that. However his style was always going to leave him vulnerable to a Barrera style performance - and so it proved.

Who overrates McGuigan?

He did what he did, beat one of the longest reigning world champions at a young age. Had a great KO ratio and fought his way through British and Euro level and then got his World Title.

He got set up in ridiculous heat to lose the beat which he would have held onto had he not went down in the 12th.

I have never heard anyone claim him to be an ATG.

He fought his way to a world title and won it. He was what he was.

I agree with Fists on Tyson, Pac and RJJ. You are talking bull.

Before the Marquez fight Coxy you acknowledged that he was level with Floyd P4P. Funny old thing hindsight.

Tyson is underrated by boxing fans, RJJ I'm not biting.

Agree with Dee on McGuigan, the folks at Canastota may be the only ones that overrate him, and that's clearly due to what he did in Ireland outside boxing.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:

Before the Marquez fight Coxy you acknowledged that he was level with Floyd P4P. Funny old thing hindsight.

That's not the only thing he claimed.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Before the Marquez fight Coxy you acknowledged that he was level with Floyd P4P. Funny old thing hindsight.

The same as the guys who called Haye-Klitchsko wrong calling Haye the worst Heavyweight champ ever.

Taking it out on Pac for a terrible prediction.

james toney was pap? best not start this i guess

Hamed based on the other thread.Takes all 5 spots!

Scottrf wrote:Tyson is underrated by boxing fans

Maybe on here but not in general. Massively overrated by the more casual element.

AlexHuckerby wrote:james toney was pap? best not start this i guess

Yes - thankyou Alex!

I couldn't remember the one I really wanted to go on about.

This has been done to death - so only in brief - Toney - overrated widely as an ATG, as a throwback, as "old school".

It is not old school to clown whilst you can barely throw a punch without falling over off balance (last fight). If you're getting hit in the face and you can't throw a jab - keep your mouth shut - everything else is really embarassing.

Furthermore - robbed Tibieri and yet somehow became p4p number 1 for beating up Barkley. 2 losses to Griffin before a good performance against Jirov - but Jirov wasn't that good!

All in all, too many defeats to lesser opposition, too few great wins aside from Nunn and Barkley. And neither of them will get my pulse racing in 30 years.

In no particular order:


1) David Price - Only being overated up to now based on fighting tin cans. But once he proves himself against a legit opponent, then he comes off the list.

2) Julio C Chavez Jr: Can't believe he hasnt been mentioned yet.

3) Nathan Cleverly: I dunno, I just haven't taken to him and don't see what hes got thats supposed to be that special.

4) Naseem Hamed: As mentioned by others

5) Saul Alvarez - Like David Price, I think hes been hyped so far based on his hair colour. But he is starting to fight better opponents, but not great ones. But I think he is being overated thus far in his career

My point about Pacquiao is that fighters who are nailed on ATGs may struggle with a certain fighter who quite simply has their number (Norton with Ali etc), but not against a certain style as a whole. Yes he's probably going to be top 50 or so and rightfully so, but he can't be levelled a great that most seem to think he is due to his struggles with anyone who can counterpunch (and it's no surprise he's avoided them like the plague).

Good call on Toney, never quite got his record.

And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness. Being mentally weak led to his downfall, no excuses. Not enough on his resume to receive the accolations he does.

RJJ doesn't have the resume to be labelled a great. Has BHop (who was a 20 fight novice) and Toney (who was built up beyond what he was and his record shows that) and not a huge amount more.

Like your call on Canelo deeMck. Time will tell, something tells me he comes undone at some point, but he does at least appear to be improving.

Sadly, even though his 'rating' and following would allow so, a fight with Martinez is about as likely as me shrinking to 5'1.

1) De La Hoya, controversial one maybe and obviously a very good fighter but often see him refered to as an all time great or legend and for me, in the ring he does not really deserve this billing.

2) Tyson Fury - Really don't see it with him, think the fact he is even seen as a prospect says more about the era than it does his ability.

3) Jack Johnson - Another controversial one, not saying I don't rate him as such but do think he gets a pass on stuff other fighters get slaughtered for and whilst I have had him as high as third on my heavyweight list along with many others on reflection I think he really does not deserve such a ranking.

4) Cleverly - Good call by reborn, like him I am yet to see what is so special about the kid, may be a bit harsh but if he wants to call himself world champion he has to be assessed as such.

Off the top of my head,

Going off divisional ratings I often see I would say Ketchel and Dempsey are overrated in boxing history. I see both appear often near the top of their respective division lists. Never too sure why. Dempseys popularity also played a big part against a record that I dont think is all that special comparitively speaking.

I think Robinson is overrated purely because so many have him head and shoulders above anything else. I dont think thats the case.

I would possibly say Eder Jofre is overrated to some extent as I often see him appear in top 15 of all time p4p lists despite being a bit thin in the top level win column. I think he may have only beaten1 HoF fighter in his career.

Zab Judah, seems to have kept a decent name and reputation despite losing to virtually anyone half decent he faced.

On this particular board I would say Hamed and Lewis to some extent. If not in overall placing then in terms of actual ability and prowess in head to head matches. However on other sites I have seen them criminally underrated so overall it would balance out.

coxy0001 wrote:And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness.

Not a chance. Find me a ranking for a time when Marciano was champ, or immediately after.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness.

Not a chance. Find me a ranking for a time when Marciano was champ, or immediately after.

A ranking for what? In terms of who was around?

I've already told you to be gentle as i'm fragile this morning, please elaborate.

Amir Khan for me.... still think Bradley is waay overlooked by some about whether he beats the guy.

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness.

Not a chance. Find me a ranking for a time when Marciano was champ, or immediately after.

A ranking for what? In terms of who was around?

I've already told you to be gentle as i'm fragile this morning, please elaborate.

A divisional top 10 in, say, 57.

I'll do it.

Floyd Patterson, Champion
1. Eddie Machen
2. Zora Folley
3. Willie Pastrano
4. Roy Harris
5. Pat McMurtry
6. Nino Valdes
7. Mike DeJohn
8. Wayne Bethea
9. Alex Miteff
10. Ingemar Johansson

vs

Mike Tyson, Champion
1. Evander Holyfield
2. Carl Williams
3. Adilson Rodrigues
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Michael Dokes
6. Razor Ruddock
7. Tony Tucker
8. Orlin Norris
9. James (Buster) Douglas
10. Francesco Damiani

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness.

Not a chance. Find me a ranking for a time when Marciano was champ, or immediately after.

A ranking for what? In terms of who was around?

I've already told you to be gentle as i'm fragile this morning, please elaborate.

A divisional top 10 in, say, 57.

I've got 1950-59, how on earth do i find a year?!

No order:

Marciano
Walcott
Charles
Johansson
Patterson
Moore
Machen
Valdez
Folley
Tommy Jackson

Takes the 1980 era for me personally.

Posted a single year above. How about early 30s.

Max Schmeling, Champion
1.Jack Sharkey
2.Ernie Schaaf
3.Primo Carnera
4.King Levinsky
5.Mickey Walker
6.Tommy Loughran
7.Young Stribling
8.Stanley Poreda
9.Tuffy Griffiths
10.Max Baer

Walker and Loughran aren't even heavies by any definition.

Scottrf wrote:

Mike Tyson, Champion
1. Evander Holyfield
2. Carl Williams
3. Adilson Rodrigues
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Michael Dokes
6. Razor Ruddock
7. Tony Tucker
8. Orlin Norris
9. James (Buster) Douglas
10. Francesco Damiani

How many of the ten had Tyson beaten on his way to becoming champion?

Outside of the late 60s and 70s I dont think theres a massive amount seperating any of the other heavyweight eras. Small peaks and troughs for the most part.

Union Cane wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Mike Tyson, Champion
1. Evander Holyfield
2. Carl Williams
3. Adilson Rodrigues
4. Tim Witherspoon
5. Michael Dokes
6. Razor Ruddock
7. Tony Tucker
8. Orlin Norris
9. James (Buster) Douglas
10. Francesco Damiani

How many of the ten had Tyson beaten on his way to becoming champion?

Wasn't what I was debating, I was debating whether it was the second worst era to this one.

I dont even think this is the worst era. The first gloved heavyweight era was the worst for me.

coxy0001 wrote:My point about Pacquiao is that fighters who are nailed on ATGs may struggle with a certain fighter who quite simply has their number (Norton with Ali etc), but not against a certain style as a whole. Yes he's probably going to be top 50 or so and rightfully so, but he can't be levelled a great that most seem to think he is due to his struggles with anyone who can counterpunch (and it's no surprise he's avoided them like the plague).

Good call on Toney, never quite got his record.

And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness. Being mentally weak led to his downfall, no excuses. Not enough on his resume to receive the accolations he does.

RJJ doesn't have the resume to be labelled a great. Has BHop (who was a 20 fight novice) and Toney (who was built up beyond what he was and his record shows that) and not a huge amount more.

The counter of that is that Ali struggled mightily with anyone who could counter-jab. That's why Norton gave him hell so many times - he could block, slip or deflect Ali's lead and land his own. That's also why Nat Fleischer thought Jack Johnson had such a great chance against Ali - because Norton was so successful and Johnson was the best counter-jabber of them all. Surely counterjab counts as a style?

As for counterpunchers - we're basing this criticism of Manny on JMM and Morales 1. Morales 1 has been avenged, twice (though not, seemingly in the minds of boxing fans) and Manny is a very different fighter today than then. To me - Morales 1 is akin to criticising Joe Louis for losing to Max Schmeling - Schmeling saw a flaw and countered it. The defeat was avenged.

So I'm not sure I buy the idea that Manny loses to any counterpuncher - you would need to find a very very good counterpuncher - a JMM/Mayweather - and sure, that would do it. However - under that level? I don't see him losing to Judah, for instance.

manos de piedra wrote:I dont even think this is the worst era. The first gloved heavyweight era was the worst for me.

Alright Azania

oxring wrote:The counter of that is that Ali struggled mightily with anyone who could counter-jab. That's why Norton gave him hell so many times - he could block, slip or deflect Ali's lead and land his own. That's also why Nat Fleischer thought Jack Johnson had such a great chance against Ali - because Norton was so successful and Johnson was the best counter-jabber of them all. Surely counterjab counts as a style?

Time for an Ali-Schmeling fantasy matchup?

To steer things back to the original question and probably raise a few heckles am going to have to say I think Lennox Lewis is largely over rated, maybe it is inevitable with this being a British forum but for me he is a borderline top ten heavy, and probably just deserves to sneak in for me but I often see people saying he is a top five guy and for me that is way over the top, has solid wins but nothing really spectacular and got smacked out twice by very ordinary guys, good fighter and solid champion, but top five heavy, not for me.

And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness. Being mentally weak led to his downfall, no excuses. Not enough on his resume to receive the accolations he does.
____________________________________________________________

9 consecutive defences, (3 more than Marciano and Dempsey), most dominant champ in history, went 41 - 1, beat 2 Hof fighters, 6(?) past or future world champs and 1 olympic gold medallist during those 9 defences.

Only Louis, Holmes, and Ali have more consecutive defences in heavyweight history (please correct me if i'm wrong on this, Lewis also has 9, I believe)

Dempsey was champ from 1919 - 1926, during that time he made only 6 defences. Tyson was champ for half that time but made 3 more defences so who has the greater longevity?

I'm not sure that the 85 - 90 era can be considered the 'second worst era in heavyweight history'. I've always thought that Tyson's opponents are often unfairly maligned. Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes (albeit past his best, although he still went on to hammer mercer), Spinks, Bruno, Thomas, Smith, Biggs etc were all better than you allow

I have him top 8 Heavyweight, I respect any opinion and can understand why some people don't have him top 10 (losses to Douglas and Holy x 2 really affect his legacy) but I don't think he is at all overrated, especially on this board.

Agree, to an extent on Trinidad. I thought he was well beaten by Oscar and, was compeltely dominate by B-Hop, admittedly though above his natural weight. i still think tito is a great though and I loved watching him fight.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:The counter of that is that Ali struggled mightily with anyone who could counter-jab. That's why Norton gave him hell so many times - he could block, slip or deflect Ali's lead and land his own. That's also why Nat Fleischer thought Jack Johnson had such a great chance against Ali - because Norton was so successful and Johnson was the best counter-jabber of them all. Surely counterjab counts as a style?

Time for an Ali-Schmeling fantasy matchup?

Why not. Ali-Johnson would be a barnstormer and would bring azania back (I assume you mean Ali-Johnson - Ali Schmeling wouldn't be quite so competitive).

coxy0001 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont even think this is the worst era. The first gloved heavyweight era was the worst for me.

Alright Azania

You might scoff, but any era where a guy weighing in as a middleweight can capture the heavyweight championship of the world is pretty poor in my eyes.

Gentleman01 wrote:And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness. Being mentally weak led to his downfall, no excuses. Not enough on his resume to receive the accolations he does.
____________________________________________________________

9 consecutive defences, (3 more than Marciano and Dempsey), most dominant champ in history, went 41 - 1, beat 2 Hof fighters, 6(?) past or future world champs and 1 olympic gold medallist during those 9 defences.

Only Louis, Holmes, and Ali have more consecutive defences in heavyweight history (please correct me if i'm wrong on this, Lewis also has 9, I believe)

Dempsey was champ from 1919 - 1926, during that time he made only 6 defences. Tyson was champ for half that time but made 3 more defences so who has the greater longevity?

I'm not sure that the 85 - 90 era can be considered the 'second worst era in heavyweight history'. I've always thought that Tyson's opponents are often unfairly maligned. Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes (albeit past his best, although he still went on to hammer mercer), Spinks, Bruno, Thomas, Smith, Biggs etc were all better than you allow

I have him top 8 Heavyweight, I respect any opinion and can understand why some people don't have him top 10 (losses to Douglas and Holy x 2 really affect his legacy) but I don't think he is at all overrated, especially on this board.

Agree, to an extent on Trinidad. I thought he was well beaten by Oscar and, was compeltely dominate by B-Hop, admittedly though above his natural weight. i still think tito is a great though and I loved watching him fight.

I give him credit for Spinks, not a huge amount though as he caught Holmes at the right time. And Holmes wasn't the force he was by the time Tyson came around.

rowley wrote:To steer things back to the original question and probably raise a few heckles am going to have to say I think Lennox Lewis is largely over rated, maybe it is inevitable with this being a British forum but for me he is a borderline top ten heavy, and probably just deserves to sneak in for me but I often see people saying he is a top five guy and for me that is way over the top, has solid wins but nothing really spectacular and got smacked out twice by very ordinary guys, good fighter and solid champion, but top five heavy, not for me.

I agree with you, but I think it just this and the old bbc forum. Ive spent a fair amount of time defending him on other sites against guys I think have him very underated. So in an overall sense I think it balances out. I usually think hes placed about fairly on most reasonably sourced lists.

manos de piedra wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I dont even think this is the worst era. The first gloved heavyweight era was the worst for me.

Alright Azania

You might scoff, but any era where a guy weighing in as a middleweight can capture the heavyweight championship of the world is pretty poor in my eyes.

Came across a quote from Ruby Rob recently in one of Monte Cox's works. Reported by Gene Tunney in 1940:

Fitz always considered himself a middleweight, “Fitz, incidentally, was funny about his weight, for, after defeating Corbett, while alone in a Turkish bath with Jim Coffroth, he kept repeating, 'eavyweight champion of the world--and I’m only a bleeding middleweight.”

That's not to say the division was awful at the time, however - lets face it - Fitz didn't hold it for long and was getting beat up by Corbett at the time. Over 12 he'd have lost. The longer distance meant he was able to wear Corbett down with body shots before unleashing the shot to end all shots to the solar plexus.

I mention this not to get involved in the debate - just cos I think its a fantastic quote.

coxy0001 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:And Tyson operated at the top of his game in an era that is only 2nd to this era in terms of poorness. Being mentally weak led to his downfall, no excuses. Not enough on his resume to receive the accolations he does.
____________________________________________________________

9 consecutive defences, (3 more than Marciano and Dempsey), most dominant champ in history, went 41 - 1, beat 2 Hof fighters, 6(?) past or future world champs and 1 olympic gold medallist during those 9 defences.

Only Louis, Holmes, and Ali have more consecutive defences in heavyweight history (please correct me if i'm wrong on this, Lewis also has 9, I believe)

Dempsey was champ from 1919 - 1926, during that time he made only 6 defences. Tyson was champ for half that time but made 3 more defences so who has the greater longevity?

I'm not sure that the 85 - 90 era can be considered the 'second worst era in heavyweight history'. I've always thought that Tyson's opponents are often unfairly maligned. Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes (albeit past his best, although he still went on to hammer mercer), Spinks, Bruno, Thomas, Smith, Biggs etc were all better than you allow

I have him top 8 Heavyweight, I respect any opinion and can understand why some people don't have him top 10 (losses to Douglas and Holy x 2 really affect his legacy) but I don't think he is at all overrated, especially on this board.

Agree, to an extent on Trinidad. I thought he was well beaten by Oscar and, was compeltely dominate by B-Hop, admittedly though above his natural weight. i still think tito is a great though and I loved watching him fight.

I give him credit for Spinks, not a huge amount though as he caught Holmes at the right time. And Holmes wasn't the force he was by the time Tyson came around.

Agreed, Holmes win comes with a massive asterisk next to it. However, we can pick apart any fighters record. Tunney certainly caught Dempsey at the right time, with him ageing and being inactive. Ditto Marciano and Walcott, and of course Lewis' hammering of Tyson himself

With regards to an earlier point, i think Tyson's opposition circa 86 - 90 was nothing special but still better than often given credit for. Part of the reason I rate Tyson is partially due to the fact that he not only beat this opposition but completely demolished them.

For me, in no particular order:

1) Ken Norton - I feel he gets hugely over rated for having a style that gave Ali fits. Other then his win here he lost against nearly every world class opposition

2) Rocky Marciano - He may have finished his career undefeated but the level of opposition isn't anywhere near what it should be for the plaudits he gets

3) James Toney - Don't get me wrong, gifted fighter but his record just doesn't hold up to warrant what he gets

4) JCC JR - mainly with the mexicans as everybody else see's this hyped up protected leech on his fathers name boy for what he is

5) Joe Calzaghe - Overly overrated for a decade champion with no notable wins for the majority of that reign

In no order.

1. De la Hoya - Realise he was great for the sport and fought the best but to be great he needed to win some of his defining fights which he didn't really do.

2. Froch - Said on another thread that I don't believe his level of opposition is as great as some like to think. If he wasn't British I don't think he'd be rated as highly.

3. Lennox Lewis. Doesn't belong in the upper reaches of a HW top 10.

4. Jack Dempsey. A great fighter and transcended the sport. I often see him as high as 3 in HW lists which I don't think his resume alone deserves.

5. Marvin Hagler - Gets away with many of the criticisms used to describe Hopkins as over rated. Fought a lot of dross, best wins were against fighters moving up etc.

Not denying that the above weren't great but they're slightly over rated in my book.

Roy Jones Jnr- Agree with Coxy on this, his apparent talent far outweighs his actual achievement

Manos, I couldn't disagree more with you on the 1890's heavyweight scene, Fitzsimmons might have been a middleweight but he did not have the power of one, he routinely took out huge men with body shots, men who coincidentally James J Jeffries sparred with and couldn't make a dent in.

Crikey paperbag, I don't think we could disagree more!! ODLH possibly, but the other 4 are by no means over-rated in my view! Froch being the only other that comes close to being.

Thought I might be labelled as being mad when I was making my list alright.

Ha again Fists I'm not for a minute saying they aint great fighters but definitely over rated for me. Take Hagler for example. Many have him as top of the MW pile. I'd always have Monzon and Greb above him so to me he is over rated by these people for me.

I tihnk it's difficult as some of the names being put forward here are probably rated just about right by anyone that has more than just a passing interest in the sport.

Lewis is a borderline top 10 heavyweight and that's generally where he's ranked in ay decent list. Tyson is viewed similarly. If you're ranking based on the average man in the street then the current top 5 are probably something like:

(1) Tyson
(2) Ali
(3) Lewis
(4) Hamed
(5) Manny

I think Dempsey being overrated at 3 is a fair comment. He has an enormous reputation in the boxing world but his actual record doesnt live up to it or the status he enjoys.

To be honest though, whoever I place number 3 behind Ali and Louis I could probably make a better argument as for why they dont belong there as opposed to why they should. I just think Dempsey is viewed to be better than he was compared to other fighters who could occupy the number 3 slot.

To be honest though, whoever I place number 3 behind Ali and Louis I could probably make a better argument as for why they dont belong there as opposed to why they should.

I've been struggling with 3rd spot in the heavyweight diviison for a few months. Like jeff I had Johnson as an automatic pick in 3rd place but have been questioning that lately and accept that I may have been unduly influenced by the general consensus. The problem I have is in making a convincing case for someone else that doesn't fall down under similar scrutiny to that I've been giving Johnson.

I think the best candidates are Holmes, Foreman and Johnson. I edge towards Holmes normally.

coxy0001 wrote:Pretty simple, and should be a good way of revealing more on fighters the board may not have been aware of you not rating.

Mine, in order:

01) Roy Jones Jr: Unfortunately didn't stretch himself, looked good against pap opposition, fought bum after bum and almost bought boxing to its knees.

02) Manny Pacquiao: For someone so highly rated i find it a bit random that he has such a huge problem with a counterpuncher style of fighter.

03) Tito Trinidad: Stuffed by Bhop, robbed DLH and is still seen by some to be a great.

04) Mike Tyson: Prime this prime that. 2 years we should judge him on? I don't think so.

05) Barry Mcguigan: Seems to get rated as a great for his out of ring exploits rather than what he did in the ring.

agree with what you are saying a bit on all of them other than Tito. no shame in losing to bhop or oscar, i rate tito very highly. Manny is good but his matchmaking has made him seem great and although jones was good, funny how he was suddenly past his best as soon as he came up against consistantly good opposition. tarver 1 was the worst robbery i have ever witnessed, and yet he still gets mentioned as part of a slightly weak resume for jones. beating ruiz is certainly an overrated win for jones

I've been leaning towards Holmes a bit more lately as well, Scott. Have had him as low as 5 in the past but certainly now no lower than 4th and possibly in 3rd.