who is most overrated on boxrec, who most underrated?

[evrenb]

Spoon was inconsistent as hell, at his best he was a handful for any Heavyweight in history. He took a dive against Smith to get away from King. Not a dive in a sense that he was paid, but a eff this dive.

Agree,

Tim Witherspoon's 'F-Off' was the same as Sonny Liston's 'two splashes' against Cassius Clay.

It just wasn't worth the aggravation anymore.

I know you would turn any situation into an Ali thread but will you go suck cocks in hell...?

[man]

x4 on Liston being overrated

i think he used to be seen only as the guy who was
humiliated by ali and the board - in her infinite wisdom -
went out to correct that view.

[man]

Any minute now somebody will post that Tony Tubbs would have beaten both Klits on the same night.

really?

[man]

Under: pre-Joe Louis eras

i find it extremely difficult to judge this era with
hardly any footage. i for one believe that fighters
from this era would look today almost super human
regarding toughness, but almost amateurish when it
comes to technique.

yet i'm aware that my boxing insight is very limited.
i might have a totally wrong view. to me tunney was
the turning point in technique, while dempsey was
coming from the earlier, strong man era. i think the
jack of 1919 would not do very well today. he would
find it difficult to land anything meaningful in the more
compact posture of the modern boxer while facing
opposition that reads his punches much earlier than
he was used to back in the day.

[keithmoonhangover]

Any minute now somebody will post that Tony Tubbs would have beaten both Klits on the same night.

really?

Some posters on here have lists of fighters that would beat Wlad. Some of the names on these lists were beaten by journeymen, but could some how beat the guy currently dominating the heavyweight division.

I wonder how people would think of Wlad and Vitali, if they were African Americans.

[man]

I wonder how people would think of Wlad and Vitali, if they were African Americans.

don't think it's a race thing ... these days most
people here - above 14 - see their pros and cons
pretty objectively.

[Ezzard]

Under: pre-Joe Louis eras

i find it extremely difficult to judge this era with
hardly any footage. i for one believe that fighters
from this era would look today almost super human
regarding toughness, but almost amateurish when it
comes to technique.

yet i'm aware that my boxing insight is very limited.
i might have a totally wrong view. to me tunney was
the turning point in technique, while dempsey was
coming from the earlier, strong man era. i think the
jack of 1919 would not do very well today. he would
find it difficult to land anything meaningful in the more
compact posture of the modern boxer while facing
opposition that reads his punches much earlier than
he was used to back in the day.

It’s just an odd way of thinking about it. My car would be the fastest thing on four wheels 100 years ago…doesn’t make me an ace driver…

There were great fighters back then and there are great fighters today.

[keithmoonhangover]

It’s just an odd way of thinking about it. My car would be the fastest thing on four wheels 100 years ago…doesn’t make me an ace driver…

There were great fighters back then and there are great fighters today.

When we compare fighters in a dream match, Jack Johnson vs Lennox Lewis for example, I think people tend to imagine what would happen if Jack Johnson fought in the 90's. I also think of how Lennox would have coped fighting back then. The fights tended to be in the afternoon, in the open air with the sun blazing. Jack had a knack of turning opponents, so the sun was in their eyes. Then there were the extra rounds, the different training methods, diet, etc.

[man]

It’s just an odd way of thinking about it. My car would be the fastest thing on four wheels 100 years ago…doesn’t make me an ace driver...

it always depends on the assumptions for these
comparisons. dempsey, time travelling right after
willard to ali, holmes or lewis would not go the
distance with either man IMO. the reason why he
lost aainst tunney was 40% the layoff and 60%
the new style. the only reason why he was still
competitive was the fact that tunney was a very
light heavy.

no, you wouldn't be an ace driver in 1913, but
neither would be the back-then-champ today.

btw the only alternative to the paradigm shift
theory within boxing in the twenties is that no
such shift did occur. i find that hard to believe.

[man]

When we compare fighters in a dream match, Jack Johnson vs Lennox Lewis for example, I think people tend to imagine what would happen if Jack Johnson fought in the 90's. I also think of how Lennox would have coped fighting back then. The fights tended to be in the afternoon, in the open air with the sun blazing. Jack had a knack of turning opponents, so the sun was in their eyes. Then there were the extra rounds, the different training methods, diet, etc.

totally true. whenever it comes to enduring
difficulties the old timers dwarf almost all
current guys. these were tough, tough men.

[drunkenpiper36]

Not sure if I'm answering the question correctly, but if this is about who is currently most overrated on boxrec, then my answer is probably Tim Bradley. I believe he is ranked right around #4 p4p, which doesn't seem right to me when the two men who rank just beneath him in his OWN weight class, were arguably robbed against him.

As for who is underrated? My vote would be Chris John. Undefeated in 51 fights with something like 19 world title fight wins, yet he's virtually invisible.

[drunkenpiper36]

Overrated and Underrated

Sonny Liston, no doubt a very good fighter, and the Best Heavyweight from 1959 thru 1963.

But some say, he was protected. Clearly older than he claimed to be. So, for an old man he
did very well.

Bouts with the following would have told us more.
* Ingemar Johansson
* Harold Johnson
* Archie Moore
* Eddie Machen II
* Doug Jones
* Ernie Terrell
* Zora Folley II
* George Chuvalo
* Cleveland Williams III

Post 1965, his wins were 'decent', with some quality scores.

From 1959 to 1961, he basically crippled an entire division and some of those rematches you suggested weren't even necessary. I mean did people really need to see him mop the floor with Williams a third time? Also, George Chuvalo was barely ranked when Liston challenged Patterson for the title so that proposal is irrelevant, as was Ernie Terrell. He defeated everyone he needed to, and in most cases, in devastating fashion...

[drunkenpiper36]

"Il Duce"]Mr. Piper,

I think a bout between Sonny Liston and George Chuvalo in late-1964 or early-1965
before the rematch with Cassius Clay would have told us more about Sonny Boy.

It was never going to happen. Liston's handlers weren't going to risk blowing the rematch for the title, and even if chuvalo had won, he would have been in there with a past prime Liston anyway. The fact is, these two men's careers never crossed when either were at their best.

A third bout with Cleveland Williams was actually on the table for September 1963.

Those early KO's over the Big Cat were in {April 1959} and {March 1960}, which was
a long time away 3+ years.

Perhaps.. But Cleveland was at his best or near best for those two fights and lost both of them in a combined 5 rounds. I personally don't think boxing needed to make a trilogy out of it.

[man]

moderator, please close this thread.
thank you.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Any minute now somebody will post that Tony Tubbs would have beaten both Klits on the same night.

really?

Some posters on here have lists of fighters that would beat Wlad. Some of the names on these lists were beaten by journeymen, but could some how beat the guy currently dominating the heavyweight division.

I wonder how people would think of Wlad and Vitali, if they were African Americans.

Wlad has been beaten by journeyman too. I won't even bother with the last sentence.

[drunkenpiper36]

Some talk on this thread about Tim Witherspoon. I agree with those who say that he was underrated. While he failed to impress and was inconsistent, the man was a two time world title holder, held a few regional belts, was ranked a combined 10 years by the ring magazine, and defeated Tony Tubbs, Greg, Page, Renaldo Snipes, Bonecrusher Smith, James Broad, Quick Tillis, Frank Bruno, Jose Ribalta, Carl Williams, Alfred Cole and was arguably robbed against Mercer... He also fought Larry Holmes to a near standstill with only 15 fights behind him.. While others may scoff at his career, I have him in my top 30 heavyweights.

[Ezzard]

no, you wouldn't be an ace driver in 1913, but
neither would be the back-then-champ today.

And Shakespeare? He'd never be able to learn how to use Microsoft Word?

[man]

no, you wouldn't be an ace driver in 1913, but
neither would be the back-then-champ today.

And Shakespeare? He'd never be able to learn how to use Microsoft Word?

i admit my defeat.

[polecateddy]

no, you wouldn't be an ace driver in 1913, but
neither would be the back-then-champ today.

And Shakespeare? He'd never be able to learn how to use Microsoft Word?

It's ironic what passes for wit in this day and age!

[Ezzard]

Polecat

Are you insinuating that the witticisms of yesteryear wouldn't last more than a couple of rounds with the jokes of today?

[Ezzard]

i admit my defeat.

There's no doubt that boxers today are primed physically in a way they didn't used to be. I'm not saying its better or worse. But whenever I ask who has the fastest hands in boxing history other than Ali, Floyd Patterson and Robinson everyone else listed will be form the last 20 years or so... Boxers are doing something to make them quicker. I've got a good idea what it is...

My point is simply that if you have physical talent and mental strength to be great today you'd have been great abck then too...and vice versa...

[man]

i admit my defeat.

There's no doubt that boxers today are primed physically in a way they didn't used to be. I'm not saying its better or worse. But whenever I ask who has the fastest hands in boxing history other than Ali, Floyd Patterson and Robinson everyone else listed will be form the last 20 years or so... Boxers are doing something to make them quicker. I've got a good idea what it is...

My point is simply that if you have physical talent and mental strength to be great today you'd have been great abck then too...and vice versa...

i think technique changed too, like it did it many
other sports. is not necessarily obvious. but small
things can make big difference. if i had to describe
it, it is a more compact stance, chin down, rather
bending a little forward, avoiding wild swings, more
countering. a lot of small changes that make a
substantial difference in sum. today you simply see
no one standing as straight up as did somebody as
late as max baer. i think as well that the jab gained
importance as an offensive weapon. i could imagine
larry holmes would look totally awkward to a boxing
fan of 1910. i am not sure if punching technique as
such did change as well. generally i would say punches
gained in precision and are thrown more spontaneous,
if that wording makes sense.

[Counter-puncher]

Polecat

Are you insinuating that the witticisms of yesteryear wouldn't last more than a couple of rounds with the jokes of today?

[keithmoonhangover]

I won't even bother with the last sentence.

Why not? The Klitschkos are racially profiled by plenty of people that class them as robots and because English is not their first language, they also suffer prejudice. Because of those and other factors, they have never been accepted by the American fans.

Would you agree that it's harder for non-American fighters to be accepted by American fight fans?

[keithmoonhangover]

Would you agree that it's harder for non-American fighters to be accepted by American fight fans?

Roberto Duran
Alexis Arguello
Manny Pacquiao
Julio Cesar Chavez
Kid Gavilan
Jose Napoles
Salvador Sanchez
Kostya Tszyu
Azumah Nelson
Naseem Hamed
Marco Antonio Barrera
Erik Morales

The list could go on for pages.

All in all that statement is fuckin bull shiit.

Nice list, but my question wasn't which fighter have been accepted. I asked if it's harder to be accepted.