BoxRec

Stu,

I certainly havnt missed the point - we have a right to our opinions - mine is to bracket Clinton Woods with the likes of Matthew Hatton, Steve Robinson etc etc is an absolute insult - Clinton had no lucky breaks, he didnt get his shot at all the titles through being lucky or being a late replacement - he got his shots because he was a mandatory challenger unlike many many boxers Clinton went the traditional route and as such I feel its you who is clutching at straws to justify your point.

black panther wrote:Scott Harrison struck me as someone who got to where he was through hard work. He wasn't the fastest guy or the biggest puncher and you couldn't call him slick by any stretch of the imagination. But he gave me the impression that he trained like an animal, was super strong for a featherweight and beat some very good fighters. It's a shame how he went off the rails but I'll always respect what he achieved.

i actually think scott harrison was an underachiever, i think he was a very natural hard man with a good boxing brain, simular to eamon magee, i think harrison should of been more then a wbo champion, i know he was in a tough division in a tough era but i really think he could of been massive if he stayed out of trouble....

Dennis Andries was another who really did well through force of will, determination and character.

Spud wrote:Stu,

I certainly havnt missed the point - we have a right to our opinions - mine is to bracket Clinton Woods with the likes of Matthew Hatton, Steve Robinson etc etc is an absolute insult - Clinton had no lucky breaks, he didnt get his shot at all the titles through being lucky or being a late replacement - he got his shots because he was a mandatory challenger unlike many many boxers Clinton went the traditional route and as such I feel its you who is clutching at straws to justify your point.

Well I certainly don't think it is an insult to bracket Robinson and Woods in the same bracket - please note.... I haven't labelled Hatton or Robinson and overachiver - so I haven't once compared Woods to Robinson or Hatton or placed them in the same bracket.... and I certainly don't think in any way being an overachiver is a bad thing.... Its making the uptmost of your talent.... Its a good thing. All the fighters I labelled Woods with, got to world titles after their fair share of setbacks, fair share of defeats, but through dedication, belief, and, if being honest, shear bloody mindedness (e.g. could be called a tadge stubborn) - got there and achieved the ultimate accolade.

You can never call someone like Naz an overachiver - cause of the Natural talent he had. I see it as making the most of your talent. For me, as great a fighter as he was - I would class Evander Holyfield as an overachiver as a heavyweight, cause of the size. But, the will, never say die - he became one of the Greatest Heavyweights of all time - despite being essentially a bulked up Cruiser.

Your saying being an over achiver is being a lucky git - well I disagree, and I've certainly not compared him to "lucky" fighters. Although when I mentioned Bruno, some remarked quite accurately that Bruno was a tadge lucky to get 4 stabs at the title in the first place.... Clinton got 5 cracks in his career, and some people could argue he had his fair share of good fortune.

Was Demetrius Jenkins really a worthy eliminator? The Glencoffe Johnson fight was originally scheduled to be an eliminator (with Johnson ranked around 8th with the IBF) - turned into a world title fight cause Tarver got stripped, then after coming off second best against Johnson - he gets Delisle in an eliminator fight immediately after and then fights Rico Hoye for the vacant title. Clinton was very bloody minded, showed great patience to finally get Jones in the ring and I'm sure ignored alot of people (very rightly to ignore) who might have told him the dream was over after the second Johnson fight. Fantastic achievements he made and his reign was a really enjoyable one with some really nice fights, but just like with Bruno, I'm sure Clinton is indepted to his promoter for providing the opportunities. Particularly

1) Getting the first Johnson fight for the title.
2) Getting an eliminator straight after the second Johnson fight and securing a fight with a rather raw Hoye for the vacant title.

Also, when you get lucky once are you always an over achiver... you seem to be insinuating that Robinson was a one off lucky man. He proved himself a very worthy world champion with plenty of meaningful wins at world class. Sure very lucky to get the shot, but he made the most of it and proved himself very worthy - so why exactly did he over achieve?

Junior Witter

thinking of the lower level, Chris saunders, peter judson and charles shepard, all had early loses but turned it around and became champs

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Anthony Farnell - massive overachievment to win a 'World' championship

That's not fair, I think he could have won a lot more than he did, was easy good enough to be commonwealth, British an european champion. That's IMHO too!!

Spud wrote:

stujones wrote:Clinton Woods.

UMmmmmmm .... I am sure you could qualify your opinion why you feel Clinton Woods over achieved??

I keep looking at his record:

Area Titles
British Title
Commonwealth Title
European Title
IBF World Title

Involved in a number of high profile fights and always face his mandatories!!! - I dont see how you can justify him being an over achiever!!!! - He lost against David Starie mainly because he was starving himself to make the weight and other than that he lost against world class opponents.

Personally I think all Clinton Woods achieved he did so by hard graft and living the life and thoroughly deserved all he got - certainly did not over achieve - and if we are talking over achieving - is that we say that about all boxers once they lose -we can then state "knew he was over achieving".

Over achieving is about a boxer somehow surviving in company he clearly looked out of place in - or who got his arse whooped when he stepped up to the mark and somehow got a decision - dont think Clinton Woods falls into that category.

Clinton Woods did not look out of place in world class company like say Matthew Hatton will.

Over to you!!!

I agree with this, you can't overachieve If you go the route Clinton went, he beat the best In British and Europe and then won a very deserved world title too.. Woods is a fighter who proved what hard work & dedication can do..

Overachieved = More achievement than you would expect for someone of that ability.

Would depend if you call hard work, grit etc a gift. For the purpose of this thread I'd say not, and therefore would consider Woods an overachiever for doing as well as he did. I think Kirkland Laing had more talent for example, but didn't fulfill it as much as Clinton.

I can see where you would consider Woods an overachiever. He wasn't exceptionally fast, didn't have explosive KO power, wasn't a stylist - he was just a hard nut with exceptional fitness who outdogged the other man with bravery and tenacity. You could say Terry Marsh was the same but he had a good defensive style whereas Woods just got stuck in. Clinton was no frills but a very worthy champion.

That was my point Scott and Carlos (thats my take on the term overachiever Scott) - it is no way a negative thing, completely the opposite infact. IMO at a different level I would call Holyfield an overachiever. At Heavyweight, I don't think you can say Holyfield was blessed with dyanmite strength and power, or even particularly (e.g. Ali, Roy Jones esque) speed. Yet, when all is said and done I think Holyfield simply has to be considered among the top 10 Heavyweights of all time.

Steve Robinson overachieved given his circumstances - although I do feel he could have done even more under different circumstances. I do believe there was more natural talent in Steve that could have been unearthed and used more efficiently had he, for example, gone to the US to get some top training and sparring. He had really fast hands, something that is often overlooked. I think under different guidance he could have developed more power. Without sounding disrespectful, when you look at Dai Gardiner/Ronnie Rush fighters you don't associate many with chilling power.

Clinton Woods started the idea of himself being an overachiever with his comment along the lines of 'not bad for a skinny kid from Sheffield'. IMO he was anything but an overachiever, he was a solid world championship level fighter and he proved it several times.

Glenn Catley won and lost a few times at world title level, but he proved he belonged there because of that — it's not like he got lucky in one fight and was beaten out of sight the rest of the time.

Steve Robinson's an odd one. Beat some big British names who had gone slightly over the hill, then came Naz. I think it depends how much value you put on the WBO featherweight title at the point Robinson held it — was it really a world title or was it a glorified British title? He did well, and consistently, at the level he fought, whatever, so I don't count him as an overachiever.

My biggest overachiever has to be Frank Bruno. Five world title fights, stopped in four of them (three times inside seven rounds), and with his only win coming on points over a fighter, Oliver McCall, who was known by some at the time, and would not that much later be widely revealed, to have numerous and significant 'personal' problems. To give Bruno his credit, Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson were exceptional heavyweights when in their primes — I also think Tim Witherspoon was very underrated. But Lennox was still developing at the point Bruno fought him and Tyson was well past his best in their second fight. Bruno gets my vote. His becoming a world champion at all was a masterpiece of match- and deal making IMO.

Has to be Dennis Andries for me. With what little skill he had, especially prior to hooking up with Emmanuel Steward, he thumped out some very impressive results.

Brian London: he made a fortune and he kept it.

Good call that Bennie

bennie wrote:Brian London: he made a fortune and he kept it.

He fought them all though, going to California twice to fight Jerry Quarry in his prime! I doubt 'Enry would have done that!

In relation to the money he made it would have to be Ricky Hatton.

Bar an ageing Tsyu, who did he actually beat to warrant the kind of purses he made? Let`s be honest, there are not many top scalps on that record (Castillo was shot to pieces when they fought)

Exposed badly against quality opposition, very lucky to be given the win against Collazo, awful against Lazcano, had Mickey Vann as his personal ref for years.

Of course he had talent, but he was far short of a superstar boxer in terms of his actual ability.