Who is the most Overrated fighter in history????

Simple question...........who does history love way too much..

Simple Answer......Tyson

Not sure about that Mackem. There are plenty of people who'll tell you all you need is a good jab and not to be peeing yourself before the first bell and he'll be putty in your hands after six, when in reality he was a dominant force over a competent bunch of opponents for a few years and all at a very young age.

Wow. I expected a bite from Truss.

Easy. Rocky

azania wrote:Easy. Rocky

Lockridge or Fielding?

Be more specific, man.

Manny Pacquiao.

Glorified 8 weight world champion winning belts at catchweights against Cotto (Welterweight) and then against an inactive and poor fighter on the slide in Margarito.

Poor showings against an ageing Mosley and defense wizard Clottey were completely over-hyped.

He also demolished De La Hoya at a weight the Golden Boy hadnt fought at in about a decade.

Pacquiao has been more about the Arum promotion then his actual fights.

How he got fighter of the decade is beyond me.

He battered a pathetic version of De La Hoya, wiped out an already mentally beaten Hatton, wiped Cotto off the earth at a catchweight for a strap, outpointed some guy called Clottey, hammered a very poor Margarito along with scraping a decision against JMM (shouldnt have) and losing (shouldnt have) against Bradley.

He should only be a 4-5 weight World Champion or whatever, but i think Mayweather/Wladamir/JMM etc have been better.

I'm going all controversial here and saying JOE LOUIS!!

Nothing special as a fighter.............beat nothing but stiffs and lost to the two best fighters he fought and went 1-1 with Walcott If we are honest..

Beaten by the ordinary Schmelling and outboxed and rocked by a 170 pounder!!

He's a huge figure in boxing and some have him over Ali...

Everything is relative and for me history is too kind to Louis..

I think Tyson probably is a good shout simply because of the mass appeal of him. It may lead to more hardcore boxing fans overcompensating as a result but at the same time there are no shortage of people out there who proclaim him the best ever by far.

In a more historical sense I would rate Wilde, Marciano, Dempsey, Ketchel and Carpentiers as fighters that are pretty overrated for one reason or another.

Always a bit tricky to answer that question, Truss, because seldom do you come across a fighter who is rated pretty much the same by everyone right across the board and because 'overrated' needs to be put in to context. You can still think that a fighter was a genuine all-time great but, at the same time, also think they're somewhat overrated, strange as that sounds.

Anyway, in terms of fighters who regularly appear at the (very) high end of pound for pound lists compiled by historians and high-brow fans alike, I'd perhaps say Jimmy Wilde. Still very possibly Britain's best ever, but not the all-conquering pound for pound behemoth he's sometimes portrayed as, and certainly not as far ahead of his rivals for the title of being the best Flyweight of all time as some would have us believe either, as far as I'm concerned.

Two votes for Jimmy...........

Twisting in is grave....

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

azania wrote:Easy. Rocky

Lockridge or Fielding?

Be more specific, man.

Kelly.

OK, I'll open that can...CALZAGHE!!!

Figured Joe would turn up sooner or later.....

He should have fought Peter Jackson!! ...

If he'd stayed with Warren longer maybe he would have..

Frank is lining up Peter to fight Cleverley...just as soon as they can get Jackson to agree to a catchweight.

Of the modern era, and realise I am going to get dogs abuse for this but have never been as sold on De La Hoya as many on here. Nothing but respect for his level of opposition but always felt someone with his skill set should have achieved even more and whilst I acknowledge there are a few close calls on his ledger but I would have liked to see him win a couple more of his really big fights.

Historically Wilde is a good shout but think Ketchel benefits hugely from dying so young, some solid enough names on the record but genuinely think his lifestyle and fighting style would have seen him burn out pretty quick and think if he lives six months longer and gives Langford the mooted title shot he loses, and in some style as well.

Am also not as convinced with Duran as many but my views on that subject hardly bear repeating again.

Henry Cooper. Much-loved & British & Empire (commonwealth) champion, but worshipped way over his achievements due to one punch.

Ketchel is a good call..don't know much about Wilde....

Loved to have seen Ketchel v Burns for the heavy title......Probably be top 10 ATg If he'd knocked Burns over.....

I agree and disagree in equal measure when it comes to your views on Louis really, Truss.

You see, this is partly why it bugs me when I see people degrading the Klitschko brothers on the basis of 'they wouldn't be champions or even in the top three if you put them in to the golden era of Heavyweights in the late sixties / seventies' and such. Louis is frequently touted as one of the top two Heavyweights of all time and is certainly more revered than either of the Klitschkos will ever be, but put him in that golden Heavyweight era and, likewise, I doubt he'd even emerge as one of the top two of his own generation, never mind top two of all time. To that end, then yes, he's perhaps overrated in some degree.

That said, on the other side of the coin, he set new standards as champion which haven't been touched since and, regardless of his opposition (which, although not always stellar, was still of a fairly good standard on the whole), his level of dominance within his own time is pretty much unique.

I also disagree that there was nothing remarkable about him as a fighter. He had a fantastic skill set, for me. Not particularly great in the legs department, but then again neither was Arguello and I don't see anyone doubting his skill threshold. Louis was actually very similar to Alexis in a lot of ways, the caveats being that Arguello had the better chin, Louis had the better hand speed. But he hit as hard as they come, had a top jab, was a precision finisher and was a smart, learning fighter to, as shown by his exceptional record in rematches against men who he'd struggled against first time.

Overrated probably in a historical sense, but he wouldn't be my first port of call in this discussion, personally.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Manny Pacquiao.

Glorified 8 weight world champion winning belts at catchweights against Cotto (Welterweight) and then against an inactive and poor fighter on the slide in Margarito.

Poor showings against an ageing Mosley and defense wizard Clottey were completely over-hyped.

He also demolished De La Hoya at a weight the Golden Boy hadnt fought at in about a decade.

Pacquiao has been more about the Arum promotion then his actual fights.

How he got fighter of the decade is beyond me.

He battered a pathetic version of De La Hoya, wiped out an already mentally beaten Hatton, wiped Cotto off the earth at a catchweight for a strap, outpointed some guy called Clottey, hammered a very poor Margarito along with scraping a decision against JMM (shouldnt have) and losing (shouldnt have) against Bradley.

He should only be a 4-5 weight World Champion or whatever, but i think Mayweather/Wladamir/JMM etc have been better.

If you look at his career below LW he has a very good record & held titles at at least 3 weights and was an exciting fighter. Above LW there will always be a couple of asterix's against some of his wins for a lot of people but that's another story.

Very good arguments you make Chris.......Thing is I agree that Louis is an alltime great but everything is relative..

There are still people who rate him higher than Ali and yet I'd fancy a lot of Ali's opponents to beat him......

There are a lot of people who think he beats Ali.......and yet Conn who was much smaller than Ali and no way better in the Boxing department basically beat him...until the brain explosion...

I'd pick Liston, Frazier, Foreman and maybe Quarry to all beat Louis......

Yet Louis is no 1 in some lists........

Not a reflection on his greatness he's worthy of that....just his position in the lists..

Going to give Duran a break today..

Prince Naseem Hamed

Ruben Olivares gets an awful lot of kudos for his hugely exciting style, but his achievements, viewed absolutely dispassionately, don't give him the right to quite the mass hysteria that he can generate, particularly among Mexican fight fans. They routinely place him above Canto, Zarate and Saldivar in their national Hall of Fame, and I don't see why, not for the life of me.

Looked unstoppable on his way to the bantam title and in blowing away Rose and Rudkin, but had to struggle like hell to establish a paper-thin superiority over Chucho Castillo in their trilogy, even getting knocked down in the two fights he won by decision, the first very narrowly. A year into his second reign, he gets starched by Herrera, moves up to feather and although still exciting, loses more big fights than he wins. Goes 2-1 against Chacon, but is inexcusably floored for the count by Art Hafey, wins a vacant belt against a nonentity, loses at once to Arguello in a thriller, beats Chacon for the WBC crown, but is immediately floored and outpointed by the feather-fisted Kotey and finally hammered by both Little Red Lopez and Pedroza in title fights.

Across two divisions, Ruben has a record of something like 8-6 in title bouts, good and respectable for sure, but is he really one of the immortals? Not for me - outside edge of the top 10 bantams on a good day, but nowhere near a great, or even very good, feather, I think history has been mighty kind to him.

Dempsey for me.

Would echo what others have said about it all being relative, and Dempsey is certainly an ATG and a favourite of mine, but his standing in many p4p and HW lists is out of all proportion to his achievements.

His victims hardly read like a who's who of HW luminaries. Flattened by Flynn (probably a dive, but a loss which will always be on his ledger), struggled with Miske, and soundly beaten twice by the best he ever fought.

He also did not fight his #1 HW rival, Wills. I concede that this was perhaps not entirely Dempsey's fault, and I also concede that he had agreed to fight the winner of Sharkey and Wills, however Harry had earned his shot long before then.

Yes, he looked great demolishing Willard and good wins over Firpo, Gibbons, Carpentier, and Sharkey (who was soundly beating Dempsey prior to his moment of madness) mark him out as a top fighter, but I really question his claim to a top 5 HW spot which is where he is routinely placed by many boxing historians.

Great fighter of course, but certainly a guy to whom history has been very kind.

Chris got me thinking (sorry). But JCC. Beat good figjters who stood with him. But slick boxers gave him fits. Lost to randall and gifted a decision in the rematch. Huge problems with meldrick and totally flummoxed by pernall. Yet he hovers around the top atg list.

Gent, Captain good to see you both back around, hope it is not just a flying visit

Also struggled with Lockridge, az and there is a germ of truth in your call. He did, however, beat Camacho, Mayweather and a whole host of runners, so he could do it, even when his opponent didn't just stand in front of him. There aren't many with Chavez's record or longevity in the big fights, so on balance, I reckon he deserves his status, even if it does come with a caveat.

No, I'm still here, Jeff, just been calling in a bit more often on the rugby board lately and trying not to repeat myself here too much!

You may have picked the wrong thread to make your return captain because I know you're going to say Morales soon and make me regret my previous words.

I reckon Burley and Langford are overrated....

mobilemaster8 wrote:Manny Pacquiao.

Glorified 8 weight world champion winning belts at catchweights against Cotto (Welterweight) and then against an inactive and poor fighter on the slide in Margarito.

Poor showings against an ageing Mosley and defense wizard Clottey were completely over-hyped.

He also demolished De La Hoya at a weight the Golden Boy hadnt fought at in about a decade.

Pacquiao has been more about the Arum promotion then his actual fights.

How he got fighter of the decade is beyond me.

He battered a pathetic version of De La Hoya, wiped out an already mentally beaten Hatton, wiped Cotto off the earth at a catchweight for a strap, outpointed some guy called Clottey, hammered a very poor Margarito along with scraping a decision against JMM (shouldnt have) and losing (shouldnt have) against Bradley.

He should only be a 4-5 weight World Champion or whatever, but i think Mayweather/Wladamir/JMM etc have been better.

I take you're it calling his feats above lightweight overrated but leaving his earlier stuff out of it.

De La Hoya offered Pacquiao the fight. It was seen as a mismatch in favour of Oscar. Hindsight may be 20/20 but Manny was a massive under dog and most people thought he was being used to rebuild Oscar's rep. Manny ate him.

Hatton was mentally beaten? He was also the lineal champ at light welter and coming off good wins. Manny blitzed him in a way few others ever could.

The Cotto catchweight thing gets repeated so many times it's boring. More often than not (including his fight previous Manny) weighed in at 146 for welterweight fights. So he was being made to lose one pound extra. Manny on the other hand had been a super featherweight the previous year. So somebody who'd been weighing at 146 since 2006 vs someone who'd been weighing at 129 as recently as 2008 at 145 was not in favour of Manny. Also, nobody forced Cotto into it. Maybe if it had been a close fight I could begin to entertain gripes, but Manny owned him.

Nobody hyped up his performances against Clottey and Mosley. Those guys went into survival mode and lost every round. The most conclusive defeat of either man's career. At the time Mosely was seen as a harder fight than JMM. Marg was just an excersise in winning another belt, nobody claims it was some great win.

Yeah, in hindsight I agree he lost to Marquez but it was very close.

He beat Bradley. Undefeated, in his prime, Pacquiao beat him.

All this from a guy who had next to no amateur career and started at 106. Not overrated in my opinion.

I thought about it Jeff, but soon decided that gut instinct, as opposed to a reasoned argument, would take too long to explain in a convincing fashion! I shall call Erik my blind spot, instead.

So cruel Truss, especially after I went out of my way not to lock your womens boxing thread.

I agree with the Captain's detente position..........He's leaving Morales alone and I'm leaving Duran alone.........

The cold war is over..

On this board, and I know I am in a minority here, but Lewis seems over rated for all the usual arguments; Lost to two unexceptional fighters regardless of getting his revenge. Superb boxer as he was, I don't rate him as high as others.

Our 'enry is a good shout. I disagree with Calzaghe, only from the point of view that most people look at him as an excellent talent that didn't deliver everything he should have, due mainly to a lack of ambition.

The more time goes by the more I'm warming to Lewis.............

Think he had two careers......pre/post Steward..........

He is slightly overrated though.

Lewis is a tricky one. Given I have seen him ranked in the top two or three heavies there is definitely a case to say he is overrated on here because that is clearly overegging the pudding. However think where my issue with him is more how he is often looked back on a some sort of golden era heavy or Mr Excitement, am not saying he did not deliver more excitement than Wlad but Mr Excitement was certainly not how he was perceived at the time.

On the basis that Ali is most layman's no.1 of all time, perhaps him? Buncey may agree:

http://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/sport/story/194928.html

I think there are similarities between Lewis and Wladimir, Jeff, and interesting comparisons to be made between them.

Many of the criticisms thrown at Wladimir today were also chucked at Lewis when he was in his pomp; splattered more than once by rank outsiders, boxed 'scared' in certain fights when he should have stamped his authority on them more emphatically, is lucky to fight in the era he does as he would have been embarrassed in many other stronger generations etc.

A lot of this is swept under the rug now in Lewis' retirement (I think that while some of the criticism was justified, some was overly harsh in any case) and, if you look at most of the articles evaluating his career which were written when he retired, it's plain to see that even in the last decade alone his standing amongst fans has risen hugely. While I doubt Wladimir will ever be as talked up as Lewis, I do anticipate a similar scenario once he's been retired for a few years, too.

Anyway, Lewis is a tricky one as you allude to. In the grand scheme of things I don't particularly think that he's overrated; when compared to many other Heavyweight greats, the competition of his era was actually pretty impressive. One aspect I do find myself agreeing with more and more was that he was slighly lucky with the timing of his career. I used to think that he'd have always had an edge on Tyson and that he'd have beaten Bowe in 1992 / 1993.....Now, I'm not really sure. In fact, I'd definitely make a peak Tyson favourite ahead of him.

Still, there would be a lot of names which would enter my head long before Lewis' when I think of the word 'overrated.'

Roberto Duran?

Achieved greatness largely due to a granite chin.


I would throw in David Haye as well.

People act like he is the second coming of the Heavyweight Lord when he hasnt had one decent performance at the weight.

Adam D wrote:Roberto Duran?

Achieved greatness largely due to a granite chin.

I'm reporting you to the admin team for hacking Adam's account, Truss.

88Chris05 wrote:

Adam D wrote:Roberto Duran?

Achieved greatness largely due to a granite chin.

I'm reporting you to the admin team for hacking Adam's account, Truss.

Nah, no way could Truss resist "rolled like a drunk...".

For what it is worth Adam I actually agree with you. Not sure how good a thing being in a minority with me and Truss is but suppose our support is better than no support.

Well, although I love Duran to bits (I disagree massively with Adam's claim that he owed much of his success merely to his chin, but that's another story and I suspect Adam may well have been looking to stoke the fire with that line!), I can see the argument that he's ever so slighly overrated to some extent. But I'd only really feel comfortable using the word 'overrated' to describe him if it was to counter someone who had him top five all-time pound for pound, for instance, or someone who said that he easily beats all other Lightweight champions from any era etc. As you can tell, I still rate the man pretty damn highly!

I think with Duran it's the fact that he gets such a free pass for some of those ignominious lows that we wouldn't give to a Floyd Mayweather or a Manny Pacquiao. I do tend to think he derserves a pass for the Hearns fight, mind you, but 'No Mas' as well as the inexplicable defeats to guys like Laing and Sims are pretty bad blotches on his copy book, I think.

Still, beating a dozen world champions despite boxing primarily in an era of only two belts per division (and slightly less of those divisions, too), reigning for seven years at Lightweight and dethroning a truly special and hitherto undefeated Welterweight champion are proof enough of his greatness. His skills and the more refined side of his game remain terribly underrated - you can't be beating someone like Marcel at about 130 lb in 1970 and then, twenty-seven years on, be outscoring a hardened, competent Middleweight titlist in Castro at 168 lb in 1997 if you don't have an exceptional boxing brain and some impressive form of defence.

I'm maybe a little less bowled over with him than I was a few years ago, but he's still something like #9 or #10 or all-time for me, pound for pound.

88Chris05 wrote:Well, although I love Duran to bits (I disagree massively with Adam's claim that he owed much of his success merely to his chin, but that's another story and I suspect Adam may well have been looking to stoke the fire with that line!), I can see the argument that he's ever so slighly overrated to some extent. But I'd only really feel comfortable using the word 'overrated' to describe him if it was to counter someone who had him top five all-time pound for pound, for instance, or someone who said that he easily beats all other Lightweight champions from any era etc. As you can tell, I still rate the man pretty damn highly!

I think with Duran it's the fact that he gets such a free pass for some of those ignominious lows that we wouldn't give to a Floyd Mayweather or a Manny Pacquiao. I do tend to think he derserves a pass for the Hearns fight, mind you, but 'No Mas' as well as the inexplicable defeats to guys like Laing and Sims are pretty bad blotches on his copy book, I think.

Still, beating a dozen world champions despite boxing primarily in an era of only two belts per division (and slightly less of those divisions, too), reigning for seven years at Lightweight and dethroning a truly special and hitherto undefeated Welterweight champion are proof enough of his greatness. His skills and the more refined side of his game remain terribly underrated - you can't be beating someone like Marcel at about 130 lb in 1970 and then, twenty-seven years on, be outscoring a hardened, competent Middleweight titlist in Castro at 168 lb in 1997 if you don't have an exceptional boxing brain and some impressive form of defence.

I'm maybe a little less bowled over with him than I was a few years ago, but he's still something like #9 or #10 or all-time for me, pound for pound.

i think that says everything to those that think he's overrated.

Im in agreement with Chris on Duran. Can definitely see cases where he gets an easy ride or maybe enjoys a slighty loftier position than he should. But a candidate for most overrated of all time? Not for me. Same deal for Louis. I used to think that it was him and Ali in front of the other heavyweights by miles with Ali only a sliver ahead. But now I think Ali is numero uno with some to spare. Just a far stronger list of opposition beaten. I cant really see a case for Louis to rank above anymore. Still don’t think Louis is a real candidate for most overrated though as hes a comfortable 2nd in my book. And other heavyweights like Demspey, Marciano and Johnson tend to get overrated more in my experience.

Just to qualify my statement about Duran. I like him a lot but I dont have him in the best of all time category.

He had a great beard for some of his career though and nice velvet shorts which would be winning GOAT boxing shorts polls.

His hands of stone must surely have been illegal though!

Tyson for me. He was awesome at his best. Problem being his peak years were shorter than an Audley Harrison highlight reel. Think Tyson the myth and the story are far bigger than what he actually did,

Genuinely, Hagler vs Leonard was dull.

Duran surely has a case for one of the top LW's of all time & although not top 10 p4p atg he was defo a great fighter & not one of the most overrated of all time.