List Your Top 10 Most Overrated Heavyweights Of All Time

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 10 Aug 2007, 00:45

Decagon wrote: 7. Wladimir Klitschko - No explanation needed. #63
8. Vitali Klitschko - No explanation needed. #64

Why don't Klitschko haters get that NOBODY rates the Klitschko brothers, not to the hall of fame, among the best heavies ever, hell not even in their era! NOBODY rates them ever! Hell if you put them in the middle of Times Square, no one would know that they're even boxers!!!

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 10 Aug 2007, 07:42

Decagon wrote:He beat Joe Louis. Why wouldn't he beat Foreman?

He beat an ageing Joe Louis, wouldnt mean he could beat a peak Foreman

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Aug 2007, 08:46

Decagon wrote:
dr_devious wrote:
Decagon wrote:He beat Joe Louis. Why wouldn't he beat Foreman?
He beat an ageing Joe Louis, wouldnt mean he could beat a peak Foreman
Why not? Foreman always had trouble with boxers and movers. All of his big wins were against fighters who basically stood in front of him. When faced with movement and defense, like Ali and Young gave him, he didn't fare so well.

A peak, well prepared Walcott would have been a nightmare for the over-rated Foreman.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Aug 2007, 09:39

Decagon wrote:
dr_devious wrote:
Decagon wrote:He beat Joe Louis. Why wouldn't he beat Foreman?
He beat an ageing Joe Louis, wouldnt mean he could beat a peak Foreman
Why not? Foreman always had trouble with boxers and movers. All of his big wins were against fighters who basically stood in front of him. When faced with movement and defense, like Ali and Young gave him, he didn't fare so well.

Actually, Ali didn't move around on Foreman.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 10 Aug 2007, 11:03

Walcott's style could well have given Foreman problems, but I reckon Foreman would catch up with him at some point and knock him out

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 10 Aug 2007, 11:16

All the pre-1900 heavies.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Aug 2007, 11:20

JCS wrote:All the pre-1900 heavies.

B/c they fought bareknuckle?? That's a ridiculous thing to say.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Aug 2007, 12:19

JCS wrote:All the pre-1900 heavies.

I’m sorry, but your statement doesn’t make much sense.

Considering that few people around today even know who they were, and very few of them are ever mentioned when it comes to ATG lists, the opposite is more likely true. People are almost always more likely to regard the athletes of their own era as superior to those of other eras, and the farther removed the athlete, usually the less credit he is given.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 10 Aug 2007, 12:26

dempseyfire wrote:
JCS wrote:All the pre-1900 heavies.
B/c they fought bareknuckle?? That's a ridiculous thing to say.

I was gonna throw Dempsey in there as well. How ridiculous would that have been?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 10 Aug 2007, 17:19

Lennox Lewis.

Every time I see him rated in the top 5 EVER heavyweights on forums I want to puke.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 10 Aug 2007, 17:30

Decagon wrote:Lots of people rank them among the top 20 or 30 heavyweights of all time.

Who?

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 14 Aug 2007, 23:52

..rocketrig.....nice response.....you didn't fall into my trap that i often set to get guys to frothing at the mouth and comiong back with personal attacks in violent verbiage.

my spyware isn't sophisticated enough yet to observe you at awkward moments, so relax. i'm still months away.

re: cockell and marciano. i didn't think much of cockell after he was beaten up and knocked out by jimmy slade, who was strictly a spoiler...lost while making the other guy look bad and wasn't a kayo puncher.

as for the marciano affair, it's been a long time since i've watched this, can't dig it out from the pile.....but i did hear it on radio live and i remember the tape/film well. i was impressed by cockell's courage. there were a couple of times when he could have fallen gently to the canvas and no one would have blamed him. maybe he didn't do that though, when you consider that being on the canvas was not a safe place to be, as marciano landed some of his hardest shots when cockell was down there. marciano, whom i have always considered a deliberately dirty fighter, got by with a street mugging in that one with his assortment of un-dainty tactics. if the fight had been held in london, he would have been disqualified, and not because of home town bias....just better refereeing. i think i remember cockell getting in one good hard right hand that made marciano stop for a second or two, but i might be wrong. whatever, cockell came away from that one, as one-sided as it was, with nothing to be ashamed of.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 15 Aug 2007, 00:06

From what I understand the Cockell fight was supposed to be a big hoax, in the sense that people would actually think it was going to be a fight. Goldman, Weil, matched Rocky against Cockell because it was supposed to be any easy night, an easy defense for the Rock.

Rocky, as always, fought Cockell inside a 16x16 ring and hadn't trained as much as he usually done---expecting that Cockell would be easy. What Marciano got was a real fight, and Rocky eventually got the upper hand, employing every tactic and power punch to drop Cockell over and over.

It was the ONLY time Marciano ever under-estimated an opponent, and he more than made up for the debacle when he fought Moore and trained as hard as ever and dropped Moore a staggering 5 or 6 times inside of 9 rounds; most of those rounds ending with Moore all but out on his feet and being shoved back into the ring after the minute interval was up.

Cockell was a good fighter, yes, and is sadly laughed at due to his "conditioning" because he appeared to be fat, when in fact it was all due to a condition he had that made him appear to be chunky, thyroid disease or something. I recall Marciano on his tv series at one point talking about Cockell, laughing while watching the film of their fight and he kept saying "That fat man really came to fight!" or "That fat man could punch!"

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 15 Aug 2007, 12:51

So far the totals as best I could tabulate them.

1.Rocky Marciano 7
2.Mike Tyson 7 (Marciano had more 1st place picks)
3.Wladimir Klitschko 5
TIE WITH 4
Jack Dempsey
Jersey Joe Walcott
Jack Johnson
Vitali Klitschko
TIE WITH 3
Max Baer
Sam Langford
James J Jeffries
Muhammad Ali
Sonny Liston
Gene Tunney
Joe Louis
Ike Ibeabuchi

Not a single mention of Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier or Ezzard Charles.

A couple comments. In my opinion, Mike Tyson was overrated in the 80's, mainly by casual boxing fans who put him on a pedestal. That's definitely not the case anymore, as I imagine there are people on this forum who believe Sharkey, Schmeling, Charles or Patterson could outpoint him. Ike Ibeabuchi get's rated highly on the basis of his POTENTIAL, which was tremendous.

theone · Post by **theone** » 15 Aug 2007, 21:38

I imagine there are people on this forum who believe Sharkey, Schmeling, Charles or Patterson could outpoint him.

All four would be lucky to get past the 1st round against prime Tyson.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 16 Aug 2007, 09:50

I make a distinction between overrated on the boxers of the past forum, and overrated in general.

On this forum:
1. Jersey Joe Walcott - Lost fights in the early, middle, and end of his career. There is always an excuse.
2. Jerry Quarry- Yes he was better than some heavyweight champions. However the love affair has gone on enough. He gets talked about 10x as much Jimmy Ellis and he wasn't better.
3. Archie Moore- As a heavyweight he had two big fights (Marciano and Patterson) and he got knocked out both times. Feasted on 2nd rate heavyweights instead of fighting Folley,Williams,Machen,Johannson or Liston.
4. Ezzard Charles-Was a mid-level heavyweight champion, not a great heavyweight champion as many posts seem to indicate.
5. Bob Satterfield - Won less than 2/3 of his fights, was knocked by many guys, and scored ko's in less than half of his fights. Yet there have been threads praising him.
6. Nino Valdes - almost as bad as Satterfield.
7. Tim Witherspoon- I like him too, but why is he almost always considered better than the other alpha champs of the 1980's?
8. Jack Sharkey-Only Andrew Golota found more ways to lose.
9. Max Schmeling-Gets a ton of credit for beating Louis who was having an off night, gets almost no criticism for his pathetic performance in the rematch. Looked bad against Baer, lost to Hamas, won the title on a foul.
Actually gets praise for stopping little Mickey Walker in 8 rounds.
10. Rocky Marciano- Many people on this thread realize his limitations, but many are still obsessed with the cute stories and the undefeated record.

Overall
1. Tyson-Some people just love the great highlights of his knockouts over lesser fighters and make excuses for his losses.
2. Marciano-there are many people that don't really know boxing that are way over-impressed with his record.
3. Vitali Klitschko-Two big fights in his career and he lost them both.
4. Wladimir Kltischko- Stamina,and cluelessness of what to do when hurt, don't seem to be the major problems they once were. Still has no chin.
5. Ibeabuchi- Could have have been good, but who knows? Gets way too much attention.
6. Tony Galento- Scored a knockdown against Louis but so did other guys. Had virtually no boxing ability. By far the most significant win of his career was over Lou Nova. There is actually a book out on him now. He should be forgotten.
7. Chris Byrd - I like him too, but some people go overboard about his elusiveness. Was very lucky that Klitscko quit, could only get a draw against Golota, didn't deserve the decison against Oquendo. Completely dominated by Wladimir Klitscko. Defining wins were over a washed up Holyfield and and a lethargic Tua.
8. Jess Willard- Is completely undeserving of being in the International Boxing Hall of Fame.
9.George Godfrey-Is completely undeserving of being in the International Boxing Hall of Fame.
10. Jim Braddock-Deserves credit for making the most of his opportunity against Baer. However, he doesn't deserve to be in the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 16 Aug 2007, 11:50

I'll make some enemies for saying this, but just missing my top 10 I'd have Joe Frazier. Sure he had alot of heart and was always exciting, but he only had 37 fights, and he got demolished in 2 of them, and stopped in another. Yes, I know the Thrilla In Manila was an alltime great fight, but ultimately Frazier lost, and I typically find it hard to credit a boxer for a fight he lost, unless the circumstances are unusual. In addition, Frazier had one huge win in his career, and after that there's a big drop off in the talent level of fighters he beat.

As for his attributes, Frazier had a pretty good chin, but it wasen't great. He got dropped twice by Oscar Bonavena and once by Jerry Quarry, though he was saved by the ropes. He bobbed under Ali's jab alot in the first fight, but generally speaking his defense was poor, and his philosophy of "I'll always take a punch to land a punch" was a recipe for disaster against a bigger puncher like Foreman, who would have KO'd Smokin Joe 10 times out of 10.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 16 Aug 2007, 12:22

Aggressive, pressure fighters like Frazier get hit more than slick boxers who think defensively first.
However, for his style, Frazier was difficult to hit because he moved his head a lot when he came in. He was a better defesive fighter than other fighters with his style, such as Demspey,Marciano or Tyson.
Yes he would always be in big trouble against Foreman, but Frazier would be a handful for anyone else.
Any fighter with Frazier's style would be in major trouble against Foreman.
Frazier didn't have a lot of fights, but he had a lot of quality wins.
He beat Quarry twice,Bonavena twice,Ellis twice,Mathis,Bugner,Chuvalo and of course Ali.
That is much more impressive than someone who has a lot wins over mediocre competition.
How many heavyweights in history could have fought the opponents that Frazier did in his 37 fights and only lose 4 times? Four or five? Not many more. There is no way that he is overrated.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 16 Aug 2007, 12:55

Frazier better defensively than Mike Tyson ??? Up till 1989 Tyson had excellent head movement and was very adept at slipping punches and countering. The only reason he got KO'd by Buster Douglas was because by 1990 he settled into almost total reliance on his punching power, and he displayed almost no head movement. Huge difference in the pre 1990 and post 1990 Tyson.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 16 Aug 2007, 14:31

Yes, Frazier was better defensively than Tyson. I know that it's common for people to say that Tyson was invincible and all that before 1990. In reality Tyson finally came across someone who had the ability and the will to deal with him. Even if you watch his fights with Tucker or Tillis you can see that he is hittable.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 16 Aug 2007, 14:44

Frazier, to me, is at least as good as Marciano. Frazier would likely beat Charles, Walcott, old Louis. Marciano would likely not beat Ali and Foreman. Frazier tends to be underrated by many fans, I would say, because of his losses, even though he lost to two fighters who are generally top five all time Heavyweights. But if you swapped eras, Frazier would very likely be undefeated in Rocky's and Rocky would almost certainly have losses in Joe's. Sometimes level of opposition is more important than an undefeated record, and Frazier hardly looked bad in his losses to Ali, either.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Aug 2007, 23:32

Frazier had a good chin, however he was clearly wobbled in the second fight with Ali. Not sure if this places questions on Joes chin or gives Props to Ali's punching power. But it should be placed in the record of this discussion. And yep he bounced back quick but did have a bit of a ref intervention as I recall.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 16 Aug 2007, 23:56

Tyson WAS better defensively than Joe Frazier. Tyson, whether people liked him or not, was all but a perfect mixture of power, speed and defensive ability...he was rarely hit from the time he started to his fight with Trevor Berbick [which I consider to be his finest fight].

Everything after that fight became this downhill fall, slowly becoming more of a head hunter, wild and reckless in the ring and slowly but surely believing in his own press and hype.

Tyson peaked, in my opinion, with Berbick...although I also believe, outside of Leon Spinks, NOBODY was more spoonfed to a title shot than Mike Tyson was.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Aug 2007, 08:42

Disagree with all 3 of your main points.

Most of Tyson's opponents didn't even try or weren't able to mount an offense. He seldom had to even bother with defense.
When he fought Douglas, he couldn't avoid Douglas jab. He had a lot of trouble with Tucker until Tucker hurt his hand. Even tillis hit him more than he should have been able to.
Frazier moved his head a lot, making him more difficult to hit. Frazier had to fight much better competition who weren't terrified of him.

Things didn't go down hill after the Berbick fight. Tyson was the same fighter for many more years. Tyson didn't change, though his opponents did.

On the other hand, there have been literally dozens of others who less deserving of a title shot than Tyson.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:25

Ambling Alp wrote:Disagree with all 3 of your main points.

Most of Tyson's opponents didn't even try or weren't able to mount an offense. He seldom had to even bother with defense.
When he fought Douglas, he couldn't avoid Douglas jab. He had a lot of trouble with Tucker until Tucker hurt his hand. Even tillis hit him more than he should have been able to.
Frazier moved his head a lot, making him more difficult to hit. Frazier had to fight much better competition who weren't terrified of him.

Things didn't go down hill after the Berbick fight. Tyson was the same fighter for many more years. Tyson didn't change, though his opponents did.

On the other hand, there have been literally dozens of others who less deserving of a title shot than Tyson.

I completely agree. Frazier at his best was almost a surreal bundle of energy, and he was much more a constantly moving target than Tyson . . More of a head-hunter post Berbick? Look AT the Berbick fight . . .he throws maybe 3 body shots and the rest are all home-runs to the head.