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

First topic message reminder :

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

Salvador Sanchez - Put far too highly on P4p lists on the basis of what could have been rather than what was.

Ted Kid Lewis - he gets major plaudits for fighting so much, like 1087 fights with 633 of those against Britton. Lost too many for me and is lauded mostly because he fought so much.

Lennox Lewis, he beat Tyson when no one believed in him and his loss to McCall shouldn't even count. He got caught by a lucky punch against Rahman and completely dominated all time greats like Frank Bruno who knocked out nearly all of his victims. Why he isn't ranked number 2 in the greatest heavyweights of all time I don't know.

Wait I was doing underrated.

Sugar Ray Robinson as a Middleweight needs a mention. His Welterweight record is just ridiculous but as a Middleweight he often gets placed among the very best but I just don't see it, he seemed to lose as many title fights as he won. Amazing achievements in a P4P sense in that he was a natural Welter, past his best and fighting some very good fighters but for me his standing as a middleweight is vastly over rated based on prior achievements.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Prince Naseem Hamed

I'd say Nas is remembered pretty much where he should be, supremely talented and entertaining (don't see how anyone could deny that) but flawed and too one dimensional to ever really be considered great, Barrera showed this.

Sanchez is a tough call - based on what he did up to the age of 23 and his untimely death, he achieved sufficient to be regarded by many good judges as among the best three or four featherweights in history. Few 126 lb men have a collection of victims to match Lopez x2, Gomez and Nelson.

It's true that we shall eternally regret that his death robbed us of the chance to see him possibly square off against Arguello, Chavez or Pedroza, but I don't think that "overrated" is the right word to use about Sal.

I tend to see Robinson has having two different middleweight careers, you have post Maxim where he was past his best and ageing then you have his pre Maxim career where he was fairly fantastic still.

He struggled with Turpin but everybody has that one guy who gives them fits and he did win his title back.

Any boxer who fought in the pre war era. They couldn't hold a modern boxer's jockstrap.

Any fighter you care to name. You can deconstruct any bodies career should you wish, but for the sake of the thread , George Foreman and Chris Eubank

Another fighter who I find is scandalously overrated is Jim Corbett. I appreciate that he was a forerunner for the more stylised, elegant type of boxing which developed under the Queensberry rules - but I've seen him declared an all-time great, seen him ranked above the Klitschkos in the all-time Heavyweight stakes and I've even seen people talking about him beating the likes of Wladimir and Tyson.

Based on what, exactly? Wins over Choynski and Kilrain demonstrate that he was indeed a handy fighter, but he took the Heavyweight title from an alcoholic, bloated and long in the tooth Sullivan, defended just once in five years and then lost the title to the lightest Heavyweight kingpin of all time, albeit he was a mile ahead before the stoppage. Stopped on the two occasions he tried to reclaim the title, and hey presto, he's still spoken of in reverent terms well over a century later.

Precious few fights when compared to many other standout performers of his era, generally beaten against the best men he faced and, while he certainly did help to bring the sport on from a styles point of view, I don't think he's as heavily responsible for the shift as others would have us believe.

Good fighter, would probably have benefitted greatly had there been a Light-Heavyweight division for him to campaign in during his pomp given that he was only around the 180-185 lb at the most throughout his career, but certainly afforded a place in history more generous than what his actual achievements merit....A bit too over-generous, for my liking!

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

Saying he's a pioneer is fair enough Truss, but I'm talking about him purely on fistic merit and record. He wasn't the only fancy dan to emerge in the years after the end of the London Prize Ring Rules, and if his skill set was as radical for its time and as far ahead of his contemporaries as is often made out, I'd have to question why exactly he couldn't stamp his authority over them to any real degree?

To me, the likes of Young Corbett II and Joe Gans were just as pioneering as 'Gentleman Jim' but are seldom given a mention in that capacity compared to him.

I appreciate that, in taking part in the first Queensberry Rules Heavyweight title fight and by championing the more refined methods which were coming in to boxing in the 1890s, Corbett does deserve to command a reasonable footnote in boxing history, but it irked me that he made our Hall of Fame when better actual fighters fell by the wayside. A figure of historical significance in the sport? Yes. But a great fighter? No, not for me.

How do you know how good he was???

He outboxed fitxsimmons which is no mean feat...Easy to forget Fitz was battered and bloody before he won the lottery..

No rematch either..

A figure of huge historical significance Chris, being the first means a darn sight more than you're giving him credit for.

Aaron Pryer.

Great in all his fights up to Arguello then all down hill.

Never did enough.

Not sure in what context Pryor would be over rated?

He is seen as an all time great yet his overall career does not reflect this. As I have said he was outstanding in his fights up to knocking out Alexis Arguello but after that never did anything to equal it or better it.

Has 1 big fight associated with his name and that's Arguello.

Top 20 lightweight/welter but not top 10.

You wouldn't have Pryor in your top ten at 140lbs?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You wouldn't have Pryor in your top ten at 140lbs?

No
just outside.

This will be priceless, who on earth are your ten that you place higher?

Top 10 140lbs of all time.

10 - Wilfred Benitez
9 - Jackie Kid Berg
8 - Duilio Loi
7- Tony Canzoneri
6- Nicolino Locche
5 - Barney Ross
4 - Kosta Tszyu
3 - Antonio Cervantes
2 - Henry Armstrong
1 - Julio Cesar Chavez

Imperial Ghosty wrote:A figure of huge historical significance Chris, being the first means a darn sight more than you're giving him credit for.

The first proper Heavyweight champion of the gloved era you mean Ghosty, I presume?

If so, then as I said above, I agree it does make him a figure of significance, but I tend to see that now really as pure circumstance as much as anything else - beating Sullivan with the gloves on in 1892 was no great feat, for me. John L was a spent force by just about all accounts at that stage, had been largely inactive and was already busy drinking his fortune away. He'd boxed an exhibition against Corbett fifteen months beforehand and, according to most spectators, Corbett was using him as target practice even then.

I guess my main gripe is that I don't think it took a truly great fighter to beat that version of Sullivan.

After that, he successfully defended once in five years before Ruby Robert came back from the dead to upset him. In two subsequent title tilts after that, both against Jeffries, he was defeated inside-schedule both times. Now I'll stress that there's no shame in any of that, as Fitzsimmons was a freakish puncher, a pound for pound great and mixed it very well with quite a few men of Corbett's size, and Jeffries, at around 6'2" and 220 lb, was considered a giant in his day and was damn tough and hard-hitting to go with it. But at the same time, it's not exactly the kind of form line I'd expect from someone who gets talked up as a legend of the sport or someone who, so they say, had technique far beyond any of his contemporaries.

As I touched upon earlier, you can see the craft of Corbett in the bits of film which are available of him, but he wasn't alone in using his feet, timing and a jab.

Corbett deserves a place in history - I just feel that the one he has been given is a bit flattering to him.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Top 10 140lbs of all time.

10 - Wilfred Benitez
9 - Jackie Kid Berg
8 - Duilio Loi
7- Tony Canzoneri
6- Nicolino Locche
5 - Barney Ross
4 - Kosta Tszyu
3 - Antonio Cervantes
2 - Henry Armstrong
1 - Julio Cesar Chavez

I'll give you Chavez and Ross but the rest trail in Pryors wake for me.

Tzuyu didn't achieve anywhere near as much as Pryor not did Benitez, Berg, Loi, Canzoneri or Armstrong who I don't recall ever fighting at 140lbs. Cervantes he beat easily enough as did Benitez, the lowest I could possibly rate him is third with a very good shout at being number one.

Alexis Arguello was dominant at 135.....Great couple of wins for Pryor.......

Matchmaker was garbage but I don't see him as overrated.

In his whole 40 odd career he faced 2 atg's. Arguello and Carvantes.

Drugs and drink ruined what should have been a glittering career. Think you guys rate him according to his entertaining style which was special.

What all time greats were the majority of your top ten beating?

You seem to have come up with 7/8 random names to back up your claim is over rated.

Cervantes generally lost every time he stepped up in class
Loi was for the large part an european level fighter
Canzoneri lost about as many as he won
Armstrong never fought there
Benitez has a threadbare record at the weight
Tzuyu just wasn't that good
Berg same as Canzoneri

Locche, Ross and Chavez are the only three you could make an argument for having a better record at the weight.

They fought better fighters.

Who fought better fighters? They don't come much better than Arguello.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:They fought better fighters.

And lost.

Maybe not now but in 20 years time Joe Calazaghe will be massively overrated.

The majority of the boxing community back me on this. You guys need to name me 1 other name apart from Arguello to convince me.

Your number three for starters and who are the majority of the boxing community? As far as i'm aware Pryor is a consensus top three man at the weight.

Who exactly did Cervantes, Berg, Benitez, Armstrong and Locche beat at 140lbs? When all is said and down Pryors win over Arguello trumps them all, his 11-0 record in title fights trumps them all but Chavez.

Pryor and Aguello are both overrated.

They were involved in a couple of good fights against each other.

Big deal.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Pryor and Aguello are both overrated.

They were involved in a couple of good fights against each other.

Big deal.

In the words of Rowley, I have banned people for less!

Arguello over rated now that's an even better one.

Talk about prospects fighting bumbs?

Aguello was fighting guys with 0-4 records in something like his 30th fight.

Boom Boom? Watt?.... so what.

Castillo's record was padded. As to was ramirez'

You're basing your opinion based on that?

Bless him..

Mackem, it's true that Arguello fought a lot of patsies. So did Robinson, Chavez, Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Jofre, Duran and a host of other greats; up until the seventies, cramming a lot of these 'keep busy' fights in between world title bouts was common practice for a lot of the leading fighters in the world.

Remember that Arguello started very young, like a lot of Latin greats of his era. He was boxing for pay at sixteen with no reputation behind him. None of his opponents were hand picked and he didn't have powerful backers to plan a path to the top for him, ala some of our recent Olympians, for example. He was just another professional who had to fight regularly to make ends meet.

Once he got near the top, however, he also has twenty-two fully legitimate world title fights, spanning nearly a decade, against generally excellent opposition, going 19-3 in them. He lost his first world title fight and his final two, but inbetween that he was basically unstoppable across three weights and he never lost any of those titles in the ring. That first defeat was at Featherweight on points against Marcel, an excellent fighter and a huge step up for an Arguello who was really just a kid, and the final two were up at Light-Welterweight against maybe the most devastating fighter that division has ever seen - and even then, Arguello extended Pryor more than anyone else had managed before finally being stopped.

Great, great fighter and I don't think he's overrated at all. Not quite in the same bracket as the Sugar Rays, an Ali or a Fitzsimmons, but definitely in the class only just below them, along with guys such as Archie, Chavez and Louis. On the cusp of the top twenty of all time pound for pound in my eyes.

I think he's wumming..

Maybe, Truss.....Will leave that post there just in case, though!

I have to say, also, that I disagree massively with Mobile Master's choice of Pacquiao.

Overrated by his fanatical, verging on the nationalistic countrymen, perhaps. You know, the ones who suddenly started following boxing when Manny hit the big time and have spent the past four years of their life on YouTube leaving comments about how 'Gayweather' checks under his bed at night for Manny.

But honestly, Pacquiao is in danger of actually becoming underrated on here if anything if this unnecessary and daft dismantling of his record continues. It's amazing how much his stock seems to have fallen in recent times; far fewer were spouting this sort of stuff when he was absolutely hammering Hatton and Cotto, for instance. However, now that he's struggled again with Marquez and has clearly passed his peak, a lot more people seem desperate to stick the boot in and suggest that there must have been sinister reasons as to how and why Pacquiao managed to look so great between, say, 2006 and 2010, and that it was all just a case of careful match making and a great PR campaign.

Absolute cobblers, in my opinion.

I guess it's partly a case of how much weight you place on a boxer's 'post-prime' career tail. Bit like RJJ. If you stopped at Ruiz does your opinion of his standing differ from looking at his career in its entirity. Similar with Manny post Cotto, say.

The thing is, Top Hat, it's not even people's take on Manny's post-prime career that bugs me. It's the way his incredible peak is ridiculously almost discarded in some quarters. His wins over Barrera (first one) and Cotto are right up there with some of the very finest wins and showings by anyone in the past quarter of a century. Absolutely sensational, the pair of them in terms of how good the performance was, how much he tore up the script and how top-notch the opponents were at the time. His victories over Marquez (the 2008 one, which was perfectly legitimate for me) and Hatton aren't all that much behind.

But all we hear from some nowadays is that Barrera was unmotivated and had taken Pacquiao lightly, that Cotto was terribly weight drained and that making 145 lb had killed him, that Marquez II was a robbery and that Hatton was easy prey for anyone and fought the wrong kind of fight.

Don't see how Pacquiao can be anything other than an all-time great in the proper sense of the term.

Sven Ottke, by the Germans.

It's a shame that Boon isn't about just now, Mr Bounce - he always has some pretty tasty things to say about that era of 'German' Super-Middles / Light-Heavies including Ottke, Michalczewski, Beyer and Maske!

Oscar De la Hoya
Wladimir Klitschko
Bernard Hopkins

I actually think Tyson is generally underrated.

Duran was a legendary fighter. If you can't rate him, who can you rate?

It's not about rating Duran..It's where..

leave it out!!