Who are the most underrated fighters of all time?

First topic message reminder :

Ayup chaps, everyone enjoying Lent?

Anyway, inspired by Trussman's 'Who is the most overrated fighter in history?' thread (it's James J. Corbett, by the way!), I thought I'd see if anyone is interested in looking at the other side of the coin and see who we think the most underrated fighter(s) to have graced the sport are. I'll get the ball rolling with a few candidates of my own - let me know what you think of the names I've picked, if you agree or disagree, and let me know who you think deserves consideration here, and in what context you feel they're underrated.

First up for me, Tommy Ryan. I remember when Jimmy Stuart coined the term 'the pound for pound great that nobody remembers' to describe Ryan, and he was right. Ryan was a two-weight world champion in the days when there were only five weight classes (Light-Heavyweight, Lightweight and Flyweight didn't come in to existence until after Ryan's days as world champion) and, to this day, not a great deal of fighters have done the proper, legitimate Welterweight / Middleweight double like Ryan did. He was beaten only three times in 105 professional contests; two of them were to Charles 'Kid' McCoy, one hell of a fighter in his own right, and the other was on a disqualification. He served as Welterweight champion for five years between 1891 and 1896, seeing off the likes of 'Mysterious' Billy Smith and the great 'Nonpareil' Jack Dempsey, before increasing weight (the Welter limit stood at 142 lb at the time) forced him up to Middle. There, he took the title in 1898, made five successful defences and then hung up his gloves while still champion, after which there was no universally accepted king of the Middleweights until Stanley Ketchel. And yet, outside of the obsessives, the lad hardly gets a mention.

Next, Ronald 'Winky' Wright. Perhaps more 'underappreciated' than underrated, if that makes any sense, but either way a fighter who never quite got his just dues. A road warrior of the highest order, I believe he was ripped off against Vargas (not helped by giving away the twelfth round, but still!), unlucky not to take the Middleweight title from Taylor and roundly avoided by a few big names from the late nineties to around 2005 / 2006. Either way, a fine technician with a superb defence who had some great attacking fighters - Vargas, Mosley, Trinidad etc - looking pretty toothless. In particular, his masterclass against Trinidad showed Winky at his very best.

Wesley Ramey. When fighters as great as Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Henry Armstrong and Lou Ambers are all, either reportedly or visibly, reluctant to defend their world Lightweight / Light-Welterweight titles against someone, you know that someone is a special fighter. Canzoneri, a bonafide pound for pound great in his own right, did square off against Ramey in a non-title bout in 1933; but once he'd been on the wrong end of a wide decision, he flat out refused to risk his 135 lb belt against the same man, even reportedly turning down a guarantee of $25,000 - a huge amount for a title fight outside of the Heavyweight division in the Depression years - to do so. Lou Ambers, another Lightweight legend, showed no interest in taking Ramey on in his time as champion. When Ambers did lose his crown, it was to the hard-punching Lew Jenkins - a man who Ramey had already beaten twice. Despite having virtually no knockout power of his own, Ramey also managed to defeat world champions of the calibre of Johnny Jadick, Benny Bass, Leo Rodack and Battling Shaw, and was described by historian Laurence Fielding as "one of the great scientific boxers of the thirties, a Corbett (!) or Tunney of the Lightweights." A great fighter sadly forgotten and overlooked.

Terry Norris, anyone? When Norris retired in 1997, only two men (Joe Louis and Julio Cesar Chavez) had ever boxed more world title fights, a pretty remarkable feat considering that Norris was still only thirty when the curtain came down on his career. Three separate times he battled back from a shocking setback or adversity to establish (or re-establish) himself as one of the world's best fighters; after suffering a sickening second-round stoppage against Julian Jackson for Jackson's WBA 154 lb belt in Norris' first world title outing, after being surprisingly flattened by Simon Brown in what was expected to be a routine thirteenth defence of his WBC Light-Middleweight title in 1993, and after a pair of almost identical disqualification losses to Luis Santana a couple of years later. Between all of that, however, there were some fantastic performances thanks to his sublime speed, great reflexes and dazzling punch power, with the two standouts being his thorough outclassing of future WBA Middleweight champion Jorge Fernando Castro and his revenge win over Brown in 1994. If the first Brown fight showed the erratic Norris' vulnerabilities, the return highlighted what a wonderful talent he was and, by rights, he should really have been a superstar. Instead, despite his huge talent and many years at the top of the 154 lb weight class, he's often seen as a mere afterthought when we think back to the 1990s.

And finally, Gene Fullmer. Unfairly overshadowed in many respects by Carmen Basilio and Jake La Motta when Middleweight boxing of the fifties and early sixties is remembered, but Fullmer, the son of Utah Mormons, beat Basilio twice and certainly deserves to command a higher rank as a Middleweight than Carmen, and is quite simply a far greater fighter than La Motta in all capacities and from whichever angle you choose to view them from. More or less split a four-fight series with an older but still great Robinson down the middle (consensus is that their drawn fight should have been ruled in Ray's favour) and there are very few 'safe' defences on Gene's ledger once he got his hands on the 160 lb title. Before that, his only real loss of any signiciance was to Eduardo Lausse - but let's not forget that Lausse was, perhaps, the best 'career' Middleweight to have never won the divisional crown. A top ten Middleweight of all time, in my humble opinion.

So come on then, lads. Who else should be included here? If they're underrated in your eyes, then give them their moment in the sun now. Cheers, everyone.

Why would they be ranked above SRL? Doubtless Hank was an exceptional boxer but taking all things into consideration, how does his achievements surpass SRL. Also add into the equation their relative skill levels.

Atila wrote:

azania wrote:SRL getting more scrutiny than others again it seems. Name me another boxer with that type of names on their ledger. Are they scrutinised in the same manner? His only rival SRR gets so many passes its like watching Barcelona. The names on SRL's record is better than those of SRR.

And as a fighter there is none better. SRR gets another pass because he was like a BMW in an era of Model T.

What do you mean when you say 'his only rival SRR?". Henry Armstrong is another one that I'd rank above Leoanard too.

Maybe Armstrong didn't look as stylish as Robinson and Leonard, but for me he's not far behind Robinson in the record department (if he's behind at all) but he's ahead of Leonard.

I'll add that his only divisional rival. Lest we recall SRR was best at WW and decidedly average at MW.

azania wrote:Why would they be ranked above SRL? Doubtless Hank was an exceptional boxer but taking all things into consideration, how does his achievements surpass SRL. Also add into the equation their relative skill levels.

Well Leonard was a better all-rounder than Hank, for sure. Leonard was very good in all areas while Armstrong was pretty average in some but then absolute exceptional in two or three others to make up for it.

However, while I'll happily argue that Leonard's actual record isn't as threadbare as others think, there's no way his pure accomplishments can compete. As Welters, the pair of them are interchangeable for the all-time number two spot behind Robinson, the difference being that Leonard did it as a good-sized and very natural Welter, whereas Armstrong was, at best, a natural Lightweight who was simply great enough to basically clear out a good Welterweight division while seldom scaling more than 140 lb, and sometimes even being inside the Lightweight limit.

To me, Armstrong's triple of the Featherweight, Lightweight and Welterweight titles (as well as a dubious draw for the Middleweight one) all in the space of two and a half years while often being outweighed is the greatest feat in boxing history, and his opposition was pretty awesome, too; Ross is a greater pound for pounder and a greater Welter than Benitez, while Ambers could easily find himself knocking on the door of the ten greatest Lightweights ever.

I believe Leonard deserves to make the top ten but Armstrong can be no lower than number two, for me.

Fair enough. But..naturally..... as I stated, taking things into consideration. Whilst Armstrong was exceptional, with the technology, diet, training etc, he would not be able to compete effectively. In today's sport Armstrong would be at best a LW because his weight would be optimised. Most of those guys could have cut weight better with the sports science that developed from the 1960s onwards.

So on paper, holding all those belts at the same time is highly impressive (it is regardless of paper) it has to be put into context. Boxers of today can simply not do that.

We always make allowances for boxers of yester year but do not cut the same slack for more modern boxers. One loss and the guy's a bum. Those guys can lose and it will be excused away.

Still, the 4 guys SRL beat is beyond parallel. No-one has done what he did. He was also a small WW to boot.

I tend to agree with you Chris and I do think your point was very fair. I do not regard Duran's pre-fight preparations as an excuse, in the sense that they excuse him of any fault. However, I think they are one of a number of reasons, which include Leonard's excellent attributes and tactical execution, that contributed to the performance.

Beyond parallel, a very sweeping statement that simply isn't true.

Duran- Great win but he was not a great welterweight, still a fabulous win but we can't ignore the fact he lost first time out against a career lightweight.

Benitez- I don't rate Benitez as highly as others, he was very good but his star shone far too little for me to consider him great, an unfulfilled talent

Hearns- Great win no doubt

Hagler- Past his best so to say he beat him at his absolute peak is a bit of a stretch for me

A few names who have a very comparable quartet of wins.

Ali- Frazier, Foreman, Liston and Norton
Charles- Burley, Moore, Bivins and any of Marshall, Maxim, Walcott or Louis
Tunney- Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier and Levinksy
Robinson- Angott, Gavilan, Basilio and Graziano
Greb- Walker, Loughran, Tunney and Rosenbloom

There is more to a record than just four names, all of the above have far more depth than Leonard as well as having comparable best wins.

I don't get where the idea of Robinson being an average middleweight comes from, it's as if people ignore his retirement before he came back and started losing a lot more, in a head to head with Leonard well he's a reasonable favourite for me. He struggled with tough pressure fighters who smothered him for the full 15 rounds, he was never outboxed.

The "fact" that he wasn't "in shape" is just a convenient excuse. He wasn't a good loser.

ANY VERSION of Duran who turned up for SRL-2 would have lost. Ray had worked him out by then and boxed smart.

Yeah Duran was fairly skilled but SRL was something else.

If ATG lists didn't factor in unique achievements or social impact or whatever, and instead, were based PURELY on TALENT and HEAD to HEADS..... then he's nailed on top 3.

I'd have him around the 6 mark I think Mackem

1. Robinson
2. Charles
3. Whitaker
4. Mayweather
5. Hearns
6. Ali
7. Leonard

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'd have him around the 6 mark I think Mackem

1. Robinson
2. Charles
3. Whitaker
4. Mayweather
5. Hearns
6. Ali
7. Leonard

.....but closer to 7! haha!

I meant to change it.

I'd have the same names on my list too, but with the addition of RJJ.

I'd have forgotten about sweet pea (as most do).

And the rest of the names would move around depending on what day it is.

Burley would be another who could potentially be up there but having not seen enough of him couldn't include him.

Ali- Frazier, Foreman, Liston and Norton
Charles- Burley, Moore, Bivins and any of Marshall, Maxim, Walcott or Louis
Tunney- Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier and Levinksy
Robinson- Angott, Gavilan, Basilio and Graziano
Greb- Walker, Loughran, Tunney and Rosenbloom

Norton? Please.
I'll go with SRR and make the simple point in that Hagler and Hearns would have beaten all of them (opponents) with relative ease. Basilio was a good fighter but lets be serious, he was no great shakes. A face first Hamsho clone and certainly not in Hagler's lleague, who would have been blasted away without much fuss. See Duran/Hearns for what would have happened to him.

You say that Hagler was past it. But seem to forget that SRL was coming off a 5 year lay off.

You mark him down against Duran as Duran being a career`LW and not a great WW. But (correct me here please) wasn't Gavilan a LW also?

There are holes in all boxers resume if you want to find it. But apply the same princuiples across the board when looing at fighters who you choose not to rate highly or higher.

How Pernell is 3 is beyond me.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Beyond parallel, a very sweeping statement that simply isn't true.

Duran- Great win but he was not a great welterweight, still a fabulous win but we can't ignore the fact he lost first time out against a career lightweight.

Benitez- I don't rate Benitez as highly as others, he was very good but his star shone far too little for me to consider him great, an unfulfilled talent

Hearns- Great win no doubt

Hagler- Past his best so to say he beat him at his absolute peak is a bit of a stretch for me

A few names who have a very comparable quartet of wins.

Ali- Frazier, Foreman, Liston and Norton
Charles- Burley, Moore, Bivins and any of Marshall, Maxim, Walcott or Louis
Tunney- Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier and Levinksy
Robinson- Angott, Gavilan, Basilio and Graziano
Greb- Walker, Loughran, Tunney and Rosenbloom

There is more to a record than just four names, all of the above have far more depth than Leonard as well as having comparable best wins.

I don't get where the idea of Robinson being an average middleweight comes from, it's as if people ignore his retirement before he came back and started losing a lot more, in a head to head with Leonard well he's a reasonable favourite for me. He struggled with tough pressure fighters who smothered him for the full 15 rounds, he was never outboxed.

Depth? They were fighting weekly for wages when guys like SRL were in the gym having serious sparring sessions which equaly those guys weekly fio=ights - which were nothing more than glorified sparring sessions.

I apply the same principles Az you seem to think it's a given that his four wins are the be all and end all when they are not as for Gavilan he was a career welterweight who would have a reasonable chance against Hearns. Hearns losing to Barkley twice makes me think Basilio would have a reasonable chance as would Graziano.

Gavilan for me is the best win either of the sugars achieved.

You don't have glorified sparring sessions against the quality Charles and Robinson were facing, anyway i'm done doing this old vs new again as you know sod all.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You don't have glorified sparring sessions against the quality Charles and Robinson were facing, anyway i'm done doing this old vs new again as you know sod all.

You dont have 130 fights and claim none were just fr padding and no more than sparring sessions. Its not old v new. Its the quality of opponents. SRR may have more depth but SRL has more quality.

If we limit it to four fighters then possibly but Robinson has depth of quality.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I apply the same principles Az you seem to think it's a given that his four wins are the be all and end all when they are not as for Gavilan he was a career welterweight who would have a reasonable chance against Hearns. Hearns losing to Barkley twice makes me think Basilio would have a reasonable chance as would Graziano.

Gavilan for me is the best win either of the sugars achieved.

And Gavilan better than Hearns? So what if Barkley beat Hearns. Didn't plodders like Turpin , Fulmer and others beat SRR? Hagler would have criminally assaulted the guys SRR lost to.

Its not just 4 fighters and you know it. Its his career post 1979. You may as well ficus on SRR being 5 times MW champ and ignore the fact he lost it 5 times.

What does a newbie have to do to surpass SRR as the P4P 1?

Like he criminally assaulted Duran, Mugabi and Antufermo first time around, you're impossible to debate with because of your ridiculous exaggeration, i'm out.

Once again, such scrutiny on some boxers but a pass for others.

Once again, such scrutiny on some boxers but a pass for others.

Donald Curry...............Simon Brown......Mike Weaver................Michael Nunn...........

Can see your point with three out of the four there Truss, or at least two. Nunn is definitely too readily forgotten and maybe people still underestimate what a special Welter Curry was. Weaver is only underrated in the sense that a lot of people seem to think he's one of the worst Heavyweight champions ever, when he's clearly not. Should certainly have held the WBA belt for a little longer had it not been for that ridiculous stoppage against Dokes.

Not sure I'd agree when it comes to Brown, though. Good fighter but I think he gets enough credit. Was being outboxed for the most part by Blocker before Blocker decided to go and slug it out with him in the tenth (what a mistake!), sparked Norris with a possibly illegal shot before being completely outboxed in the rematch, handily beaten by McGirt in an admittedly brilliant performance by 'Magoo' and, outside of that, pretty much beat the guys you'd expect him to beat and lost to the guys you'd expect him to lose to. As I said, very fine fighter but gets enough recognition for me.

He had a long reign at welter though chris..........as well as part unifying..

Tyrone Trice was a respected fighter and favorite and he beat him twice...

Forgotton man is Simon...

Interesting point, Truss. Would be interesting to see what others think about Brown. He was, after beating Blocker anyway, without doubt the top man at Welterweight for a while so definitely a fine operator. Maybe I'm not giving him enough credit for the Norris win because, although the shot to finish the fight was a bit of a dodgy one, he was actually getting to Terry from the off and would probably have got him out of there eventually if Norris had kept fighting to recklessly.

I just tend to think that boxers who could jab while going away and who could keep him on the outside would always have done for Simon. But I guess that makes it even more impressive that he managed to beat rangey technicians like Norris and Blocker, so you might be right after all!

Brown has had the funniest KO loss I can recall. Completely flattened but he continued jabbing whilst on his back.

Not too many Brits mentioned here, but who would you nominate from these shores?

Ghosty put forward Watt and I'd agree he's definitely underrated. A mate of mine who is a boxing fan to a reasonable kind of degree, upon seeing Watt announced as a former world champion on a Sky broadcast a couple of years back, actually exclaimed to me "Wow, I didn't know that Watt was actually a boxer himself!" which says a lot when you consider that his achievements easily eclipse some of his more 'famous' countrymen.

Some genuinely excellent wins to Watt's name with Davis Jr and Nash being the pick of the bunch for me, Davis being the highly-touted Olympic golden boy and Nash because it was an absolutely brutal shootout, like a Hagler-Hearns of the British ring.

The only thing I'd really quibble is listing O'Grady as a good win for Watt. For me, that should be seen as one of the most disgraceful nights in British boxing of the post-War era, and if there had been any justice it would have been O'Grady walking away from Glasgow with the title.

Three horror shows there for me; first off, Watt's blatant butts and the fact that the referee seemed so happy to let him get away with it. Next, the fact that the referee somehow failed to recognise that it was butts which opened up the cut on O'Grady's forehead, meaning he awarded a TKO instead of going to the scorecards. And finally, the scorecards themselves which somehow showed Watt unanimously ahead despite O'Grady clearly outboxing him! Game as Jim was, he was in all sorts of trouble and O'Grady was easily on top before having the Glasgow kiss put on him.

To make matters even worse it seems that the referee totally caved in to the pressure coming from the crowd (fight programmes and bottles being chucked in to the ring, etc) to somehow let Watt escape with his title.

I think Watt got away with murder in more ways than one in that fight and I'd probably have his fine losing efforts to Buchanan and Arguello higher up on his CV than his win against O'Grady, although it doesn't detract from the fact that he was still a damn good fighter and certainly an underrated one, despite my ranting! Open to the right hand but had a cracking one himself, very tough, a pretty canny operator and had a massive heart. Definitely too easily forgotten in some quarters.

azania wrote:Brown has had the funniest KO loss I can recall. Completely flattened but he continued jabbing whilst on his back.

Certainly some black humour to be had. Vincent pettway the opponent I think.

Brown went on a good run after the starling loss, but other than Norris and blocker, the record is light on names. Certainly slips under the radar though.

Talking of simon's, i noticed recently Harry Simon is doing a toney and back fighting as a cruiser. Any thoughts on what might have been with Simon. Beat winky, in a close fight, made some uninspired defences of his wbo strap for a while and then had an enforced layoff.

The watt o'grady fight, i remember back in the day chris. o'grady had a bizarre career, building some numbers fighting a bum a month in his home town. they send him like a lamb to the slaughter as a teenager against danny lopez. Then he goes back to his home town fighting more bums of the month for a few years, and then reappears as an early 20 something with a stack of fights under his belt being shipped off to England to fight watt. Some none traditional career management.

Your summation of the fight is pretty accurate Chris, I don't remember much of the crowd 'interaction' but O'Grady got jobbed. Always chuckle when I hear watt talking about fighter's use of the head.

As for O'grady, think we all expected him to go on to bigger and better things.. But he didn't!

Aye, O'Grady was a strange one. He was managed and trained by his dad though and those kind of relationships always tend to end up with some dubious match-making or odd decisions. Wasn't he still only seventeen with virtually no valuable experience when they chucked him in with Lopez?

And what was his old man playing at when O'Grady got his hands on the WBA belt? Arguello apparently offered him a mega-money unification showdown but Pat O'Grady convinvced his son to bin his WBA title, basically made up his own WAA 'world title' for him to have and then convinced him to 'defend' against Ganigan for peanuts compared to what he'd have earned against Alexis.....And he got flattened before retiring at the age of just twenty-four! Seriously strange career.

Everything is relative...Not suggesting Simon belongs at the top......

Just that Breland, Starling, Honey all seem to keep him in the shade...

An argument that he belongs above them all...........

Wasn't O'Grady a boxing analyst later?

O'grady and Marvin Hagler both won world titles with O'Grady's own self- founded organisation in the late 70's.........AAU world belt or something...........

Great performance by O'Grady to beat the much fancied Hilmer Kenty though...
for a more desired version..

O'Grady senior was a real character.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Everything is relative...Not suggesting Simon belongs at the top......

Just that Breland, Starling, Honey all seem to keep him in the shade...

An argument that he belongs above them all...........

Fair points, I did say he slipped under the radar.

Brillant concept from the o'grady's. I 'm declaring myself the middleweight MBA champ. (Milkyboy boxing association, lest you were wondering)

Any fat 40 something's with a big yellow streak want to challenge me?

Under MBA rules, middleweight is what my fighting weight should be, it's fine to come in a few stone over providing its all fat.

milkyboy wrote:

Any fat 40 something's with a big yellow streak want to challenge me?

Are you calling me out Milky?

...And I thought I was being subtle. I'll come to South Yorkshire but only if the money's right...

Open to purse bids, but winner takes all at a pizza hut all you can eat buffet, should seal the deal.

...And I thought I was being subtle. I'll come to South Yorkshire but only if the money's right...

Open to purse bids, but winner takes all at a pizza hut all you can eat buffet, should seal the deal.

He said middleweight..........

He also said it was fine to come over a few stones as long as it is all fat. Trust me Truss I more than comply with the commission rules.

I'll fight him as long as there are no complaints If I weigh in at 160 ..and then come in at 210 on the night...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll fight him as long as there are no complaints If I weigh in at 160 ..and then come in at 210 on the night...

Resting your gut on the towell rack for the weigh in I take it, Truss?

I too am inspired by O'Grady. I'm declaring myself the 'Over 23 but under 25 and called Chris' world champion. I challenge anyone to fight me for my O23BU25ACC crown......Except girls, because as Truss will tell you, I don't do very well against them.

You're beef though truss, we're looking for lard. you'd have to drop the supplements and head for Burger King to qualify.

What does Chris weigh in at, he loses to girls... Might make him my mandatory

I've always enjoyed a whopper....

88Chris05 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'll fight him as long as there are no complaints If I weigh in at 160 ..and then come in at 210 on the night...

Resting your gut on the towell rack for the weigh in I take it, Truss?

I too am inspired by O'Grady. I'm declaring myself the 'Over 23 but under 25 and called Chris' world champion. I challenge anyone to fight me for my O23BU25ACC crown......Except girls, because as Truss will tell you, I don't do very well against them.

Ah youve trapped yourself there my friend. Onetwo has opened a discrimination case against you. Superflyweight has taken up the case and rowley has paid his fees so the next years awards are his.

Just to throw a spanner in the works you should collapse 88Chris05 and open up 88chris05.

I need to bring this back up again, Joe Louis' footwork is grossly underrated.

I've just watched some of ODH vs FMJ. Joe's feet are ten times better than ODH's....and ODH is a welterweight, or less.