BoxRec

I've just had my memory tested by another new thread about British Underachievers. It got me thinking about Overachievers. My picks would be Dennis Andries and Johnny Nelson.

I know they are pretty obvious picks; can anyone think of others who really did well through commitment and perseverance and the development of hidden talent?

carl thompson.

Ricky Burns, no disrespect.

Clinton Woods.

Good call with Andries and Thompson.

Bruno.

yeah nice stu...agree with woods probablty the best example of a man making the most of his talent and burns coud go on to do even better..not sure bout bruno though..molly coddled wrapped up in cotton wool for 20 fights, then successful at the 3rd attempt to win a title....
neverhave been a fan found him a bit of an embarressment to be honest.

the loverble loser...always was firmly in the lennox camp meself.

Steve Robinson is another one that springs to mind...

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.

TerribleTerry wrote:Steve Robinson is another one that springs to mind...

on a lower level, amongst contemporary boxers, Martin Gethin

Counter-puncher wrote:on a lower level, amongst contemporary boxers, Martin Gethin

For fornicate's sake, mate. The first name that popped into my napper when I read the title. Against the Asian lad, who's name I can't remember he beat he cos the lad gassed BADLY, then in his next fight he beat Fewkes, who gassed BADLY after 2 rounds and didn't want to be there. He got the wrong fighters and the RIGHT times.

But take nothing away from him.

hahaha. glad to see you're taking nothing away from him, then

limited physical/ostensible talent + decent achievements = overachiever.

Fewkes/Siddique: more obvious physical talents + less achievement relative to Gethin = underachievers.

its not an exact science but i hope those equations clear this murky issue up for you

But Gethin got them both at the right time. Even a fecked Fewkes took a helluva long time to be stopped by Gethin. Saddique, ahh?, tired badly after 7 after being ahead on points. Therefore, IMO, he overacheived because he wasn't expected to win those fights beforehand. Therefore he overachived in them, IMO.

siddique's tiring, presumably, had nothing whatsoever to do with Gethin's solid pressure?

he just, well, tired. would have done the same had he been shadowboxing, I presume?

no.

had gethin done nothing but stare winsomely at Siddique, and perhaps givene him a couple of tough stares, you would have found Siddique's stamina less affected. same goes for if Gethin didn't manage to hit Siddique. Siddique's stamina is less affected when he doesn't take punches.

thus, we have a new equation:

Boxer A's pressure, in contributing towards Boxer B's gassing, means Boxer A's stamina- part of his overachieving skillset- contributed towwards Boxer B's underachievement.

i can do this all night if you want other examples. except i won't be around, so i won't. but I'm sure you get the picture, cut n paste my phrases and insert different boxer A's and B's to taste.

you have to ask yourself the question WHY their stamina goes.

and i don't give an eff for all this poor Fewkesy was drained stuff

part of his job is to come to the ring ready to fight.

anything less makes him a- wait for it- underachiever. geddit?

if his weight was fecked, tough sh1t, thats your job sunshine you fvcked up. Siddique maybe doesn't do enough circuits and running. i don't feckin care, his stamina got shown up by the fitter fighter. thats why Gethin's more an overachiever and they ar underachievers. whatever the eff gethin's limitations- and he has plenty- he'll never be done over by anyone cos he's so busy gasping for air he can't think about defending himself or throwing shots.

my purpose here is done

simon fox wrote:I've just had my memory tested by another new thread about British Underachievers. It got me thinking about Overachievers. My picks would be Dennis Andries and Johnny Nelson.

I wouldn't have saiud Nelson, he was a good boxer, it's not like he wasn't talented.

Enough of the backstreet philosophy lessons, dude.

Gethin is a solid pro, who works his cock off, but saying that, I still expect a pro boxer not to be tired at 6 or 7 rounds. The sudden fatigue as well, to me, doesn't exactly say that he was ground down, but attributed to the fact that he isn't the most dedicated trainer, which I don't think he is.

There's a palpable difference between getting ground down at 6 rounds and 10, like Watson did.

At the moment Ricky Burns is Brittish boxing biggest overachiever. ;;-)

Dioufy wrote: but attributed to the fact that he isn't the most dedicated trainer, which I don't think he is.

.

good stuff, so relative to Gethin his approach to training outside the ring makes him an underachiever and Gethin an overachiever.

gethin, by the way, is alwaysi n the gym injuries permitting and never goes too far above his fighting weight. its part of the game he does well and Fewkes, clearly, did much less well.

I can't see where you think I'm disagreeing with you. Gethin, to me, over achieved. Siddique, under achieved, because he had/has the talent to do something. Gethin is very very limited, but he has a few big wins on his card, so he overachieved.

Crease wrote:

simon fox wrote:I've just had my memory tested by another new thread about British Underachievers. It got me thinking about Overachievers. My picks would be Dennis Andries and Johnny Nelson.

I wouldn't have saiud Nelson, he was a good boxer, it's not like he wasn't talented.

I feel that Nelson (obviously) had bags of talent; sometimes it seems that until someone has the self confidence and some life experience the talent can't really show. Once Johnny started to do well he blossomed. Because he had the difficult experiences early on in his career he was better able to better ride the knocks later.

Chris Eubank.

I don't agree with all this 'over achiever' stuff. 99% of the time you either win because you deserved it, or lose because you didn't deserve to win. I think it's a bit unfair to some of these lads.

Matt Skelton
Martin Rogan

Jim Watt??

Johnny Nelson is a good call. He never had the amateur pedigree. And Ingle said he was pretty terrible in the early years.

winkveron wrote:I don't agree with all this 'over achiever' stuff. 99% of the time you either win because you deserved it, or lose because you didn't deserve to win. I think it's a bit unfair to some of these lads.

think of it of maximising your potential.

gavin rees. although i think he's a great little fighter.

burn's & to be honest the likes of lueveno & martinez wasnt great champions.

dennis andries was the most limited but had world class strength & determination.

carl thompson shouldnt be on this thread :!: :!: liberty.

alan minter.

GLENN MCRORY :!: