BoxRec

J-C wrote:

icejack wrote:Not saying he didnt fight some "decent" (not great) fighters ,but most of them guys were on the slide (kelly , Mccullocgh),the others were ok but not great.The whole thing is relative ,some here are saying Marciano was over rated who was the undisputed heavyweight champ,As you live in London you will know Hamad was massivly hyped up in England ,I just feel for a guy who never held a real title and only fought one "even" fight,got beat and never wanted anymore of Barrera he is overated.I admit I couldnt stand the bloke,and wanted to see him smashed but Warren always made sure everything was in his favour (smaller guys going up in weight to fight him,older guys ect)he was floored several times against average types,sorry Silky ,I JUST DONT RATE HIM!!

Naz was probably overrated during his career, but not any longer, particularly not in the US

aRE YOU SAYING THEY SEE HIM FOR WHAT HE WAS/IS, A BULLY?

BY THE WAY IF MARCIANO IS OVERATED SO IS DEMPSEY ,DEFENDED HIS TITLE ONLY A HANDFUL OF TIMES OVER SEVERAL YEARS ,many of his opponents were not much better than barroom brawlers ,got beat by Jim Flyn ,who spent most of his time when challenging Jack Johnson jumping up and down trying to headbutt a laughing jOHNSON ,BEAT UP ON SMALLER FIGHTERS ,AT LEAST Rocky fought and beat (admittedly older) world class opposition.By the way I know Firpo was bigger,but he was a very poor fighter .

'Rocket'Rigby wrote:

silkov wrote:

'Rocket'Rigby wrote: What more could Marciano have achieved to satisfy you?

What did he really do?... aside from being unbeaten he only fought about 6 or 7 world class fighters, (most of them when he was champ) and most of them were over 35 and past their best and/or natural light-heavies... Rocky deserves respect for his guts and strength but at the end of the day the assumption that he was one of the great heavyweights is wrong imo... his record pales in comparison to the likes of Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Foreman, Liston and Frazier.... but say that to many and they will act like you're running down the Pope....

Again though, the question is the same. What more could Marciano achieved?

Within his era and reign as champ, Marciano could not have achieved more. He had nobody esle to fight, he was only 185/7 pounds himself so his opponents can only have been a similar weight or more. As for age, Walcott, Charles and Louis all proved that they could cut it with the younger and bigger heavies around at the time and so did Marciano. Don't forget that Walcott finally won the title at his 5th attempt (getting better in age), he was clearly handling Marciano and way ahead on points before Marciano summened the KO. Charles was in such good form that he took Marciano 15 rounds (the only boxer to do so) and Louis had re-found his hunger and form.

My question now is what if Ali/Louis/Holmes/etc...was around in the era instead of Marciano and they were the ones that finished undefeated and 49-0, with the competition that was around ay the time, would they be so clearly dismissed and thought of as so over-rated that it's beyond a joke, and actually makes them appear under-rated!

What more?... he could have handled the fading Louis, Charles and Walcott easier, he could have handled Moore easier, hell he could have handled Cockell easier... he could have fouled a lot less (especially against Cockell) he could have stayed fighting and tried to have made more defences... had he remained champ till 59 or so and defended successfully against Patterson, Johansson, Machen, Folley, Williams etc then that would have put him much higher in the all time list.... as it is theres no guarantee that Marcinao would have beaten those guys... had he hung around a bit and been beaten by Patterson then his legacy would have to be percived in a more realistic light which would be closer to the fighter he actually was....
Compare Marcinao with Frazier, Joe acheieved much more in his career against better opposition and over a longer period of time, yet many still refuse to rate Frazier over Rocky.... why?... because Marcinao is overrated. Rocky would never have beaten Ali like Frazier did....

icejack wrote:BY THE WAY IF MARCIANO IS OVERATED SO IS DEMPSEY ,DEFENDED HIS TITLE ONLY A HANDFUL OF TIMES OVER SEVERAL YEARS ,many of his opponents were not much better than barroom brawlers ,got beat by Jim Flyn ,who spent most of his time when challenging Jack Johnson jumping up and down trying to headbutt a laughing jOHNSON ,BEAT UP ON SMALLER FIGHTERS ,AT LEAST Rocky fought and beat (admittedly older) world class opposition.By the way I know Firpo was bigger,but he was a very poor fighter .

I think Marciano tends to be more overrated than Dempsey... but yes, Dempsey is also overrated... he didnt even really prove that he was the best of his era as he never fought Harry Wills...

Today: Joe Calzaghe.

The past: Jack Johnson.

In that case I guess you have to say Jeff Lacy up until the day Joe beat him.

The Durable Dane wrote:Today: Joe Calzaghe.

You say that just because he hasn't fought Mikkel Kessler. That's like saying Roy Jones was overrated just because he hasn't fought Michalczewski. It didn't really make a lot of sense for Roy to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski.

Al Bundy wrote:

The Durable Dane wrote:Today: Joe Calzaghe.

You say that just because he hasn't fought Mikkel Kessler. That's like saying Roy Jones was overrated just because he hasn't fought Michalczewski. It didn't really make a lot of sense for Roy to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski.

If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

silkov wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

The Durable Dane wrote:Today: Joe Calzaghe.

You say that just because he hasn't fought Mikkel Kessler. That's like saying Roy Jones was overrated just because he hasn't fought Michalczewski. It didn't really make a lot of sense for Roy to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski.

If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

Fighting Michalczewski would have done absolutely nothing for Roy Jones other than please us hardcore fans. Other than a feather in your cap for legacy, that fight meant nothing.

Al Bundy wrote:

silkov wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: You say that just because he hasn't fought Mikkel Kessler. That's like saying Roy Jones was overrated just because he hasn't fought Michalczewski. It didn't really make a lot of sense for Roy to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski.

If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

Fighting Michalczewski would have done absolutely nothing for Roy Jones other than please us hardcore fans. Other than a feather in your cap for legacy, that fight meant nothing.

It meant that he didnt prove he was the best at 175, simple as that!...

silkov wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

The Durable Dane wrote:Today: Joe Calzaghe.

You say that just because he hasn't fought Mikkel Kessler. That's like saying Roy Jones was overrated just because he hasn't fought Michalczewski. It didn't really make a lot of sense for Roy to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski.

If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

This is what I have always said. If Jones was really that great, then prove it by fighting the best. Beating the tomato cans that he beat at lightheavyweight doesn't put him in the class of the very best lightheavyweights.

silkov wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

silkov wrote: If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

Fighting Michalczewski would have done absolutely nothing for Roy Jones other than please us hardcore fans. Other than a feather in your cap for legacy, that fight meant nothing.

It meant that he didnt prove he was the best at 175, simple as that!...

We found out shortly after that he didn't need it to prove he was the best. Gonzalez went in and swept Michalczewki out for him. Gonzalez who Jones had already thoroughly dominated. Michalczewski was lucky to have made it as long as he did. There's a number of fights on his record that he squeaked by.

So because Lennox Lewis never fought Riddick Bowe, his legacy has this asterisk next to it?

Maybe I'm just looking at boxing in terms of being a business. But I see no reason for Jones to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski. Michalczewski WAS NOT coming over here. And Michalczewski being what he is (a relative unknown outside of Europe), I don't hold that fight against Roy's legacy.

Ambling Alp wrote:

silkov wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: You say that just because he hasn't fought Mikkel Kessler. That's like saying Roy Jones was overrated just because he hasn't fought Michalczewski. It didn't really make a lot of sense for Roy to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski.

If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

This is what I have always said. If Jones was really that great, then prove it by fighting the best. Beating the tomato cans that he beat at lightheavyweight doesn't put him in the class of the very best lightheavyweights.

I'll be the first to say that Roy Jones' era of the Light Heavyweight division was not the strongest in history. His resume of wins holds him back as far as being compared to the Archie Moore's. For skills though, he's near the top.

But who didn't he beat at Light Heavyweight? Other than Michalczewski? And my argument still stands as to why Roy should have to go to Germany to fight this guy that nobody knows.

There really was no one for him to beat for several years besides Michalczewski. This was possibly the weakest era ever in the lightheavyweight division. this made it all the more obvious that Jones should fight Michalczweski. HBO could could have hyped this up and it Jones could have had a huge Pay Per View Paydday.

Jones probably would have won, but you never know. It probably wouldn't have been a complete mismatch that most of his fights were.
Michalczewski was a pretty good fighter. The loss to Gonzalez should be held too much against him. He was 35 years old and had been the WBO Champ for 10 years. He was clearly past his best.

Look at the rest of Jones and DM's common opponents:

Michalczewski TKO10 and TKO11 against Hall. Jones TKO 11 Hall.
Michalczewski TKO4 vs Griffin. Jones Lost by DQ against Griffin and won by KO1.
Michalczewski won decsion against Hill and Jones KO4 against Hill.
Michalczewski KO9 vs Harmon and Jones TKO11 against Harmon.
This is pretty comparable.

Of course this doesn't tell the whole and I agree that for the most part Jones looked better on film. However, it's pretty obvious that Michalczewski was easily the second best lightheavyweight for several years and Jones should have fought him. There are many, many other lightheavyweights in history who would beaten the guys that Jones beat.
An impressive win over Michalczweski would have meant a lot.

For us, yes, it would have meant a lot. But financially it makes no sense. I think the mysticism of judging in Germany may have frightened Jones a little bit. Nonetheless, thinking in terms of what was at stake in terms of reward, I just can't hold it against him. Why couldn't Michalczewski come to the United States or meet on neutral ground? Roy Jones being THE MAN (Good God that's almost an exact quote from Roy himself) why should he have to track down the second best?

Here are the "at the time" current, past or future champions. Really, Michalczewski's resume was somewhat weak. Michalczewski should have been the one pursuing a match with Jones. You never saw that.

Roy Jones.
Tarver, Ruiz, Woods, Gonzalez, Reggie Johnson, Grant, Del Valle, Hill, Griffin, McCallum, Lucas, Pazienza, Toney, Tate, Malinga, Hopkins, Castro.

Dariusz Michalczewski.
Rocchigiani, Griffin, Hill, Giovannini, Barber.

I have no doubt that prime Jones was far better than prime DM. Just compare how they did against common opponents. DM was a fine l-h but RJJ's speed and versatility advances him to a totally different level. RJJ should have toyed with DM as he toyed with most other opponents he fought during his prime. Yes, RJJ vs. DM would have been nice as DM was for amlong time the #2 l-h, but it was not essential (and the fault for not making this fight has to be split at least evenly).

To come back to the original question, this does not apply to Calzage vs. Kessler though. For this Calzaghe simply hasn't shown enough yet. Had he alrdeady dominated the likes of Bernard Hopkins, James Toney or Virgil Hill (all lock-in HOFers) he could of course do without Kessler. But his best names are over-the-hill Chris Eubank, Robin Reid in a fight that Calz arguably lost, and (many, many years later) green and overrated Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe needs a couple of career-defining fights and he needs them fast. And Kessler is THE obvious peer.

pundit wrote:To come back to the original question, this does not apply to Calzage vs. Kessler though. For this Calzaghe simply hasn't shown enough yet. Had he alrdeady dominated the likes of Bernard Hopkins, James Toney or Virgil Hill (all lock-in HOFers) he could of course do without Kessler. But his best names are over-the-hill Chris Eubank, Robin Reid in a fight that Calz arguably lost, and (many, many years later) green and overrated Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe needs a couple of career-defining fights and he needs them fast. And Kessler is THE obvious peer.

I agree that Calzaghe hasn't done enough to even be considered rated, let alone over-rated. His resume is similar to that of Michalczewski's in that he beat a few good guys but no huge namers. I don't think anybody's considering Calzaghe among the greatest of all-time yet. As for Kessler being the obvious peer, I think that's overdoing it a little but that's a topic for the Current Scene threads. As is Joe Calzaghe.

Al Bundy wrote:

pundit wrote:To come back to the original question, this does not apply to Calzage vs. Kessler though. For this Calzaghe simply hasn't shown enough yet. Had he alrdeady dominated the likes of Bernard Hopkins, James Toney or Virgil Hill (all lock-in HOFers) he could of course do without Kessler. But his best names are over-the-hill Chris Eubank, Robin Reid in a fight that Calz arguably lost, and (many, many years later) green and overrated Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe needs a couple of career-defining fights and he needs them fast. And Kessler is THE obvious peer.

I agree that Calzaghe hasn't done enough to even be considered rated, let alone over-rated. His resume is similar to that of Michalczewski's in that he beat a few good guys but no huge namers. I don't think anybody's considering Calzaghe among the greatest of all-time yet. As for Kessler being the obvious peer, I think that's overdoing it a little but that's a topic for the Current Scene threads. As is Joe Calzaghe.

Naah, DM's resumee is better than JC's. At least Virgil Hill, Montell Griffin, Graciano Rocchigiani.

pundit wrote:I have no doubt that prime Jones was far better than prime DM. Just compare how they did against common opponents. DM was a fine l-h but RJJ's speed and versatility advances him to a totally different level. RJJ should have toyed with DM as he toyed with most other opponents he fought during his prime. Yes, RJJ vs. DM would have been nice as DM was for amlong time the #2 l-h, but it was not essential (and the fault for not making this fight has to be split at least evenly).

To come back to the original question, this does not apply to Calzage vs. Kessler though. For this Calzaghe simply hasn't shown enough yet. Had he alrdeady dominated the likes of Bernard Hopkins, James Toney or Virgil Hill (all lock-in HOFers) he could of course do without Kessler. But his best names are over-the-hill Chris Eubank, Robin Reid in a fight that Calz arguably lost, and (many, many years later) green and overrated Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe needs a couple of career-defining fights and he needs them fast. And Kessler is THE obvious peer.

I did compare how DM and Jones did against common opponents and it's about even.

Al Bundy wrote:Here are the "at the time" current, past or future champions. Really, Michalczewski's resume was somewhat weak. Michalczewski should have been the one pursuing a match with Jones. You never saw that.

Roy Jones.
Tarver, Ruiz, Woods, Gonzalez, Reggie Johnson, Grant, Del Valle, Hill, Griffin, McCallum, Lucas, Pazienza, Toney, Tate, Malinga, Hopkins, Castro.

Dariusz Michalczewski.
Rocchigiani, Griffin, Hill, Giovannini, Barber.

Most of Jones wins were not at lightheavyweight or as in the case of MCallum a fighter that was old and fighter in aweight class that was too high for him. Woods, Del Valle, Johnson were all mediocre. Tarver was decent and look how well he did against Jones.
Agree that DM is just as responsible for this fight never happening.

Micheal Spinks.

Evander-Are you nominating Michael Spinks as the most overrated fighter of All-Time?
You could make a good case that he is the most underrated fighter of all time.

Ambling Alp wrote:

pundit wrote:I have no doubt that prime Jones was far better than prime DM. Just compare how they did against common opponents. DM was a fine l-h but RJJ's speed and versatility advances him to a totally different level. RJJ should have toyed with DM as he toyed with most other opponents he fought during his prime. Yes, RJJ vs. DM would have been nice as DM was for amlong time the #2 l-h, but it was not essential (and the fault for not making this fight has to be split at least evenly).

To come back to the original question, this does not apply to Calzage vs. Kessler though. For this Calzaghe simply hasn't shown enough yet. Had he alrdeady dominated the likes of Bernard Hopkins, James Toney or Virgil Hill (all lock-in HOFers) he could of course do without Kessler. But his best names are over-the-hill Chris Eubank, Robin Reid in a fight that Calz arguably lost, and (many, many years later) green and overrated Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe needs a couple of career-defining fights and he needs them fast. And Kessler is THE obvious peer.

I did compare how DM and Jones did against common opponents and it's about even.

You cannot be serious. The common opponents were Virigl Hill, Montell Griffin, Richie Hall, Julio Gonzales, Derrick Harmon. With the possible exception of Griffin (who gave RJJ a difficult first fight, while DM knocked him out after losing the first 3 rounds), RJJ did much better against any of these.

Ambling Alp wrote:

silkov wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: You say that just because he hasn't fought Mikkel Kessler. That's like saying Roy Jones was overrated just because he hasn't fought Michalczewski. It didn't really make a lot of sense for Roy to go to Germany to fight Michalczewski.

If youre a 'great' champ then you should be able to fight anyone anywhere... if Calzaghe deserves to be criticized for being a 'homebody' then so should Jones be.... if he had nothing to fear from Michalczewski then he should have fought him anywhere to prove he was the better man, simple as that...

This is what I have always said. If Jones was really that great, then prove it by fighting the best. Beating the tomato cans that he beat at lightheavyweight doesn't put him in the class of the very best lightheavyweights.

Virgil Hill is a tomato can?

This is ridiculous.