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

First topic message reminder :

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

I am surprised Ricky Hatton hasnt been mentioned yet

Adam D wrote:I am surprised Ricky Hatton hasnt been mentioned yet

He is an ickle bit overrated, you're right.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Adam D wrote:I am surprised Ricky Hatton hasnt been mentioned yet

He is an ickle bit overrated, you're right.

Rowley agrees with this.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Adam D wrote:I am surprised Ricky Hatton hasnt been mentioned yet

He is an ickle bit overrated, you're right.

The man himself told me that Ricky Hatton isn't overrated at all, though.

Team milkyboy agree on hatton. His first person, second person and third person are all over-rated.

Dempsey for me, of the big names.

Starting to scrape the barrel now, but in recent times I'd say Shane Mosley to an extent, insofar as he made pound for pound number one, continued to walk in to big fights and has often been cited alongside the likes of Pacquiao and Hopkins without ever really being at that level, for me.

Oddly enough, you could maybe argue that his days as a Lightweight are too easily forgotten, and he was very impressive there. And then there was his signature win against De la Hoya when he jumped up to Welter in 2000. Superb fight, great win.

But my issue with Shane is that, whenever he's faced a fighter with a good defence, he's struggled basically every time (Oscar, for all his gifts, was never any more than serviceable in the defence department). It's not so much that he lost to Forrest x 2, Winky x 2 and Floyd - it's the manner of the defeats. None of those fights were close and Mosley was made to look pretty average in some of them.

Top class fighter, but not quite the great one he's sometimes portrayed as for my money. Also got a wee bit lucky in that Oscar rematch!

Toney? Superb talent yes, great record no, hardly ever turned up in good shape and was practically molested by roy jones (one of many admittedly) Talent of a king and record of a pauper?

Good shout with Toney. Grossly overrated. Many people say he has an old school style. He probably does hence he's rated by many here. Any top class who can lose to Tolesco (spelling) should not be rated at all. OK he was gifted the decision.

Tiberi, Az. And 'Lights Out' more than paid for that one with the shocking verdicts he received against Griffin (I) and Peter (I)!

I'm not particularly sure that Toney is really overrated because, as Shah alludes to, many see him as a wasted talent more than anything, who fell short of what he was capable of. I'll say little else, as I've bored many-a v2 user with my man love for the old salad dodger, but I do think he was an incredible talent who had the makings of a legitimate all-time great between, say, 1991 and 1994. Definitely cocked things up good and proper after that point, though, and by the time he became interested again it was too little, too late.

Rather than use it as proof of Toney being overrated, I tend to view Jones-Toney more of an example of how utterly brilliant and outrageously talented a peak Roy was.

Tolesco? Tiberi? It was a shocker.

I've had this debate with Chris too many times, I feel his talent is over-rated by some, but I admire his ability to mix it at weights he had no right to be fighting at... on a diet of hamburgers.

Ha, knew Chris would come to the defence, and he best me to it!

Too right, milky! Nobody says a bad word about Toney on my watch!

88Chris05 wrote:Tiberi, Az. And 'Lights Out' more than paid for that one with the shocking verdicts he received against Griffin (I) and Peter (I)!

I'm not particularly sure that Toney is really overrated because, as Shah alludes to, many see him as a wasted talent more than anything, who fell short of what he was capable of. I'll say little else, as I've bored many-a v2 user with my man love for the old salad dodger, but I do think he was an incredible talent who had the makings of a legitimate all-time great between, say, 1991 and 1994. Definitely cocked things up good and proper after that point, though, and by the time he became interested again it was too little, too late.

Rather than use it as proof of Toney being overrated, I tend to view Jones-Toney more of an example of how utterly brilliant and outrageously talented a peak Roy was.

Its irrespective if he paid for it. Bottom line is that Tabasco, Tiberius or whoever got robbed in a fight in which he clearly beat Toney. Plus the manner in which RJJ handled him also. Lets not forget that Nunn was handling him pretty well until that punch.

milkyboy wrote:Tolesco? Tiberi? It was a shocker.

I've had this debate with Chris too many times, I feel his talent is over-rated by some, but I admire his ability to mix it at weights he had no right to be fighting at... on a diet of hamburgers.

Good boxer. But the plaudits he gets often glosses over his record. Too many blind eyes are turned.

... Cue Chris' round by round account of nunn toney, to prove it was no 'come from behind, bolt from the blue'

Sorry Milky, one last thing, I promise.....

Toney-Nunn wasn't a one punch turnaround though, Az. Nunn pitched a shutout for six rounds, but from that stage on Toney was the better man and the knockout came after two or three rounds in which he'd been all over Nunn. Toney was a young and inexperienced pup against an experienced, peak Nunn who'd had a glorious amateur career (Toney had virtually none) and who was being tipped to become a Middleweight immortal, so I think we can forgive Toney's early struggles in that one.

Anyway, as promised, that's the last I'll speak of the salad dodger here - sorry lads!

milkyboy wrote:... Cue Chris' round by round account of nunn toney, to prove it was no 'come from behind, bolt from the blue'

I should be embarrassed by this, but I have to laugh! Touché, Milky!

I thought Nunn was stupid..............Owned Toney that night and spoilt a great-in-the-making legacy...

How anybody leaves it that late on purpose is beyond me.

88Chris05 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... Cue Chris' round by round account of nunn toney, to prove it was no 'come from behind, bolt from the blue'

I should be embarrassed by this, but I have to laugh! Touché, Milky!

It's me who should be embarrassed... I even double checked you hadn't posted, and you still hit send before me!

You being embarrassed is taken as read.......Milksy

Foreman

Manny Pacquiao since JMM 2

TheMackemMawler wrote:Foreman

Cross yourself

I'm too tired to justify it Shah.... so i just googled "Foreman" and "Overrated".

http://www.saddoboxing.com/368-foreman-overrated.html

Lazy I know.

Rubin Carter.

Simply because Bob Dylan said "one time he cudda bin.... the Chaaaaampion of the Wurrrrrrrld"

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He is an alltime great............drew with Jackson and beat the great John L and changed Boxing forever..

A pioneer and as such deserves greatness

The man from Dundalk Sailor Tom had Corbett's number.

Has to be Prince Naseem Hamed. That guy won fights during his World title defence against opponents who weren't anything other than average journeymen boxers. However once Hamed came up against a true boxing great in Marco Antonia Barrera, Hamed's technical deficiencies were fully exposed eventually leading to his defeat from which he never recovered from. Also Sugar Ray Robinson may be seen as the best pound-for-pound fighter of all-time but what notable opponents has he faced and either defeated or even lost to?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

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.

Nobody said he isn't good just not as good as some would have us believe

gboycottnut wrote:Has to be Prince Naseem Hamed. That guy won fights during his World title defence against opponents who weren't anything other than average journeymen boxers. However once Hamed came up against a true boxing great in Marco Antonia Barrera, Hamed's technical deficiencies were fully exposed eventually leading to his defeat from which he never recovered from. Also Sugar Ray Robinson may be seen as the best pound-for-pound fighter of all-time but what notable opponents has he faced and either defeated or even lost to?

Not a particularly good or accurate evaluation of either fighter there, boycott. Hamed, in fact, is massively underrated by the casual element.

88Chris05 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Has to be Prince Naseem Hamed. That guy won fights during his World title defence against opponents who weren't anything other than average journeymen boxers. However once Hamed came up against a true boxing great in Marco Antonia Barrera, Hamed's technical deficiencies were fully exposed eventually leading to his defeat from which he never recovered from. Also Sugar Ray Robinson may be seen as the best pound-for-pound fighter of all-time but what notable opponents has he faced and either defeated or even lost to?

Not a particularly good or accurate evaluation of either fighter there, boycott. Hamed, in fact, is massively underrated by the casual element.

This guy has to be a wum! Hamed I could almost forgive him but Robinson! Maybe all the great boxing writers & historians made a mistake!

As for the most overrated we've just been informed its Floyd Mayweather courtesy of Glen mccrory.

I hear that gboycottnut isn't averse to the odd wind up on the cricket boards, sohotnot, so you're probably right.

As is Glenn, of course (right, not a wum). In fact, Glenn's name should probably be mentioned on my underrated fighters thread. The man cut through the Cruiserweight division like a hot knife through butter, beat the ever-loving pee out of Tyson in sparring to the point where he took Tyson's aura allowing Douglas to dethrone him, and was so devastating that Holyfield flat out refused to face him and left the Cruiserweight division to fight the Heavyweights out of pure fear.

And still he doesn't get the praise he should do. Shocking.

88Chris05 wrote:I hear that gboycottnut isn't averse to the odd wind up on the cricket boards, sohotnot, so you're probably right.

As is Glenn, of course (right, not a wum). In fact, Glenn's name should probably be mentioned on my underrated fighters thread. The man cut through the Cruiserweight division like a hot knife through butter, beat the ever-loving pee out of Tyson in sparring to the point where he took Tyson's aura allowing Douglas to dethrone him, and was so devastating that Holyfield flat out refused to face him and left the Cruiserweight division to fight the Heavyweights out of pure fear.

And still he doesn't get the praise he should do. Shocking.

& lets not forget Glen had to get off the floor once or twice & probably helped transcend the sport by running trough his local town center dressed in army trousers & boots for his upcoming world title fight at his local leisure which started a small trend in the UK.

Tyson for me, looked great till people started fighting back then was found out. Any decent fighter with confidence, a good jab and a solid punch could give Tyson severe problems, sadly too many used to be beaten by the hype even before getting in the ring with him.

What a load of rubbish...........Sick of people demeaning Tyson..........

Tucker tried to fight him.....Holmes tried to fight him..Berbick tried to fight him....Bruno tried to fight him..........Biggs tried to use his jab against him....Thomas tried to use his jab against him.....Tubbs won the first round against him....

Tyson had something to do with disarming these guys...........

Give him a break..

Have to agree that Tyson was devastating at his best. What I wouldn't give for a Tyson now as opposed to a bit of Fury!!

Tyson is overrated mainly by the casual fan and the arguments for the reasons have been done to death so im not going into it.

Duran is an interesting one however. I was always a big fan of his going back to when i was a kid, even though id only really learnt about him through what had been fed to me on videos (pre internet days).

Ive since read his autobiography and this has surprisingly lowered my opinion of him due it being in my view a book used primarily by the author as a tool to excuse all his bad performamces.Whilst in his prime as a lightweight i would agree that he has a superb record and is rightly in the debate as greatest of all time, his record above that ranges from the sublime (Davey Moore demolition) to the embarrasing( Leonard 2).

A lot of people generally only know of him as part of the fab four middleweight merry go round and for that reason i feel he is definitely slightly overrated.

Maybe not "most overrated in history" but il throw up Herol Graham for boxing purists that love abit of Herol. No doubting the guys ability but for a man that managed to always find a way to lose his biggest fights he does get alot of praise..

Gotta say regarding Duran on here and Charles on the Underrating thread. It seems to be that both suffered from the same problems - their weaknesses were exacerbated the higher up they went (just the one divison for Ezzard of course). Duran owned the Lightweight division and won some fantastic fights at weights he had no business being at. Yes the lows were also quite bad in places and they do tend to get glossed over more than others but you have to remember that he was so good he handed both Pazienza and Camacho their arses in their first bouts at around 45 years of age.

It should be looked at as a bonus that he won some of those at all. Had Duran beaten Hagler/Hearns there would have been a shout for him to be the greatest of all time with some justification. As it is, Hearns destroyed him (as he ought to have done) and his losing performance against the marvellous one was lauded to high heaven and was the only reason he was put in with Hearns in the first place. I think he can quite snugly fit into the top five off just his wins and top ten at the least but its unfair to call him overrated when people quite happily put Eder Jofre, Wilde, Salvador Sanchez! Benny Leonard, Jack Johson etc. Not to say they are crap but how many of them have a record as good as Durans?!

Ayup Haito, good to see you making one of your rare appearances on here. Interesting shout on Graham. I can see where you're coming from in one respect, too; every claim of greatness you can make with Herol always comes with a 'but...' at the end, namely that he kept losing fights he was supposed to win! I'm not sure I'd call him overrated personally, though, because most acknowledge that he's way down the list of all-time British greats - just that he should have got there had he reached his full potential.

Great post Shah with some cracking points.

I think it's interesting that, by 1980, the general feeling amongst most boxing writers and historians (as well as Ray Arcel, of course, who knew the two of them better than any other man on the planet) was that Duran had definitely done enough to cement his place as the greatest Lightweight in history ahead of Benny. Also, let's not forget that some of these fellas would have even seen Benny in the flesh, too, so it's a pretty significant issue.

It was only really in hindsight (once Duran's star began to wane) that the so-called lack of depth in the Lightweight division in the seventies became an issue for some. I accept that the division, at the time, didn't house any slicksters (the kind Duran supposedly always struggled against) quite as good as Leonard, Benitez etc, but I still think it's a bit daft to say that Duran couldn't handle pure boxers at all. Buchanan was fresh off the back of being voted International Boxer of the Year by American writers for 1971 and was a damn sight quicker and more slippery than people seem to remember, and Duran dealt with him convincingly enough. De Jesus not quite an elite or great fighter, but nonetheless it still tends to be forgotten that Duran, rather than just brawling his way to victory or over-powering him, absolutely boxed Esteban's ears off in their final fight. De Jesus didn't lay a worthwhile glove on him until the eleventh and Duran closed the show in the very next round.

He deserves a kicking for 'No Mas', Laing and Sims, I think, but not for Hearns or Hagler. The Benitez fight is the really difficult one to evaluate, for me.

I saw that fight again recently and it just wasn't close at all. Wilfred was a naturally bigger man than Roberto, for sure, but not to the extent that Hearns and Hagler were and seeing Duran toil but yet still be bested in just about every department for the full fifteen rounds like that simply has to add to the suspicion that accurate counter-punchers or real smooth operators 'exposed' him to some extent - what's more depressing for die hard Duran fans like me is that it's a result which can't be put exclusively or heavily down to size. Duran also kicked a habit of over-indulging and under-training for that one and was in tiptop shape as he shared such a heated rival with Puerto Rican boxers and had been absolutely irate with Benitez's wind up attempts in the press tours beforehand.

No excuses and not that far removed from his greatest night against Leonard - and he got a boxing lesson. Ouch.

I guess, to that end, I couldn't ever make him a top five man like you do, but I will say that Duran's dominance of his Lightweight division is still pretty rare across boxing history and a number of great champions have slipped up against opponents far worse than the Buchanans and De Jesuses of this world. The Benitez fight is a black mark, but apart from that I tend to go along your lines of thinking (within reason!) that, in general, you'd expect a very natural career Lightweight to lose to the likes of Leonard, Hearns and Hagler, so if they do, it's not really that harmful to their standing. However, if they win, it's merely a big, big bonus on top of what they already did at their best weight.

Still just about top ten for me, as I said earlier, and there would be a hell of a lot of fighters ahead of Roberto in my pecking order when I think of the word 'overrated.'

I am amazed that my limited boxing knowledge has spawned agreement on both this and the under rated thread (Evander in that case).

As for Tyson, I would put him on the underated for much the same reason that Truss said.

Who would have thought that the person who finally beat him was Robin Givens.

I think though that Benitez in particular is held is lower regard than he ought to be - although not by much by anyone with more than a passing interest - but I dont think it was just the size which cost him that fight - its like Wlad - he doesnt just win on size hes quick, hes intelligent and all those plus the size make him very very difficult to beat. Similar with Benitez. Leonard beat him but struggled mightily at times and hes probably the best pure boxer of all time - and leonard was just as big as the puerto rican, faster and more powerful than Duran. I think Benitez was a great talent in his own right and was unlucky to come face to face with Leonard. It shouldnt be held against Duran that he came up short against a man who fought without disgrace leonard at his own game.


The only person to extend Leonard more was Hearns - who himself had a big advantage over Leonard. Give hearns a solid Chin and stamina and it could be Hearns as Leonard and Leonard himself as Benitez in their fight. Thats how Narrow that gap was and those two fights more than any showed the full package that Leonard posessed. It should also be noted that in Duran and Leonard fights 1 & 2 Benitez handled him more comfortably than Leonard did at any point.

Distubingly, I agree with Az and disagree with Truss. Rocky, as good as he was, is much over rated because of his Italian/American support and his undefeated record. His is possibly the very first truely managed record. 49 fights and 49 wins but only, what was it, 6 title fights? It was a weak period and he was good but not great.

Louis is the best HW of all time. No doubt. No hype. It was also a weak period but its easy to let it slip and he defended his title, what, 22 times over 9 yrs. Its difficult to keep it together that long. That takes some fortitude.

Louis is the best.........

I was taking you seriously there for a minute......

Can see Max schmelling beating Ali..

No, but I can't see Louis getting a gifted decision over a plodding French Canadian (was it Chuvalo? who I thought he lost to) or losing to Neon Leon etc. We can keep playing these games of picking and choosing.

Louis had true longevity and defended his title the most. Ali had some stinkers that he should have lost etc.

I have great respect for Ali but his modern worship is just post modernist revisionism at work.

Ali dominated Chuvalo, he got lucky against Young and Norton but Liston, Foreman and Frazier is more than enough to see him top the heavyweights quite comfortably.

Young and Norton were more than 8 years after he won the title.......

Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman were all better than anything Louis beat.....Unless you count his 1-1 with Walcott.........and he was outboxed for the majority of both them fights...

As he was Conn...............Ali didn't have the same problem with foster though.

Tyson for me. Beat a blown up light heavy in Spinks and not a lot else to be honest. Yet makes it into most peoples top 10 heavies.

Holmes, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Williams, Tubbs, Thomas were all decent and accomplished boxers. Wish people would quantify there statements a bit more, I have him 12 but those above him aren't that far ahead of him.

Id have Ali as number 1 heavyweight with a bit to spare. The best heavyweight in the strongest era of heavyweights in history. His win ledger is just so much strong than Louis'. Id have Louis as a clear second but just cant really find away for him to rank above Ali. I dont think Louis beat a heavyweight I would consider top 15 of all time. Ali beat several.