BoxRec

On a skysports interview ahead of prizefighter:

Actual quote: "I'm by far the most underachieved fighter in British boxing" (not enough room in title)

He went on to talk about a great amateur career and a good start to his pro career which then stalled.

I was just wondering whether people agree with his statement and if so why they think he has underachieved like he has?

If you disagree, who do you think is the most underachieved fighter in British boxing at the moment?

My honest opinion is probably he has achieved about his level. He has been in some good fights and has held the British SMW title defending it once and has been in some good fights with decent domestic operators in Quigley and Smith. Anytime he has stepped out of domestic level he has been beaten soundly he has lost to Carl Froch (tko3 no shame in that) and earlier on in his career Albert Rybacki and Pierre Moreno. He does have a standout win on his slate early on in his career which is Brian Barbossa who was ranked in the top 5 in the world at the time.

I think he is a very good boxer and probably still has something left to offer he is always very competitive and i think he has a very good chance of winning prizefighter.

Tony has pedigree. Beat Enzo M in the ams for one, and was in England teams with Cook, Barnes and Hatton.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/art ... eets-froch

You mention David Barnes, he looked set for big things after his victory over Hare. I would say he underachieved by a fair distance

But the answer is surely Richard "The Secret" Williams, he should be up there with Robinson, Greb and Armstrong on talent alone

You could make a case for Audley Harrison being one of the biggest underachievers out there, but he has had more opportunities than most.

I know that he is nowhere near THE biggest underachiever but I was a big fan of his and he did well; but; Ross Hale looked as though he was going to be at least a strong world title challenger. Another of my favourites, Paul Ryan put paid to that. I loved to see Ryan box but Hale seemed to have the whole lot and I was surprised when he was derailed and then packed it in. (I did hear that he's very happy now though and as a fan that pleases me )

On a lower level, the Doncaster box fighter Peter Gabbitus was very classy and had every move in the book. He could really box and was fierce when in the mood. He should (could?) have gone further in his career and contested at least the British Title.

he was good in the ams because he matured really early & as been the same size since 13 D it's true.

david haye pulled out of facing him twice i think?? deffo once with a bs back injury. people may find this bs but it's 100%.

dodson is a good strong fighter on top. i think he's level is justified imo.

he's so expierianced now & should stop whining & keep his head down rather then talk himself up & not live up to it.he just seem's to add pressure.

I said a similar thing on the 'over achiever' thread. I just disagree with these notions. If someone didn't fulfill the destiny their technical ability warranted, it may have been because of lack of desire or bad attitude. If that's the case then it is not under or over achieving in my opinion.

winkveron wrote:I said a similar thing on the 'over achiever' thread. I just disagree with these notions. If someone didn't fulfill the destiny their technical ability warranted, it may have been because of lack of desire or bad attitude. If that's the case then it is not under or over achieving in my opinion.

yeah it's just not being good enough. i do believe knock's can ruin fighter's, but perseverance shine's through as john simpson has shown.dodson annoy's me how he bang's on about the quigley fight :!: he forget's he had prepared 4 magee & was a massive,massive underdog & to have quigley as a late sub must of been a relief & a boost in confidence to pick up the crown.he was down twice in the fight but his better fitness was winning it till he got chinned. & smith had terrible cut's & had dodson forced him to the ropes & try to worsen the damage the ref would of stopped them cut's :!: imo dodson couldnt of had a better chance of beating both fighter's on the given occasion's.

well if he doesn't win prizefighter he can add it to the list of his underachievements and his career will be well and truly f*cked

The_Don1 wrote:well if he doesn't win prizefighter he can add it to the list of his underachievements and his career will be well and truly f*cked

exactly..he has set himself up for an almighty fall..

i remember him saying to froch....... 'ive been putting people to sleep since i was 8' ......... !!!

rhino222 wrote:

The_Don1 wrote:well if he doesn't win prizefighter he can add it to the list of his underachievements and his career will be well and truly f*cked

exactly..he has set himself up for an almighty fall..

i remember him saying to froch....... 'ive been putting people to sleep since i was 8' ......... !!!

he aint lying, he does it with his talk

Dodson is an overachiever in the excuses department.

It's the short-cut nature that Prizefighter offers that I'm starting to really detest about this competition. On the one hand you've got guys boxing very hard 10round eliminators but still being overlooked by those who can manage to put it together for one night and jump the queue.

THEBUTCH wrote:Dodson is an overachiever in the excuses department.

Dodson has had more than his fair share of chances. Shall we count them?

Dodson has talent for sure but in terms of achievement, I wouldn't say he has underachieved. He is British level and no more than that. This was made obvious when he fought Froch and was taken out inside 3 rounds without Froch having to move out of first gear. The performances against Quigley and Smith underlined the fact that he is domestic level.

I think Dodson looks back too much to that (admittedly impressive) performance against Brian Barbossa and makes excuses for why he hasn't kicked on into world class from that. Sure, he had terrible injuries after the car crash and I sympathise greatly but can anyone honestly have ever seen him stepping into world class to challenge the likes of Calzaghe, Froch, Reid and even Magee? As much as I like Dodson, he's deluding himself.

THEBUTCH wrote:Dodson is an overachiever in the excuses department.

It's the short-cut nature that Prizefighter offers that I'm starting to really detest about this competition. On the one hand you've got guys boxing very hard 10round eliminators but still being overlooked by those who can manage to put it together for one night and jump the queue.

This is happening in all kind of sports though, UFC & their tv show, Football with the Rooney & Inter Milan show and even the WWE tried it. It gets interest in fighters, sells tickets and makes money.

i honestly hope tony wins prizefighter, he has had more knockouts than any of the others have had fights..... but i think he is over the hill now, one of the young boys will win the competition.

good luck tony anyway

UpperCrust wrote:On a skysports interview ahead of prizefighter:

Actual quote: "I'm by far the most underachieved fighter in British boxing"...

I was just wondering whether people agree with his statement

I simply can't agree with something as ungrammatical as this.

hurlock wrote:

winkveron wrote:I said a similar thing on the 'over achiever' thread. I just disagree with these notions. If someone didn't fulfill the destiny their technical ability warranted, it may have been because of lack of desire or bad attitude. If that's the case then it is not under or over achieving in my opinion.

yeah it's just not being good enough. i do believe knock's can ruin fighter's, but perseverance shine's through as john simpson has shown.dodson annoy's me how he bang's on about the quigley fight :!: he forget's he had prepared 4 magee & was a massive,massive underdog & to have quigley as a late sub must of been a relief & a boost in confidence to pick up the crown.he was down twice in the fight but his better fitness was winning it till he got chinned. & smith had terrible cut's & had dodson forced him to the ropes & try to worsen the damage the ref would of stopped them cut's :!: imo dodson couldnt of had a better chance of beating both fighter's on the given occasion's.

just a note on the quigley fight! 12th round adam booth told him to go for the nock out so tony was trying and was obviously warn out and quigley had got a chin of iron and tony couldnt produce the nock out or stoppage! a few times in the fight i thought quigley was going to get saved by the ref but good on quigley he stayed in there an grit it out!

and with out making excuses weight has been a problem for tony! try shaking 9lbs off before weighing in! tony should of moved up before the quigley fight and i know the 3 rounds will suit tony as he is a quick starter

JonRobo wrote:

hurlock wrote:

winkveron wrote:I said a similar thing on the 'over achiever' thread. I just disagree with these notions. If someone didn't fulfill the destiny their technical ability warranted, it may have been because of lack of desire or bad attitude. If that's the case then it is not under or over achieving in my opinion.

yeah it's just not being good enough. i do believe knock's can ruin fighter's, but perseverance shine's through as john simpson has shown.dodson annoy's me how he bang's on about the quigley fight :!: he forget's he had prepared 4 magee & was a massive,massive underdog & to have quigley as a late sub must of been a relief & a boost in confidence to pick up the crown.he was down twice in the fight but his better fitness was winning it till he got chinned. & smith had terrible cut's & had dodson forced him to the ropes & try to worsen the damage the ref would of stopped them cut's :!: imo dodson couldnt of had a better chance of beating both fighter's on the given occasion's.

just a note on the quigley fight! 12th round adam booth told him to go for the nock out so tony was trying and was obviously warn out and quigley had got a chin of iron and tony couldnt produce the nock out or stoppage! a few times in the fight i thought quigley was going to get saved by the ref but good on quigley he stayed in there an grit it out!

and with out making excuses weight has been a problem for tony! try shaking 9lbs off before weighing in! tony should of moved up before the quigley fight and i know the 3 rounds will suit tony as he is a quick starter

So then if it is a weight problem, Tony hasn't underachieved. It just means he has been fighting at the wrong weight either due to bad advice or his own bad judgement.

winkveron wrote:

JonRobo wrote:

hurlock wrote: yeah it's just not being good enough. i do believe knock's can ruin fighter's, but perseverance shine's through as john simpson has shown.dodson annoy's me how he bang's on about the quigley fight :!: he forget's he had prepared 4 magee & was a massive,massive underdog & to have quigley as a late sub must of been a relief & a boost in confidence to pick up the crown.he was down twice in the fight but his better fitness was winning it till he got chinned. & smith had terrible cut's & had dodson forced him to the ropes & try to worsen the damage the ref would of stopped them cut's :!: imo dodson couldnt of had a better chance of beating both fighter's on the given occasion's.

just a note on the quigley fight! 12th round adam booth told him to go for the nock out so tony was trying and was obviously warn out and quigley had got a chin of iron and tony couldnt produce the nock out or stoppage! a few times in the fight i thought quigley was going to get saved by the ref but good on quigley he stayed in there an grit it out!

and with out making excuses weight has been a problem for tony! try shaking 9lbs off before weighing in! tony should of moved up before the quigley fight and i know the 3 rounds will suit tony as he is a quick starter

So then if it is a weight problem, Tony hasn't underachieved. It just means he has been fighting at the wrong weight either due to bad advice or his own bad judgement.

dont forget mate tonys been making 12 stone since what 10 years ago? its obviously going to take its tole on his body

Of course it will take it's toll. But my point is, weight cannot be used for an 'under achiever' excuse. He hasn't underachieved, merely CHOSEN to fight at the wrong weight. So it's either bad advice or his own bad judgement.

If Pacquiao fought at Heavyweight and lost, it wouldn't be underachieving, it is just not the right weight.