Most Overrated/Underrated Heavyweights

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Sep 2004, 11:48

Sherlock wrote:Really good list dempseyfire. I've trying to but mine together now (at least the top 15) but remembered Sam Langford. He is a legit top 5 fighter ever in any class and an agrument can be made for number 1 fighter ever. He was only 5'8'' and was a top fighter in all divisions, from light to heavy. He is usually considered a heavy and accomplished a lot in all divisions. I've been trying to figure out where he goes on my list, so I was just wondering where he would go on yours. I'll post my top 15 list after I see your analysis of Langford.

I rank Langford more as a light HW, but overall other then Johnson and Jefferies I don't rate HWs pre-Dempsey, b/c there isn't enough (in most cases any) film and accounts. Of course, records alone will tell you the likes of Sam Mcvey and Fred Fulton were excellent fighters, but I feel its impossible to compare them to someone like Frazier, who's nearly entire career is available on high quality film. Maybe Joe Jeanette would've beaten Joe Louis . . . it's practically impossible to know. Jefferies is kinda in the same boat but so many respected writers claimed he was tops into the Louis and Marciano eras that I'll take their word for it, and the guy was unbeaten save the ill-advised Johnson comeback fight . . . .

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 26 Sep 2004, 13:28

I get what your saying. I'm trying to find more fight reports and tapes of other fighters. Heres my top 15 (not a final list)
1. Jack Johnson
2. Joe Louis
3. Sam Langford
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Muhammed Ali
6. Sonny Liston
7. Larry Holmes
8. George Foreman
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Mike Tyson
11. Max Schmeling
12. Rocky Marcaino
13. Lennox Lewis
14. Harry Wills
15. Joe Frazier
Others that are near or possibilities to enter my list are Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney, James J. Jeffries, Max Baer, and Evander Holyfield.

Opinions on my list or any of you who have a list but havn't posted it or someone who has an updated list are welcome to post. I like to see others list or discussions on lists. I like that this topic is getting some attention and is still going.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 26 Sep 2004, 18:01

Sherlock wrote:I get what your saying. I'm trying to find more fight reports and tapes of other fighters. Heres my top 15 (not a final list)
1. Jack Johnson
2. Joe Louis
3. Sam Langford
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Muhammed Ali
6. Sonny Liston
7. Larry Holmes
8. George Foreman
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Mike Tyson
11. Max Schmeling
12. Rocky Marcaino
13. Lennox Lewis
14. Harry Wills
15. Joe Frazier
Others that are near or possibilities to enter my list are Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney, James J. Jeffries, Max Baer, and Evander Holyfield.

Opinions on my list or any of you who have a list but havn't posted it or someone who has an updated list are welcome to post. I like to see others list or discussions on lists. I like that this topic is getting some attention and is still going.

You have Johnson #1 & Langford#3...not that I'm arguing, but with such poor film quality, and with everyone who saw them fight now dead, how can you tell how good they really were? I think Johnson is in the top 3 based on what I've read, but it's hard to call him #1 without being able to see what he could really do on some good quality film...you can see he had talent, but there also seems to be a lot of 'wrestling' and outrageous fouling...I saw a film of Johnson where he gets head butted a half dozen times in the same round...you see the ref saying something but the fouls continued...he looks good in the Burns film but Burns was a little guy, looks good in the Jeffries film but Jeffries was old & shot...what Johnson films to you believe best display his skills?

zslayton · Post by **zslayton** » 26 Sep 2004, 19:23

I thought we were talking the most overrated and underrated heavyweights. Since we are giving top 10-15 I will drop mine. I do have to say, with the exception of Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, I think the heavy's before Joe Louis were crap for the most part. I consider Langford a LHW so that doesn't include him.

1)Joe Louis
2)Ali
3)George Foreman
4)Sonny Liston
5)Evander Holyfield
6)Mike Tyson
7)Larry Holmes
8)Joe Frazier
9)Rocky Marciano
10)Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Lennox Lewis

There are few others that I would call great, but not many. I know that the Holyfield, Tyson, and Holmes picks will take some heat but it's my opinion, and you have yours. I like Holyfields toughness, heart, and the fact that nearly every heavy he fought was a bigger man, yet he beat them all while he was in his prime. I don't think a prime Holyfield fought Lennox Lewis. I think a prime Holyfield would have beat him. Tyson destroyed everything in his path until he destroyed himself. Holmes ruled a division that didn't have much for him to fight, but he still ruled it. Marciano is on here because he retired without a loss, but if he fought a prime joe louis he would have lost. Plus, I don't think he could beat any of the guys I ranked over him in their primes.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Sep 2004, 22:51

zslayton wrote:I thought we were talking the most overrated and underrated heavyweights. Since we are giving top 10-15 I will drop mine. I do have to say, with the exception of Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey, I think the heavy's before Joe Louis were crap for the most part. es.

How are they crap? So Gene Tunney is crap? Jim Corbett? Bob Fitzimmons? Harry Willis?? The teens was actually one of the deepest eras in the HW division talent-wise, the black 4 plus the White Hopes (Gunboat Smith, Luther McCarthy, Frank Moran, Fred Fulton etc.)

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Sep 2004, 22:55

Sherlock wrote:I get what your saying. I'm trying to find more fight reports and tapes of other fighters. Heres my top 15 (not a final list)
1. Jack Johnson
2. Joe Louis
3. Sam Langford
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Muhammed Ali
6. Sonny Liston
7. Larry Holmes
8. George Foreman
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Mike Tyson
11. Max Schmeling
12. Rocky Marcaino
13. Lennox Lewis
14. Harry Wills
15. Joe Frazier
Others that are near or possibilities to enter my list are Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney, James J. Jeffries, Max Baer, and Evander Holyfield.

Opinions on my list or any of you who have a list but havn't posted it or someone who has an updated list are welcome to post. I like to see others list or discussions on lists. I like that this topic is getting some attention and is still going.

Good list. I do believe you are severely under-rating Joe Frazier. And I don't believe Charles's career at HW justifies such a lofty ranking of him . . . . I'd also rank Holyfield over Tyson, but I can understand arguments to the contrary.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 27 Sep 2004, 07:10

I plan to drop Ezzard a little bit, as he was way more accomplished at LH. He is kind of like Jersey Joe, very talented but doesn't really have the accomplishments as the rest. Langford will probably fall a little but will remain top 10. My first two are set in stone, though.

In response to Sweet Scientist, I rate them highly because of accomplishments, ability, and if they fought the best of there era, regardless of how good or bad their era may have been. Tyson's and Lewis' eras were awful but that doesn't stop them being all-time greats. And to the fouls, that era was full of fouls by today's standards but were commonplace then. I believe it is unfair to take them out of there era and judge them, they should be judged by what they did. I see your point that there is little footage of boxers of that era, but that shouldn't make them take a lower rating then they should/could have just because there is no footage. If you're a baseball fan, most experts consider Babe Ruth the BEST ever and there is little footage of him either.

And I like that this has changed into a list. Most topics I see only last for a couple of posts. Mine has lasted a long time and is still going with excellent comments and posts. And their has been no agruments, which I have seen in other topics. I hope it continues for a while, as all the info and insight is great.

And I have a few Johnson fights, I'll check which ones soon. I believe they are against Frank Moran and maybe Gunboat Smith.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 27 Sep 2004, 09:30

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Sherlock wrote:I get what your saying. I'm trying to find more fight reports and tapes of other fighters. Heres my top 15 (not a final list)
1. Jack Johnson
2. Joe Louis
3. Sam Langford
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Muhammed Ali
6. Sonny Liston
7. Larry Holmes
8. George Foreman
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Mike Tyson
11. Max Schmeling
12. Rocky Marcaino
13. Lennox Lewis
14. Harry Wills
15. Joe Frazier
Others that are near or possibilities to enter my list are Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney, James J. Jeffries, Max Baer, and Evander Holyfield.

Opinions on my list or any of you who have a list but havn't posted it or someone who has an updated list are welcome to post. I like to see others list or discussions on lists. I like that this topic is getting some attention and is still going.
You have Johnson #1 & Langford#3...not that I'm arguing, but with such poor film quality, and with everyone who saw them fight now dead, how can you tell how good they really were? I think Johnson is in the top 3 based on what I've read, but it's hard to call him #1 without being able to see what he could really do on some good quality film...you can see he had talent, but there also seems to be a lot of 'wrestling' and outrageous fouling...I saw a film of Johnson where he gets head butted a half dozen times in the same round...you see the ref saying something but the fouls continued...he looks good in the Burns film but Burns was a little guy, looks good in the Jeffries film but Jeffries was old & shot...what Johnson films to you believe best display his skills?

If you can manage to watch the Ketchel and Williard bouts (when Jack goes on the offensive, his 5-7 punch combinations are some of the best I've seen besides Joe Louis), you can see that Johnson was one of the most talented HWs of all time. It's too bad all of the films we have are his championship defenses when he was not extending himself and was looking more to embarass his opponents then look like a killer. Reading the newspaper accounts of the fights, the Moran, Jefferies, and Burns bouts were rightly described as boring affairs and the writers agreed Johnson was not extending himself at all . . .

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 27 Sep 2004, 20:40

Decided to post a trivia question that deals with a heavyweight who has been named on this topic a few times. I posted here because I didn't want to start a whole new topic for something one of you might get in one guess or know already.

Tomorrow, September 28th is a pretty important date for one of the heavys named. It doesn't deal with there fighting career but there personal life. Let's see if anyone knows. I'll post tomorrow the answer if nobody gets it. And another hint is next year it would be a lot more special as it would be a milestone achievement few people achieve.

Tootall · Post by **Tootall** » 27 Sep 2004, 23:46

Overrated: Lennox Lewis- Never fought the best or fought them past their primes ( did he really prove that he was the better man in his two fights against an aging Holyfield ? ). And I can't think of another HW champ who was KO'd twice in his prime by average contenders; most champs throughout history have been stopped by future legends ( just imagine Joe Louis staying down against Tony Galento

).

Underrated: Gene Tunney- One loss in his career to Harry Greb (avenged what?4 times?) so why does everyone still rate Dempsey, the man he beat twice, ahead of him in all-time polls? I get the feeling that the defeat of Dempsey, the rugged hero of the roaring twenties, still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of fans who wanted to believe in the unbeatable Tyson of his day. Yeah, they say Tunney drew the colour line but so did Dempsey (against Wills). Oh, and that bad taste in the mouths of Dempsey fans is called sour grapes.

Lexus · Post by **Lexus** » 11 Mar 2005, 12:58

dempseyfire wrote:
IronKidDynamite wrote:
dempseyfire wrote: Liston is under-rated by younger fans (who only know the Liston of the controversial Clay fights). With Rocky, I agree with Carwash. Marciano is not a top 3 guy like some more fanatical fans assest, but top ten no question. Marciano was not nearly as crude as some make him out to be-crude realtive to master boxers like Charles and Walcott, but compared to todays clumsy fools he'd look pretty fast and skillful-he could fire very fast hooks on the inside, and had a very under-rated stiff jab. Not to mention excellent power and being one of the top 5 best conditioned athletes of all time.

In my opinion, the most over-rated HW champion of all time will always be Mike Tyson. Had a formidable run in his late 80s title run, but his wins over Holmes and Spinks in retrospect are really nothing to write home about. And really, Thomas, Tubbs, and Tucker were good HWs, but all were technically very flawed fighters, not to mention the most discplined or conditioned guys in town. Mike never in my opinion proved he could hang at all with those I'd put in my top 10 HWs of all time. Top 20, but def. not one of the best, and that includes prime for prime matchups. No-other fighter has recieved more "he is unbeatable" acclaim after watching the likes of Michael Johnson and Dave Jaco get pummelled into oblivion. Wlad Klitschko beat bums of similar calibre in equally devastating fashion, but his hype machine and highlight reels never really made it overseas. Thus, you have wierd Germans on sites like this still spouting that Wlad is still one of the best HWs of all time . . . . people bought into the hype way too easily . . .

Under-rated . . . . there are many. Ron Lyle and Jess Williard are a couple that come to mind . . . . .
What is your top 10 HW list just curious Dempsey. Or if you don't have one, which HWs you believe greater than Tyson?
IKD-I know you like Tyson, and trust me I wish a young Mike was around today to take out the garbage. He was a very very good HW fighter, but did not do enough to get into the top 10 for me . . . my list . . . and the guys after Johnson can interchange from day to day-it's by no means set in stone.

1) Joe Louis
2) Cassius Clay/Ali
3) Jack Johnson
4) George Foreman
5) Joe Frazier
6) Jack Dempsey
7) Rocky Marciano
8) Sonny Liston
9) Larry Holmes
10) Jim Jefferies
11-15 would be something like this:

11) Jersey Joe Walcott
12) Evander Holyfield
13) Mike Tyson
14) Max Schmeling
15) Lennox Lewis

A big part of my rankings is the depth of their respective eras and their competition, which to me is more important then formal accomplishments. So while Lewis from a statistical standpoint is up in the top 10, his quality of opp in my opinion was weak enough to put him lower . . .

I was just curious why dempseyfire rates Sonny Liston over Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 11 Mar 2005, 14:04

quality of opp is a big factor for me, and Liston cleaned out what was a deep late 50s-early 60s division while Patterson and jail time ensured him waiting awhile for a title shot. Dejohn, Valdez, Machen, Williams, and Folley were all excellent wins and Patterson was no slouch either, as his later performances against Chuvalo, Bonavena, and Quarry proved. Liston´s reign was not very good due to the tarnished Clay fights but he was at least in his mid 30s by the time he won the title and the 2nd fight for whatever reason is clearly not on the level.

Lewis held the title for longer but wins over the likes of Botha, Briggs, Grant, Rahman, Morrison, and a shot Tyson do not an all time great make, plus the two KO losses to fringe contenders and the debatable decisions against an old Evander and Mercer.

Holyfield´s run at HW from 88-94 was outstanding, with wins over Foreman, Thomas, Tyson, Bowe, and Mercer. But he didnt dominate his comp as Liston did and his problems with an old Foreman, Cooper, and Moorer suggest he really didnt have the toolchest (firepower, adapbility, defense) of the very best. What he did have was an all time great heart and chin, and in an era of underachieving and overweight HWs (Bowe, Mercer, Moorer 11) he excelled.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 11 Mar 2005, 14:28

My top 5 all time heavyweights are:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 11 Mar 2005, 14:33

I think Oliver McCall is overated by many.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 12 Mar 2005, 15:17

.....zurd...i just got around to checking this thread out because i already know who the most over and under rated heavyweights are and don't need to read anything on the subject.

but...i noticed you were the only one who listed tommy burns. certainly one of the most interesting and underated fighters ever. he was just 5'7" for god's sake...and had a terrific muscular build. maybe he doesn't belong with the top heavyweights.....too small...but he was good enough to win in that division in his day. i'd say he surely was a good light heavy and his record calls for more study. (by somebody else....i'm still nursing my knee injury and can't reach the books on my bottom shelves.)

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 12 Mar 2005, 16:08

Underated Tim Witherspoon, Gene Tunney, Larry Holmes, Ken Norton

Overated Wladimir Klitchsko, Ray Mercer, Ingemar Johannson.

Brown Bomber · Post by **Brown Bomber** » 24 Jun 2005, 06:26

dempseyfire wrote:quality of opp is a big factor for me, and Liston cleaned out what was a deep late 50s-early 60s division while Patterson and jail time ensured him waiting awhile for a title shot. Dejohn, Valdez, Machen, Williams, and Folley were all excellent wins and Patterson was no slouch either, as his later performances against Chuvalo, Bonavena, and Quarry proved. Liston´s reign was not very good due to the tarnished Clay fights but he was at least in his mid 30s by the time he won the title and the 2nd fight for whatever reason is clearly not on the level.

He did have some very good wins, Of particular note are those over Cleveland Williams. The Machen fight was impressive too, but allegations swirled after the fight about Eddy having vision problems very similar to what Clay experienced later on when he fought Liston. Officially he won the title against a very skilled, but very weak-chinned and much smaller Patterson at the age of 30. I know there is controversy over his date of birth, but we have 1932 to go by in an official sense. Liston was a bona fide HW. Patterson, though very skilled, looked like he belongd in a different weight class. He was perceptibly smaller than Liston and was never blessed with much power to start with. The fights with Clay/Ali were disastrous. One indicated a propensity to cheat and to quit when the going got tough - the other was an outright dive. Many, many points off. You know that. He also did next to nothing in his career after the Clay/Ali debacles

dempseyfire wrote:Lewis held the title for longer but wins over the likes of Botha, Briggs, Grant, Rahman, Morrison, and a shot Tyson do not an all time great make, plus the two KO losses to fringe contenders and the debatable decisions against an old Evander and Mercer.

Lewis had wins over Mason, Biggs, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Mercer, Klitschko, Tua, Holyfield, and Golota in addition to the ones you cite. I add some of these for completeness because you referenced several wins that Liston had while he was NOT yet champion either. I think Lewis' body of work is better than Liston's on balance. He has the blemishes of losses to McCall (arguably premature) and a debacle against Rahman, but in the end he fought very solid opposition and beat every man he faced at least once. And he sure as hell never quit in any fights.

dempseyfire wrote:Holyfield´s run at HW from 88-94 was outstanding, with wins over Foreman, Thomas, Tyson, Bowe, and Mercer. But he didnt dominate his comp as Liston did and his problems with an old Foreman, Cooper, and Moorer suggest he really didnt have the toolchest (firepower, adapbility, defense) of the very best. What he did have was an all time great heart and chin, and in an era of underachieving and overweight HWs (Bowe, Mercer, Moorer 11) he excelled.

How could Evander NOT be as dominant as Liston when latter had exactly one defense of the title??? Since that Liston "domination" came at the hands of a small and terrified Patterson who he had annihilated in one round already, while Holyfield defended his belt(s) several times against very good opposition, I just don't see this argument washing. When you factor that Holy came up from being possibly the best cruiser in history to have enormous success at HW your agument is gone. It is arguable that Liston fought and beat a comparable level of competition to Holyfield prior to winning the title, but surely title longevity, even if splintered in Holyfield and Lewis' era, must count for something. Let's not forget that Liston went 2-2 in title fights.

Don't get me wrong - I too think Sonny Liston was a tremendous HW who could rule today's mess with relative ease if focused. But his career was far too inconsistent and his title run far too brief to be compared in overall terms with Lewis or Holyfield. I rank both of these men above Liston (who I vacillate over ranking above or below Tyson). In terms of pure talent Liston is there, but not if any comprehensive approach is taken.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Jun 2005, 08:30

MOST OVERATED:

james jeffries- the boilermaker is the most overated heavyweight of all time. he is not a top ten. once again it was hard to see his fights and also the man had only 19 fights????? does that make it a legit career???? he beat a much smaller bob fitzimons but the nwas outboxed by an old corbett for 20 rounds before knocking corbett out. tom sharkey was his best contender he beat and he wasnt even a highly regarded heavyweight. and everyone pus jeffries in the top 10. only 19 fights?? i also think had he fought johnson in his prime he would have been knocked out.

Jack Johnson- i hate to say it. i have the man in the top ten, but every list i see from you guys, u experts have him top 3. I dont think hes a top 3 heavyweight. i mean its hard to see him fight clearly with the bad filming not to mention he didnt fight the toughest of opposition. he was so much bigger and stronger than ketchel and burns. ketchel even floored him. i think he would have beat a prime jeffries also. he is only slighty overated. he would have to change his style if fighting today becaue he was so defensive and didnt take enough risk which could make him be outpointed.

evander holyfield- the guy has the heart courage and mentallity of a champion. but his best days were at cruiserweight. he only got into heavyweight division because he juiced up. the man always had trouble with the bigger guys. holyfield had a bad style for the bigger guys and was easily outpointed by bowe and lewis. he also got outpointed by mike moorer and an old foreman gave him trouble. not to mention ancient larry holmes givcing him loads of trouble early on and nearly being kaod by bert cooper. just because he rose from agony and defeated mike tyson everyone has him in their top ten list. i still think tyson of 88 would have kaod him. holyfield lost to a lot of the top champs of the nineties and his best days were at cruiserweight. the thing with holyfield is HE HAD THE HEART AND WARRIORS MENTALITY, BUT HE LACKED THE ONE PUNCH POWER THAT THE DEMPSEY AND MARCIANO HAD. MARCIANO AND DEMPSEY HAD THE HEART AND COURAGE LIKE HOYLFIELD BUT ALSO HAD THE BETTER TOOLS LIKE PUNCHING POWER. THATS WHY DEMPSEY AND MARCIANO CAN BEAT THE BIGGER STRONGER MEN. HOLYFIELD DOESNT HAVE THAT PUNCHING POWER.

most underated: i dont have time to give responses right now.

the most underated heavyweight of all time is jersey joe walcott in my opinion. he is a bernard hokpins. he would give a lot of the all time greats a shit load of trouble. to go along with his cute style and walcott shuffle, he also possesed a lethal left hook.

other underated heavyweights are
Lennox lewis, floyd patterson, joe frazier, MAX SCHMELLING, rocky marciano, ezzard charles.

i feel jack dempsey is neither overated nor underated. he had his underated parts and overated parts.

im out ill see u guys on tuesday. GOING TO OASIS CONCERT THAN OFF TO MAINE.

Chuck1052 · Post by **Chuck1052** » 24 Jun 2005, 15:33

Although Tyson had tremendous talent, he didn't have the
desire or the discipline to be in the class of Muhammad
Ali and Joe Louis. Yes, Evander Holyfield didn't have
the talent of a Mike Tyson, but the former had tremendous
desire and discipline. I think that Holyfield was a better
fighter than Tyson. There are people who feel that Tyson
was better. As a result, I think that Tyson is overrated
while Holyfield is overrated.

- Chuck Johnston

aliISoverrated · Post by **aliISoverrated** » 25 Jun 2005, 03:18

Ali is by far the most overrated athlete of all time

most underrated by the public: ruiz , poor boy

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 25 Jun 2005, 04:21

underrated: Holyfield. Only a fool would say that Tyson or Bowe or Lewis was more talented than Holyfield (the only heavy in that mix that fought all those others..at least twice each). I would say those three were much bigger, physically, and/or/both younger, in years.

overrated: Tyson. I wouldn't pick him over any consensus top-ten all-time heayweight. You know, his fans are quick to point out that he KO'ed a 38 yr old Holmes that hadn't fought in two years (and that looked like over-the-hill CRAP when last we saw him against an underwhelming Spinks). Maybe McBride TKO'ing a 38 yr old Tyson means something after all, by their same logic.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 27 Jun 2005, 21:52

My "most overrated" list includes Holyfield, Ali, and Liston. Holyfield was/i very courageous, has a tremendous physique, and always seemed to try hard. He didn't punch that well, throwing a lot of punches with arms and sometimes shoulders; despite is vaunted 'boxing skills' he never showed any aptitude for avoiding jabs; despite his 'incredible' chin Bowe hurt him a number of times before, in III, knocking him out cold, and if Cooper and Ruiz had a clue how to finih a man Holyfield would be fighting Tubbs on ESPN next week. Ali, well, I'm real tired of most of the world acting like he was the only guy to fight that matter, of him being portrayed like a god when he was a human, albeit with fast hands, and he ruined the way boxing is perceived and taught and fought around the world. He did everything wrong but it is now accepted as 'right' so each generation of new boxers has less skill than the one before. He is considered great defensively and he was not; too often his antics left him out of range to counter and I believe that moronic tatic of standing with the gloves to your head like earmuffs. A 'boxer' now is one that scurries around the ring floating butter-fly kiss jabs and saying that a guy likes to work in close is to imply that he is unskilled and barely out of the caves. Oh and boxing now has trash talk; it is called being a showman, I believe. Liston; how and why he could be considered great has always escaped me. He was 35-1 when he beat a terrified Patterson, then there were the two pathetic losses to Ali. After that he had 16 fights-going 15-1 - but only facing one ranked fighter and that fighter knocked him dead. There is nothing- not one single thing - in his record that justifies his lofty ranking on the all-time lists. He beat a champ that was afraid and essentially surrendered by walking straight to Liston; he quit twice against Ali. He's no all-timer.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 28 Jun 2005, 00:32

.....i think marciano may hold the distinction of being both the most over rated AND under rated of the heavyweight champs.. just depends on who you talk to. when a radio computer match up was done yeara ago he and dempsey were the two remaining finalist...and marciano ended up winning.

..an argument for demspey too can be made for being both over and under. when joe louis was champion a poll of sportswriters named dempsey as history's best, and most fantasy matches had him kayoing the bomber. then..late and after louis' reign the writers picked louis. i think a lot depends on who is the really good fighter when one starts watching boxing. the old old timers are gone and dempsey doesn't get that much acclaim.....some of the newer guys pick ali.

i belong to the joe-louis-was-the-greatest-school...but then, what do i know? i may just be affected by the fact he was the great one when i started following boxing.

now that ezzard is getting some of the acclaim he rightly deserves i go for gene tunny as being highly under rated.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 28 Jun 2005, 11:11

My most underrated list includes Jim Corbett and Max Schmeling. Corbett falls into that era of the first gloved fighters; that generation of boxers gnerally gets little if any respect or consideration. I was very suprised at the response to the post on that subject a few weeks ago; in any other gathering of boxing fans that I can imagine it would have been quite different. Corbett lost to Fitzsimmons and Jefferies and I have no way of knowing if he could have defeated Ossie Ocasio or Tony Galento but how he would fare in fantasy bouts is irrelevant. If for no other reason Corbett should always be held in esteem for the extent to which he revolutionized boxing. I'm sure there were other fighters utilizing movement and emphasizing defense, making it a more strategic contest- if that is the correct word- but it is Corbett that Tunney and so many others mention as being their inspiration. Schmeling is remembered by most as the guy Louis crushed. They forget the right hand that Dempsey and Walker called the best they'd ever seen. His first fight with Louis is brillant, a tatical masterpiece: he fought Joe Louis and turned it into a battle of his right vs. the Louis jab and kept it that way. There were a mere handful of exchanges, and those were short lived. One of my favorite fights to watch.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 28 Jun 2005, 11:39

tiredoldngrey wrote:My "most overrated" list includes Holyfield, Ali, and Liston. Holyfield was/i very courageous, has a tremendous physique, and always seemed to try hard. He didn't punch that well, throwing a lot of punches with arms and sometimes shoulders; despite is vaunted 'boxing skills' he never showed any aptitude for avoiding jabs; despite his 'incredible' chin Bowe hurt him a number of times before, in III, knocking him out cold, and if Cooper and Ruiz had a clue how to finih a man Holyfield would be fighting Tubbs on ESPN next week. Ali, well, I'm real tired of most of the world acting like he was the only guy to fight that matter, of him being portrayed like a god when he was a human, albeit with fast hands, and he ruined the way boxing is perceived and taught and fought around the world. He did everything wrong but it is now accepted as 'right' so each generation of new boxers has less skill than the one before. He is considered great defensively and he was not; too often his antics left him out of range to counter and I believe that moronic tatic of standing with the gloves to your head like earmuffs. A 'boxer' now is one that scurries around the ring floating butter-fly kiss jabs and saying that a guy likes to work in close is to imply that he is unskilled and barely out of the caves. Oh and boxing now has trash talk; it is called being a showman, I believe. Liston; how and why he could be considered great has always escaped me. He was 35-1 when he beat a terrified Patterson, then there were the two pathetic losses to Ali. After that he had 16 fights-going 15-1 - but only facing one ranked fighter and that fighter knocked him dead. There is nothing- not one single thing - in his record that justifies his lofty ranking on the all-time lists. He beat a champ that was afraid and essentially surrendered by walking straight to Liston; he quit twice against Ali. He's no all-timer.

Right before the 1st Liston-Clay fight, Joe Louis himself said the Sonny Liston ranked with the all time greats...Everyone else was saying the same thing...that Liston was a monster...terrific boxer AND puncher...super left jab...unbelievable reach (84")...technically sound...prison hardened...one mighty tough SOB...then along comes fast young Cassius Clay, an 8 to 1 underdog who pulls off the upset...and all of a sudden Liston's a bum...BULLSHIT...Liston was good, damn good...he'd clean up any heavyweight since 1985...when he lost to Clay in '64...he may have been as old as 36-37, some posters to this forum have suggested he was over 40...he was certainly older than the 32 he claimed...old age catches up with everybody sooner or later...Liston belongs in the top ten...and he'd give a lot of the all time top ten heavies big time trouble...styles make fights...Ali had the perfect style to upset an old Liston...

Most Overrated/Underrated Heavyweights

Overrated and Underrated Fighters