More unpopular boxing opinions from v2

Afternoon fellas, hope that you guys are finding this first day back at work after the Easter weekend a little easier going than I am.

If you can forgive me for a blatant rip off, I'd like to resurrect a great idea of Adam's from all the way back in 2011 where we all voice our unpopular boxing opinions. This can be anything within reason; a fighter (either currently active or from back in the day) who you rate a lot lower than just about everyone else, a fighter who you rate higher than just about everyone else, your take on a certain fight or decision from any era, a minority view on how a hypothetical match up would go, etc. You get the picture.

This took off really well last time and, given it's been a slow day so far, hopefully this could give us all something to at least get our teeth in to.

I'll get the ball rolling with a few unpopular boxing opinions of my own, which tend to go against general consensus and ruffle a few feathers.....

* The Manny Pacquiao, Tim Bradley fight from last summer just wasn't anything like the highway robbery that just about everyone else reported it as.

* Roy Jones Jr starts as favourite against just about any other Light-Heavyweight who ever drew breath, with the exception of Bob Foster (Bob being the narrow-ish favourite, for me) and, perhaps, Ezzard Charles who I'd put at 50:50.

* James J Corbett is, perhaps, the most overrated fighter in history.

* Mike Tyson at his best would beat both Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes in their pomp.

* Tommy Ryan is the most underrated all-time great of them all - even more underrated (in relative terms, remember) than Mr Burley and Mr Langford.

Any more for any more, then? If you've got an unpopular boxing opinion that you feel sure plenty of people will disagree with, the floor is yours and hopefully it'll get the debate flying again.

Cheers, everyone.

Not sure this classes as controversial or unpopular but since you have mentioned him, give Langford a shot at Johnson anywhere between 1910 and 1914 and Sam beats him

Rocky.

I'll say no more......for now

*Lennox Lewis in his prime would have given any heavyweight in history a close match, including Ali.

*Tyson Fury is one of the worst heavyweights I've ever seen

*Manny Pacquiao is not in the top 20 ATG lists outside of individual weights

*Sergio Martinez is one of the best boxers in the world - top 3 P4P

*Timothy Bradley is utterly dross. Terrible technique. Ugly wins.

*Ricky Hatton was insanely over rated.

*James Degale is not a talent, he's actually urine poor.

The Klistchkos are overrated.

Carl Froch should have been in the top ten P4P for years.

Peak Dempsey beats Tunney, Louis and Foreman.

Hearns should rank higher P4P than Hagler.

None of the Marquez/Pacquiao fights were robberies individually.

James Jeffries would've been competitive in any era.

Holyfield is overrated.

Lennox had a good chin.

Pacquiao's an ATG. Weight stips didn't effect Cotto etc.

Ali v Foreman is Ali's most exciting fight.

John L Sullivan was actually black. White society didn't want a black man to hold to greatest prize and spread propaganda about him being white, brainwashing the public.

Look really closely.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

James Jeffries would've been competitive in any era.

Think you have misunderstood things John, he asked for controversial opinions.

azania wrote:Rocky.

I'll say no more......for now

Terribly underrated Az, I agree!

Rowley, Jab, that's the kind of stuff I'm looking for. Thanks.

Langford-Johnson II for the title is a tricky one, Jeff. As Langford himself said, in anything like his peak years he felt that "Johnson was the only man who ever really whipped me" and given the fairly conclusive nature of their first fight and the fact that Langford was so small in comparison (he was four stone lighter than Papa Jack when they first boxed, though of course Sam did grow in to his frame a bit more and the difference in weight second time out would have been considerably less), then yes, I think it does take quite a leap of faith to predict that Langford could turn things round from their first fight so much that he'd end up walking away with the win and title.

That said, there's always been a feeling that Johnson was perhaps already a touch past his peak when he finally got his hands on the title and, of course, he failed to shine in quite a few of his subsequent defences, so maybe Sam would have been able to pull it off as he was smack bang in the middle of his prime in the timeframe you mention and was on a superb run of victories against many of the leading Light-Heavyweights and fully fledged Heavies of the era.

Real food for thought.

Homophobia is far more prevalent in society than most people are prepared to admit.

Rowley wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

James Jeffries would've been competitive in any era.

Think you have misunderstood things John, he asked for controversial opinions.

Cheers for the laugh rozzers!

Me calling Haye a toe-rag never goes down that well.

Not a problem Az, is nice to be able to finally repay you.

The v2boxing podcast is worth a listen.

Froch is overated.

His technique is not great at all and gets credit due to travelling.

- Johnson was nearly 40
- Taylor was shot
- Mack useless
- Bute not that good and will be like Lacy when we look back in a few years
- Scraped past Dirrell
- Lost to 2 best fighters he faced and I think Kessler past his best for their upcoming fight

I must add I do like to watch his fights and like him as a person. His guts to take fights should be a lesson to all boxers....But, I just don't think he's all he's being cracked up to be

Adam D wrote:The v2boxing podcast is worth a listen.

Hahahaha

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Pacquiao's an ATG. Weight stips didn't effect Cotto etc.

Agree wholeheartedly, but would you really say that's a controversial or unpopular opinion?

Benn, Eubank, Watson and Collins are not as good as their reputation in Britain.

At least a level below the top fighters at the weight at the time.

Ricky Hatton has a greater record and legacy than Joe Calzage. JC unquestionably the more skilled boxer, but his record is almost entirely padding and doesn't include one win comparable to Kosta.

*Henry Cooper was over rated and moaned for years about the fight with Ali. Bugner beat him in a fair decision.

*Evander Holyfield would have crumbled against a Klitschko

*Vital Klitschko would have been knocked out against Lennox Lewis, and the decision to end the bout early was fair and just.

*Naseem Hamed was actually a very good boxer and should be an ATG in British terms and certainly a top 10 for his weight classes.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Ricky Hatton has a greater record and legacy than Joe Calzage. JC unquestionably the more skilled boxer, but his record is almost entirely padding and doesn't include one win comparable to Kosta.

Ah, I like it! Hope it gets a few bites. I disagree massively, suffice to say. Tszyu was a wonderful win for Hatton but, all things considered, Calzaghe's victory against Hopkins can't be too far away from it overall and, outside of those respective peaks, Calzaghe's career is comfortably better than Hatton's however you want to measure it.

If you can find a couple of posters who I agree, I'll be very impressed.....

88Chris05 wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Pacquiao's an ATG. Weight stips didn't effect Cotto etc.

Agree wholeheartedly, but would you really say that's a controversial or unpopular opinion?

A while ago, no, but many times lately I've seen him written off as a joke and paper champion by the uber fickle.

88Chris05 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Ricky Hatton has a greater record and legacy than Joe Calzage. JC unquestionably the more skilled boxer, but his record is almost entirely padding and doesn't include one win comparable to Kosta.

Ah, I like it! Hope it gets a few bites. I disagree massively, suffice to say. Tszyu was a wonderful win for Hatton but, all things considered, Calzaghe's victory against Hopkins can't be too far away from it overall and, outside of those respective peaks, Calzaghe's career is comfortably better than Hatton's however you want to measure it.

If you can find a couple of posters who I agree, I'll be very impressed.....

Ha! Happy to oblige, Sir.

Tbh, I don’t think it is that unreasonable. Though it has lots to do with the fact I simply don’t rate (or award ‘legacy points’) to longevity when it’s entirely of dross. JC’s career before Veit is pretty worthless, especially when looking at his title reign. From, and including, Veit he made 6 successful title defences followed by hopping up a weight for 1 final hurrah versus a fighter who’d lost 2 of his last 5.

The Hoppo win looks better and better with time as Berny eeks out dirty messy wins into old age, however he wasn’t Top10 p4p when JC fought him (or divisional #1 from memory) and JC scraped past him (losing on some people’s cards) whereas Hatton took out (and retired) a Top10 p4per, divisional #1 who’s only L on his ledger was several years and over a dozen fights earlier. Hatton also made 6 world title defences at LWW in his career, and whilst he lost one of them it was to Pacman – light-years ahead of any challenge JC took up. He also won a title at the higher weight (albeit struggling as JC did when jumping) before losing it to another fighter you wouldn’t mention in the same breath as any of JC’s opponents, PBF.

It’s a far far from water-tight argument, but not a totally unrealistic one either.

Kostya was also old and past his best when Hatton took him out.

Well I agree that a lot of Calzaghe's record in terms of longevity consists of chaff, TopHat. You can probably squeeze all of the meaningful nights of his career in to half a dozen fights or so, as you can for Hatton.

Hopkins may not have been the so-called 'lineal' Light-Heavyweight kingpin but he was the Ring Magazine 175 lb champion by 2008 and, in the furnace of his win over Tarver a couple of years beforehand, was the consensus top dog at the weight and I imagine would have featured in plenty of pound for pound lists, still (he certainly would have done a few months later after outclassing the hitherto undefeated and much-fancied Pavlik, anyway).

Calzaghe only just fell over the line in that one, but it's not dissimilar to Hatton, who spent much of the twelfth round hanging on for dear life agaisnt Collazo, doing only just enough in that one.

If someone puts Hatton's win over Tszyu ahead of Calzaghe's against Hopkins then I wouldn't take umbrage to it, but outside of that I can't see any area in which Ricky is superior. He tackled Mayweather and Manny, but the results of those fights make it hard to use that as much of a reason to put him ahead of Joe. Mayweather used Ricky's head as a speed bag from the middle rounds onwards and Manny absolutely annhilated him at his best weight.

Just as I can't rank Rees' achievement of simply getting in the ring with Broner as a superior achievement to Burns actually beating the likes of Katsidis and Moses, nor can I say that Ricky deserves more kudos for losing emphatically to those two than Joe does for his excellent wins against the likes of Kessler (a truly excellent victory) or Lacy.

azania wrote:Kostya was also old and past his best when Hatton took him out.

Said it wasn't water-tight

Would still say it was a better W than Hoppo for JC tho (manner, quality of opp, recent record of opp).

I'd say it was about equal. Look at what Hop went on to do.

Which is why I think the manner/conclusivity of the win is the differentiating factor.

As Chris's response alluded too, Calzaghe's jump up in weight to scrape a defining win is akin to Hatton who became 2-weight world champion by just getting over the line v Collazo.

My opening gambit was deliberately provocative (to help answer the OP), I think in reality all I'm saying is it's a lot closer than Ricky is given credit for (along the hardcore boxing community).

Rocky Balboa (as in the films he has starred in) have done more for people taking up boxing than Ali (the person not the Will Smith film)

Mike Tyson would be scarier if he was a girl.

Collins was crap and only ever became famous by beating the ghosts of Nigel and Chrith Who themselves are also slightly overated.

Well, t'was a good argument all the same, TopHat and as you say yourself, that's the whole point of the article.

Here's another one; Larry Big Pants did just enough to hang on to his title against 'Spoon, for my money.

Not controversial at all chris - I have been turned off Larry holmes by watching all his fights Perhaps not as great as I thought he was.

OK since these are meant to be controversial ones. Think Hagler is a little over rated. Very good middleweight obviously but not sure he deserves to be held in quite the esteem he is.

A fighter as allegedly great as he is has no business being pushed so close by Duran by that stage in Duran's career and whilst there is obviously controversy losing to a two year retired Leonard is something he should get more grief for as far as I am concerned.

Will await Atila to arrive and bust a spleen now.

Same with Hearns actually, ODLH before ODLH

Hearns over or under-rated Shah?

Overated slightly.

I'd go the other way tbh....

Donaire is P4P number 1 and has been since nearly decapitating Montiel, I find it truly staggering that some people have him as low as 5 at the moment.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I'd go the other way tbh....

Have you told your wife?

His talent was tremendous but he lost in every big fight (and some not so big) apart from Duran. ODLH, undoubtedly a great but still held in too high esteem by being banded together with Hagler Leonard and Duran.

I actually agree with lots of these. But the two Holyfield-bashing ones are criminal!

Holyfield crumbling against a Klitschko I can only assume means the 46 year old version because the versions that faced Bowe and Lewis would do nothing of the sort, Vitali doesn't punch hard enough while Wlad isn't aggressive enough.

1. Dempsey knocks either brother out within 2 rounds in a massacre similar but more cultured than the one he dished out to Willard.

2. I personally couldn't care less about Whitakers controversial losses and draws because he was so dire to watch he deserved such harsh treatment.

3. Hopkins beats Jones in a rematch

4. The british fab four of Eubank, Benn, Watson and Collins* aren't a patch on Froch and Calzaghe with all four losing comfortably to the pair of them.

5. Tommy Hearns is vastly over rated.

Agree with a lot of That but the silly fat Bar Steward Dempsey beat isnt a patch on pre steward wlad let alone the latter day version. Dempsey gets beaten up over several rounds and stopped. Too small, too wild, and far too easy to hit. Holyfield probably beats Wlad but gets throughly beaten to a pulp en route to a narrow UD Loss as Vitali piles on the punishment.

Well neither Bowe or Lewis beat him to a pulp so can't see Vitali doing it.

Willard wasn't exactly fat either.

On the subject of Dempsey just finished George Carpentier’s autobiography and as I am sure you are all aware he fought pretty decent versions of both Dempsey and Tunney and he says peak for peak Dempsey beats Tunney pretty handily. Says he was gobsmacked when Tunney beat Dempsey and there was no way the Tunney he fought would have beaten the Dempsey he fought.

Not massively relevant to the thread but thought I’d share it as it came as a bit of a shock to me, as you often hear folk say Tunney would have beaten any version of Dempsey. Not saying this automatically means it is not the case but thought his views on the pair was interesting. (they were to me anyway, but I don’t get out much)

Carpentier is a frenchman, if it don't have a white flag with it, its probably a lie.

Vitali wears and Tears, he has thudding sort of power, which really punishes the opponent thought rarely knocks him out clean. I know willard wasnt fat, but he genuinely was lumbering. Both Wlad and Vitali Pre surgery move better than him, jab better than him, and are overall just must much better.



Dempsey flattens marciano in 1 round

1. a fully motivated/commited naz beats barrera, and is at least 50/50 in a fight with morales, manny etc

2. tyson fury is better than people think and will hold a world title during his career

3. floyd will be beaten before he retires if he takes on the best

4. frank warrens company will turn a profit next year

*I don't think Broner is that good.

*Froch is better than most realise or give credit for.

*The sport needs a KO character like Nigel Benn with great publicity for the British public to get behind for boxing to become popular again.

*Haye does have the talent and punching power to beat every HW out there, including the K Bros. Given his pith-poor showing against Wlad though, he's unlikely to get the chance.

*David Price will comprehensively beat TT in his rematch.

*Tyson Fury will go no further than Euro-level.

Leonard beats Robinson...

P4p is a nonsense term. Why are we supposed to discount size. Can we discount speed?

On that basis Ali is the best boxer to have lived.

Speaking of Carpentier, there's another terribly overrated fighter in a historical context.

As for Dempsey-Tunney, I'm a little undecided. In his own autobiography, Dempsey states that he feels his peak ended when he fought Carpentier in 1921, and certainly by the time Gene usurped him in 1926 Jack had grown a little soft and complacent, as well as being very inactive at any meaningful level.

Dempsey wasn't all slugging it out and going for the throat every time - he did outbox Gibbons, after all - but I do think that Gene had all the tools to frustrate Jack and outscore him at any time. Tunney was always pretty big at Light-Heavy and I believe, by the time he was done with the Heavyweight division, he was tipping the scales at over 200 lb but looking pretty trim and in-shape doing so, so I don't think size would play that much of a part. Gene outmuscled Jack as well as outboxed him when they did meet and, though I might be in the minority, I tend to think that Tunney would always have unlocked him, albeit by a smaller margin had they met a few years earlier.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Leonard beats Robinson...

P4p is a nonsense term. Why are we supposed to discount size. Can we discount speed?

On that basis Ali is the best boxer to have lived.

I also think "pound for pound" is taken way too out of context. Especially for such a speculative concept to begin with.