BoxRec

Who fits that category ? In my opinion, the first names that come to mind.

1.Mike Tyson. Before his first loss, fans and even sports writers and commentators were saying things about him that bordered on the ridiculous. Now days the comments have gotten equally ridiculous in light of the names of fighters tossed around allegedly capable of beating Iron Mike.

2.Roy Jones Jr. Back in the 90's he had a sizeable number of supporters who believed he was too fast for just about anyone in history. Nowdays it's become common to make the argument that all you really had to do was hit him solid and he'd fold.

3.Julio Cesar Chavez. When he was unbeaten, I was actually hearing claims that he may be the greatest fighter ever. OK, alot of those people were Mexicans, but it was still a stretch for the imagination. Nowdays, the lists of fighters supposedly better than Julio has also gotten to be a stretch for the imagination.

4.Donald Curry. Sportwriters went insane over this guy during his short prime, but since then he's been written off to the point that alot of guys have completely forgotten that he was briefly an outstanding welterweight who would have been a handful for a long list of fighters.

In the vice versa category
1.Jersey Joe Walcott. Didn't seem to get much credit when I first started following boxing, but today he's been downright overrated.

Good topic...

Tyson lost to Douglas who was hardly one of the greats of the sport. Every few months there’s a thread come up about how he would/could/should have been the greatest ever except for the fact that [insert mitigating circumstance].

Who is the weakest fighter that people are saying beat Tyson? Half the board still thinks he’d have beaten Holyfield – and even when you point out that they did actually fight it’s still not enough.

There are more double standards applied to Tyson than any other fighter in history (there are 2 threads currently running in which sane posters are doing this).


The problem for Jones is that his fans want to compare him with the top fighters to ever lace up a glove but his record just doesn’t match their belief. You could equally say that every pro-Jones poster basically says “Jones wins cuz speed killz.” His “super” powers left him the moment his lawyers told him they could no longer wriggle out of test results.


Chavez and Curry I agree with.

I’d say the 1980s Heavyweights weren’t as bad as people made out at the time (because they were basically being compared to the guys from the 70s) but now I hear how Trevor Berbick would beat both Klit brothers on the same night.

Barry McGuigan was overrated due to his popularity but now gets overlooked in terms of what a good fighter he was.

I’ve been guilty of underrating Gene Fulmer in the past.

Ricardo Lopez is insanely overrated after going a bit unnoticed over his run. No doubt the greatest Straw ever, but he gets votes from some as the greatest Mexican fighter and I can't find a spot for him in the Top 10. Too many other guys beat better fighters. Finito greater than Morales or MAB? Hell no

Mike McCallum is a guy who was under the radar enough during his prime that it's now common for everyone to mention him as underrated when that train passed a while ago imo. He was a great fighter, but I don't think he would have faired well against Hagler, Hearns or Leonard. He'd have the best chance of grinding down Tommy late, but I think he would get out-boxed more often than not.

It is a good topic.
I think boxing is maybe the most unforgiving sport of all in terms of a guy going from hero to zero in fans minds overnight.
Gotta think of a couple. I'll be back.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ricardo Lopez is insanely overrated after going a bit unnoticed over his run. No doubt the greatest Straw ever, but he gets votes from some as the greatest Mexican fighter and I can't find a spot for him in the Top 10. Too many other guys beat better fighters. Finito greater than Morales or MAB? Hell no

Mike McCallum is a guy who was under the radar enough during his prime that it's now common for everyone to mention him as underrated when that train passed a while ago imo. He was a great fighter, but I don't think he would have faired well against Hagler, Hearns or Leonard. He'd have the best chance of grinding down Tommy late, but I think he would get out-boxed more often than not.

Lopez in not in the top-10?

I guess he & Chavez might crack your top-30 on a good day, no?

Chavez would be in my top 5, Lopez would make the top 15. I wouldn't have a major issue with Ricardo being at the tail end of the top 10. But I don't personally find him to have been greater than a Saldivar.

It's common for hardcore fans to prove their merit by championing a little guy. Excellent fighter with a complete skill set but his resume falls short of an Arizmendi however you want to look at it.

Is Bob Foster not an all-time great LHW?

Is Rocky Marciano not an all-time great HW?

Not a thing in the world, technically, Ricardo Lopez could not do. If you could make a 160lb. version of him, he would've beaten any fighter in any weightclass during his day. As gifted & complete a fighter as ever I've seen in my time following Boxing (17 years).

I already said he was the greatest Straw ever and I already applauded his technical ability. I find Foster highly overrated as well. Marciano is pretty in the middle, but his opposition was far superior to that of Lopez.

It's easy to speculate on how Finito would do against greater competition. You will have to forgive me for not taking your word as Gospel. In the real world, a resume is based off of what you did, not what fans think you could have done.

As for a Middleweight Lopez, that's beyond nonsensical. I could just as easily say a 105lb Ray Mercer would slaughter every Straw in the world. And if you're saying a 160lb Lopez would have whipped a Lewis or Holyfield at heavyweight, then I have to Thank You for proving my point of how overrated he is. You're an inspiration.

He was immensely talented, so was Wesley Mouzon. But that's a different category.

I guess Joe Louis should be ranked the fourth or fifth best HW ever. That's all his level of opposition merits, since that's purely our basis for assessment now.

It's a lot easier to look great when you are fighting an average opponent. Wlad Klit can look like a monster against Ray Austin, but against a prime Foreman he would look like a bitch. Lopez was definitely very good, but his opposition was hardly impressive, and imo this has also contributed to people overrating his ability. He is nowhere near Mexico's greatest--if you have him here you are completly ignoring his level of opposition.

People say Prime Tyson is overrated, I heavily disagree with that. He unified the titles in the Heavy Weight division, when no one else was able to. There were different HW champs before Tyson came along. When Tyson came in, there was only one true champion in the HW division. It was Tyson, Douglass for a little bit, Holyfield, Bowe then they got separated again. It was better when the WBA, WBC, and IBF were stayed unified, so there was only one true HW champ.

Tyson unified the belts, and defended them several times as undisputed champion. After he was released from prison he was crowned champion and I thought he was overrated, he did not unify anything and never defended one of the titles. Later on after Holyfield, no one really cared for him, they just wanted to see him people out.

Joe Calzaghe I think is a little under appreciated, even though I do not like him for holding the WBO so long in Europe.

Winky Wright was a little unrated I thought.

Lot of people hate the Klitchkos and say they are overrated, but they dominating the 2000s, same thing Lennox Lewis did in the late 90s.

I think that's a good list Seamus. People act now like Tyson beat a couple of bums, lost to Douglas and did nothing else. Seems fashionable to distance yourself from the casual fans by denying that he was actually a very good boxer who beat a number of ex and future world champions in a high number of defenses, and made himself undisputed to a degree very few are able to.

Chavez I think falls victim to the fact that attacking boxers are never seen as good technically. Great fighter, great record and in my top 20 P4P.

Donald Curry; How many fighters have been P4P number one ahead of so many great boxers and left out of the HOF? Having said that, he didn't do as well as he should after Honeyghan.

Jones was fantastic athletically but he had a number of gaping technical flaws. I happen to think a few of the great LHWs from history could exploit them. Good record, but it could be better.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I guess Joe Louis should be ranked the fourth or fifth best HW ever. That's all his level of opposition merits, since that's purely our basis for assessment now.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to make a reasonable point. How many exaggerations need you make? LOL, you love you some Finito.

BarryWashington wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was immensely talented, so was Wesley Mouzon. But that's a different category.

Mouzon was nice, do you know where you can find film of him?

I do not, there isn't much film from that time frame at all. Something to do with the war.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I guess Joe Louis should be ranked the fourth or fifth best HW ever. That's all his level of opposition merits, since that's purely our basis for assessment now.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to make a reasonable point. How many exaggerations need you make? LOL, you love you some Finito.

From the guy who does nothing but lambast Chavez? You're definitely the go-to man for recognising great Mexican fighters, no?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I guess Joe Louis should be ranked the fourth or fifth best HW ever. That's all his level of opposition merits, since that's purely our basis for assessment now.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to make a reasonable point. How many exaggerations need you make? LOL, you love you some Finito.

He sure was a much better fighter than Holyfield, at least.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to make a reasonable point. How many exaggerations need you make? LOL, you love you some Finito.

He sure was a much better fighter than Holyfield, at least.

Once again, you fail to separate ability from resume. You really ought to be better at this --- it's in your own interest, after all, being one of Tommy Hearns' biggest cheerleaders (the guy who lost his two biggest fights )

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: He sure was a much better fighter than Holyfield, at least.

Once again, you fail to separate ability from resume. You really ought to be better at this --- it's in your own interest, after all, being one of Tommy Hearns' biggest cheerleaders (the guy who lost his two biggest fights )

You're the one who is having a difficult time distinguishing between relevant points for this thread. I'm still waiting for one from you. All I'm getting is keyboard fury and transparent attempts to start an argument.

Lopez wasn't much better than Calderon, he wasn't better than Holyfield at all. However you want to spin it.

Keyboard fury? Who is getting angry?

I love your contributions, Saad, & I don't get near taking anything the wrong way from members I enjoy reading (the Collies/Darlings, & company are another matter). I simply take umbrage (disagree, not upset) at the thought of Lopez barely cracking the Mexican top-10. I couldn't dream of listing a fighter like he any lower than the top-5.

The whole point I would like to make is that sometimes, when a fighter doesn't have the competition available to him, you just have to do the best you can with your assessment as to his all-time standing & decide whether or not you think he could've beaten much, much stronger rivals (ala Foster at Light-Heavy, for instance). I don't doubt Lopez could & would --- obviously, you feel differently.

Personally, I see him as one of the top four our five best fighters I've seen (live) in my lifetime, right alongside the likes of Mayweather, Pacquiao, & Whitaker. Does he have the resume to hang with those gents (or even a Holyfield, if you will)? No, he doesn't. Does he have the skill-set, & sheer talent? I believe so.

The rest (me barbing Holyfield, Hearns etc.) is just tongue-in-cheek pot-shotting.

As I said when you mentioned him earlier, I find Foster to be highly overrated as well. He just doesn't fit the thread because he was never underrated.

Your opinions are your own, they also are exactly why I listed him in the first place. He could have moved up sooner and fought a Carbajal. Sorjaturong was an excellent win and he has some others.

But putting your perception of how his talent would transfer into huge fights above a guy like Morales who beat Pac, MAB and many other very good fighters is just too much grasping for me.

I don't have a problem raving about his talent, he had a lot of it. But when you're ranking the greatest Mexicans, resume has to count for more than mythical P4P opinions. 9 or 10 is a reasonable placement, top 4 or 5 is madness to me. To me, guys prove how special they truly are when they face other great fighters. Lopez never did that. Hector Camacho looked like the second coming too.

George Foreman would fit nicely in here, as his prestige rose and fell several times during his two careers. He was probably under-rated going in to the Frazier fight. As I recall he was a 3-1 or 4-1 underdog, mostly due to his incredibly weak resume prior to the fight. Then after the Frazier and Norton fights he was over rated, only to fall after he got schooled by Young and pretty much fell off everybody’s radar becaming under-rated again.

Then we have the second coming of Big George, complete with massive media attention, weak opponents, questionable fight endings, a very competitive effort against Holyfield, and the come from behind KO of Moorer, which puts him once again in the over-rated category.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I guess Joe Louis should be ranked the fourth or fifth best HW ever. That's all his level of opposition merits, since that's purely our basis for assessment now.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to make a reasonable point. How many exaggerations need you make? LOL, you love you some Finito.

Put her on ignore.

The Great John L wrote:George Foreman would fit nicely in here, as his prestige rose and fell several times during his two careers. He was probably under-rated going in to the Frazier fight. As I recall he was a 3-1 or 4-1 underdog, mostly due to his incredibly weak resume prior to the fight. Then after the Frazier and Norton fights he was over rated, only to fall after he got schooled by Young and pretty much fell off everybody’s radar becaming under-rated again.

Then we have the second coming of Big George, complete with massive media attention, weak opponents, questionable fight endings, a very competitive effort against Holyfield, and the come from behind KO of Moorer, which puts him once again in the over-rated category.

You have always been a hater of the great man

"...Incredibly weak resume prior to Frazier..."

Not true. I'm not bothering to explain this one. You're a knowledgeable member, & you know how to do your research & already likely know the man's opposition. It was nothing short of solid prior to Frazier. It wasn't spectacular, but, "incredibly weak," is beyond subjective --- that's just flat lying.

"...A 3 or 4-1 underdog against Frazier, mostly because of his resume..."

Not true, either. The basis for the odds had as much to do with Frazier's deserved reputation as a brilliant, brilliant fighter. People tend to perceive you that way when you do the things Frazier had done 1965-73.

"...Got schooled by Young..."

Again, not true. That is an incomplete misconception. Young landed nothing of note prior to the 8th & I had the fight only a point in his favour going into the last round. This whole idea that Young was legitimately way ahead belongs in the same mythological circles as Conn being miles in front against Louis --- it just is not the reality of the fight.

"...Then we have the second-coming of Big George, complete with massive media attention, weak opponents, questionable fight endings, a very competitive effort against Holyfield, thew come-from-behind KO over Moorer, which puts him once again in the overrated category..."

Boxing is well over 100 years old. No one did his deeds before, no one will ever do them again. Over-rated, frankly, my ass, John.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Not true. I'm not bothering to explain this one. You're a knowledgeable member, & you know how to do your research & already likely know the man's opposition. It was nothing short of solid prior to Frazier. It wasn't spectacular, but, "incredibly weak," is beyond subjective --- that's just flat lying.

You can’t explain it because you can’t be objective. He beat one legitimately ranked HW in 37 fights prior to the Frazier fight and that was very early in his career. After he struggled with aged LH contender Peralta his competition was scaled back and consisted of nothing more than club fighters and journeymen. If his pre-Frazier resume was attached to a different fighter you would be agreeing with me.

And there is no reason to be hostile. Besides, calling his competition weak can’t be called lying because it’s an objective comment. Do you know what the word lie even means?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Not true, either. The basis for the odds had as much to do with Frazier's deserved reputation as a brilliant, brilliant fighter. People tend to perceive you that way when you do the things Frazier had done 1965-73.

I was alive during this time and had been following boxing pretty closely for about 7 years. Foreman was perceived as a very powerful, but crude fighter whose development had stalled. You wouldn’t know that because you weren’t around then. Frazier was definitely considered a monster at the time (as he was), but do you think the odds would have been as bad had George beaten Quarry and Ellis in his last two fights instead of Paez and Sorrel? 37-0 and look at the guys he was fighting in the year or so prior to Frazier and you might understand why even you can't defend his competition. How would you describe those guys if they were Klitschko opponents? Honestly.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Again, not true. That is an incomplete misconception. Young landed nothing of note prior to the 8th & I had the fight only a point in his favour going into the last round. This whole idea that Young was legitimately way ahead belongs in the same mythological circles as Conn being miles in front against Louis --- it just is not the reality of the fight.

You have to watch the fight objectively. You probably also thought Foreman was only dropped because he was tired and you can’t recognize how hurt he actually was in the last round.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Boxing is well over 100 years old. No one did his deeds before, no one will ever do them again. Over-rated, frankly, my ass, John.

Of course no one will ever do what George did because each fighter’s career is different. So what? No one will ever do what Larry Holmes did either, or Wlad for that matter.

And BTW, I don’t know what the term “hater” means. I was a huge Foreman fan during both of his careers and was crushed when Ali destroyed his myth. That doesn’t mean I have to believe that somehow he was more than what he was, which was a powerful, slow and relatively awkward guy with a world class jab and an almost superhuman heart.

Unfortunately in boxing, the slow, limited, powerful guys almost always lose to those with more skills, and that’s exactly what you see in George’s career, and it’s also why his management avoided just about any world class HW unless there was a title at stake. And you can check the validity of that statement by simply looking at his record. Of course with your adoration for George, you probably consider Pires and Paez as top ranked HWs of their era.