BoxRec

1. David Price
2. Adrian Broner
3. Malik Scott
4. Amir Khan
5. Daniel Jacobs

Errol Spence.

David Haye, Deontay Wilder

ValMar wrote:1. David Price
2. Adrian Broner
3. Malik Scott
4. Amir Khan
5. Daniel Jacobs

Who hypes Price?
He hasn't been classed as a promising prospect since he was knocking people out about 4 years ago

Adrian Broner takes as much criticism as anyone on the internet, his biggest promoter is himself and even he's not had as much to say as he used to

Who rates Malik Scott as anything other than a gatekeeper?

Khan also regularly gets written off. He's fallen short so many times. His chin let's him down,. his defence is far from perfect. I actually think his talent doesn't get recognised at times because people write him off due to his propensity to get flattened

Jacobs is nothing more than an interim title holder, his strap means nothing and everyone here recognises that. But the guy has ability and a dig, he should be rated as one of the better middleweights and is arguably as big a threat to GGG as anyone in the 160 ranks.

To be honest, I can’t think of five currently-active fighters that have received a certain amount of undeserved hype… and it seems that other members of this forum can’t either, since many of the names mentioned in this thread seem to receive a lot of widespread criticism, which automatically excludes them from consideration, as I suspect people have simply named the boxers that they dislike rather than actually answering the question being posed by the thread title.

Anyway, I could only think of one name…

I’m not 100% sold on Luis Ortiz, which is the reason why I’ve refrained from climbing aboard the ‘King Kong’ hype-train.

For sure, he looks very effective when fighting on the outside, with good mobility and excellent punch variety. However, he does appear to have several stylistic/physical flaws that were exposed during the Jennings fight, which include:
• Less comfortable fighting on the inside
• Low work-rate (can be outworked)
• Questionable stamina
• His advanced years

I also believe that his chin is untested and the quality of opposition he has faced has either been poor or at best, moderate second-tier.

For me, he may eventually earn the right to being universally regarded as the “real deal”, the very best heavyweight on the planet, but this seems highly-unlikely given his age.

Unlike several members of this forum, I don’t believe that any fighter automatically deserves an honorary rite of passage to being considered as the king of the heavyweights, purely based on passing the proverbial “eyeball test”, without having earned it by beating the very best fighters in his own weight division… and he hasn’t done that yet. Perhaps by the time he retires he will, but the fact remains is that the men he has defeated so far haven’t been that impressive.

In the UK, every member of the 2012 olympic team came through with far too much hype.

Tom Stalker had been their team captain, turned pro and was talked about as potentially going somewhere, despite the fact anyone who knew anything could see he was not even domestic level, which has since been proven

Anthony Ogogo created some hype, touted for the top by Sky pundits, didn't look that good to be honest.
Carried a bit of celebrity appeal, got poached by Goldenboy, got injured and went on some reality TV pish. Got beat, hyped dispelled

Luke Campbell was not only going to be world champion but if you listened to Hearn, he was going to be a p4p ranked multi weight champion and clean out the lightweight division. He couldn't even top the British lightweight rankings and he's been shown up as being limited. Some flash skills but lacking in certain departments

Anthony Joshua. What can I say. The lad has some offensive skills and plenty power.
But he has limitations, movement? defence? chin? Lot's of unknowns and still to be tested at the top level.
But to some he's made it, would fight anyone and walks through ATGs, if only we could create the time machine to make the match ups.
Eddie Hearn again the main culprit in the hype machine

davie wrote:In the UK, every member of the 2012 olympic team came through with far too much hype.

Tom Stalker had been their team captain, turned pro and was talked about as potentially going somewhere, despite the fact anyone who knew anything could see he was not even domestic level, which has since been proven

Anthony Ogogo created some hype, touted for the top by Sky pundits, didn't look that good to be honest.
Carried a bit of celebrity appeal, got poached by Goldenboy, got injured and went on some reality TV pish. Got beat, hyped dispelled

Luke Campbell was not only going to be world champion but if you listened to Hearn, he was going to be a p4p ranked multi weight champion and clean out the lightweight division. He couldn't even top the British lightweight rankings and he's been shown up as being limited. Some flash skills but lacking in certain departments

Anthony Joshua. What can I say. The lad has some offensive skills and plenty power.
But he has limitations, movement? defence? chin? Lot's of unknowns and still to be tested at the top level.
But to some he's made it, would fight anyone and walks through ATGs, if only we could create the time machine to make the match ups.
Eddie Hearn again the main culprit in the hype machine

That’s an excellent post!

Eddie Hearn has done a great job at creating hype around the fighters that he promotes.

asdfjkl wrote:David Haye, Deontay Wilder

Add Pedvetkin. We will see how he does without the juice.

Badhusker wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:David Haye, Deontay Wilder

Add Pedvetkin. We will see how he does without the juice.

Never heard of, so he can't be a hype job lol.

Malik Scott hype?

ginty wrote:

davie wrote:

ValMar wrote:1. David Price
2. Adrian Broner
3. Malik Scott
4. Amir Khan
5. Daniel Jacobs

Who hypes Price?
He hasn't been classed as a promising prospect since he was knocking people out about 4 years ago

Adrian Broner takes as much criticism as anyone on the internet, his biggest promoter is himself and even he's not had as much to say as he used to

Who rates Malik Scott as anything other than a gatekeeper?

Khan also regularly gets written off. He's fallen short so many times. His chin let's him down,. his defence is far from perfect. I actually think his talent doesn't get recognised at times because people write him off due to his propensity to get flattened

Jacobs is nothing more than an interim title holder, his strap means nothing and everyone here recognises that. But the guy has ability and a dig, he should be rated as one of the better middleweights and is arguably as big a threat to GGG as anyone in the 160 ranks.

i don't think the poster meant at this time more at the start of their careers

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Malik Scott hype?

That was my reaction to. I never heard anybody talking up Malik Scott ever.

ValMar wrote:1. David Price
2. Adrian Broner
3. Malik Scott
4. Amir Khan
5. Daniel Jacobs

I will try to explain my attitude. Price (before Thompson) was considered as a new HW ruler by many , not only British fans. Broner and Scott, in certain circles in USA has been expected to become new Mayweather/new HW champion (Seth Mitchel, too, I haven't put him on my list because I am not sure is he still active boxer). There is absolutelly no need to speak/write about Amir Khan, everything is obvious. Honestly, I think that Daniel Jacobs is quite decent MW, but nothing more. Some fans think that he is capable to beat GGG. I would give him maybe 0,5 % chance to win against GGG.

I would like to see your lists, with short explanation.

ValMar wrote:4. Amir Khan
5. Daniel Jacobs

Khan may not be elite, but at least he's proven himself in the fires of competition repeatedly, as both the winner and the loser. He's tested himself many times against Alvarez, Garcia, Peterson, Kotelnik, Alexander, Maidana, Judah, etc.. Whether he's good, bad, or just medium, he's shown what he is in the middle of the ring. No one is speaking theoretically about things he hasn't done like they are with Spence, Thurman, Lomanchenko, Rigondeaux, Beterbiev, Jarrell Miller, etc..
Danny Jacobs beat Peter Quillin. That's the biggest thing that's been accomplished by any non-Golovkin middleweight.

davie wrote: Eddie Hearn the main culprit

#blamecampeddie

1. Anthony Joshua
2. Guillermo Rigondeaux
3. Kell Brook
4. David Haye
5. Jack Catterall

Sids wrote:Errol Spence.

I will never agree with you. Never !

Errol Spence Jr.

I know he's good, but I just hope he is as good as the hype.

The last guy I remember getting hyped up this much was Jeff Lacy & we all know what happened to him.

Lackeos wrote:

ValMar wrote:4. Amir Khan
5. Daniel Jacobs

Khan may not be elite, but at least he's proven himself in the fires of competition repeatedly, as both the winner and the loser. He's tested himself many times against Alvarez, Garcia, Peterson, Kotelnik, Alexander, Maidana, Judah, etc.. Whether he's good, bad, or just medium, he's shown what he is in the middle of the ring. No one is speaking theoretically about things he hasn't done like they are with Spence, Thurman, Lomanchenko, Rigondeaux, Beterbiev, Jarrell Miller, etc..
Danny Jacobs beat Peter Quillin. That's the biggest thing that's been accomplished by any non-Golovkin middleweight.

Counter-puncher wrote:

davie wrote: Eddie Hearn the main culprit

#blamecampeddie

Always mate

#blamecampeddie

David haye, Anthony Joshua

ValMar wrote:1. David Price
2. Adrian Broner
3. Malik Scott
4. Amir Khan
5. Daniel Jacobs

had to check when that post was written,
cause none of them is hyped anymore.

Wilder
Khan
Haye
Broner
Ortiz

Enlightened-One wrote:To be honest, I can’t think of five currently-active fighters that have received a certain amount of undeserved hype… and it seems that other members of this forum can’t either, since many of the names mentioned in this thread seem to receive a lot of widespread criticism, which automatically excludes them from consideration, as I suspect people have simply named the boxers that they dislike rather than actually answering the question being posed by the thread title.

Anyway, I could only think of one name…

I’m not 100% sold on Luis Ortiz, which is the reason why I’ve refrained from climbing aboard the ‘King Kong’ hype-train.

For sure, he looks very effective when fighting on the outside, with good mobility and excellent punch variety. However, he does appear to have several stylistic/physical flaws that were exposed during the Jennings fight, which include:
• Less comfortable fighting on the inside
• Low work-rate (can be outworked)
• Questionable stamina
• His advanced years

I also believe that his chin is untested and the quality of opposition he has faced has either been poor or at best, moderate second-tier.

For me, he may eventually earn the right to being universally regarded as the “real deal”, the very best heavyweight on the planet, but this seems highly-unlikely given his age.

Unlike several members of this forum, I don’t believe that any fighter automatically deserves an honorary rite of passage to being considered as the king of the heavyweights, purely based on passing the proverbial “eyeball test”, without having earned it by beating the very best fighters in his own weight division… and he hasn’t done that yet. Perhaps by the time he retires he will, but the fact remains is that the men he has defeated so far haven’t been that impressive.

He still face planted Jennings whilst throwing uppercuts on the inside though. How many of the top heavyweights, the bigger guys do fight well on the inside though anyway?! Klitschko, definietly not. Joshua haven't seen much from him on the inside to say he can- Wilder?! Nope. Fury is about the only real,big heavyweight I've seen currently that looks relatively comfortable mixing it up on the inside.

Shannon Briggs hasn't had a real fight since 2010 yet somehow a few folks actually think he will beat contenders and he is getting arguably the most undeserved title shot in recent years. Khan at least fights top competition, but I hear Ya.