Underrated

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 07 Oct 2005, 11:42

Who do you pick and why?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 07 Oct 2005, 12:02

I think in terms of the overall quality of the boxer, Walcott wins this hands down. He's under-rated b/c of his blotchy record (due to the fact he was fighting literally for pennies while under-noursihed and under-trained until his 30s).

Schmeling is also under-rated. Many dismiss his win over Louis is resulting from the flaws of a green Joe. But Max was a Very smart, helluva technician, who packed real heavyweigh punching power in his 190 lb frame . . . .

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Oct 2005, 16:02

i agree with dempsey fire

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 07 Oct 2005, 16:36

I went with Schmeling. Reasons have already been discussed by dempseyfire.

After that, I'd say Tunney. Everybody remembers the Long Count, but overlook Tunney was in control every other round of the matches and that the count shouldn't have started until Dempsey went to the neutral corner.

Walcott is also very underrated, though he seems to be getting some respect now a days.

Other names not listed to bat around:
Jim Jeffries- Dominating in his prime, beat Corbett, Fitzsimmons, and Sharkey.
James Corbett- outstanding boxer puncher, had success against Jeffries until the kayos. Went 61 rounds with Peter Jackson.
Tommy Burns- not as great as others listed, but made many successful defenses against some credible guys until the shellacking he took against Johnson. First world traveling heavyweight champion. At 5'7 165lbs, smallest heavyweight champion but beat many larger fighters and outmuscled and outpunched the majority of them.

Also Sam McVea and Joe Jeannette. Though not champions, both were outstanding heavys of the teens.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 07 Oct 2005, 21:50

I dont beleive tunney gets as much credit as he deserves for the dempsey fights, albeit dempsey was past his prime, and the long count, etc..

i think marciano is one of the more underrated champs.. people rate him high but often not high enough IMO.. might sound crazy but he doesnt get as much respect as he should, and when he is thrown into conversation abotu mythical matchups, he is often chosen over what i beleive to be less talented fighters..

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Oct 2005, 02:31

i watches sam mcvey on tape, i was impressed with him

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 08 Oct 2005, 02:54

Rory McCloskey wrote:I dont beleive tunney gets as much credit as he deserves for the dempsey fights, albeit dempsey was past his prime, and the long count, etc..

i think marciano is one of the more underrated champs.. people rate him high but often not high enough IMO.. might sound crazy but he doesnt get as much respect as he should, and when he is thrown into conversation abotu mythical matchups, he is often chosen over what i beleive to be less talented fighters..

Leading up to their second fight Dempsey was concerned that there was some funny business going on regarding Tunney's involvement with some rather shady characters of the day and how it may affect their fight. ie the ref in the second fight was rumoured to have been in the employ of said characters

He sent an open letter to Tunney asking him about it all. Tunney refused to answer and simply said he considered what Dempsey was infering to be an insult. Then when Dempsey was knocked down the ref started counting over him before Tunney had moved to a neutral corner

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 08 Oct 2005, 04:35

IMO it's Gene Tunney hands down. The man only lost twice in his career, both times to the great Harry Greb, and retired as heavyweight champion of the world. Regardless of the long count, as has already been stated, Tunney completely controlled both fights. Yes, Dempsey was well past his prime at the time, but nonetheless it's an amazing accompishment.

Tunney fought and beat guys like Leo Houck, Battling Levinsky, Tommy Loughran, Harry Greb multiple times, Georges Carpentier, and Tommy Gibbons, only losing twice in a career that spanned 75 fights.

There are quite a few people that don't even put Tunney in the top 10, and for that reason alone he's the most underrated heavyweight of all-time.[/quote]

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Oct 2005, 11:57

Tunney is regarded by most as a top 10 All-time heavy and yet he rarely features in fantasy match-ups or debates on who was the greatest. I rarely see anyone saying that they feel someone else ranks him too low, or that it's a travesty he's not in the top 10.

I fee; that Schmeling is also overlooked as a champion. He destroys Louis in the first fight and Max was probably a bit past it by then. His reign is hardly great but as a fighter ( and looking at his record) he was very accomplished.

Most people believe that Ezzard Charles was too small to have had much success at HW when paired against the greats but he was a terrific fighter. If Tunney can get the benefit of the doubt then why not ezzard? I think it helps Tunney's ranking (in relation to Charles) in that he didn't wait around to be KO'd by a bigger man.

Walcott was a real talent and IMO is only just outside that top echelon of HWs.

I agree with Sherlock's post that Jeffries and Corbett are overlooked today. I, for one, probably underestimate Jeffries quite significantly.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 14 Oct 2005, 06:08

I think this might prove just how underrated Tunney really is: I was born in 1964 and I would wager that most fans, even pretty knowledgeable fans, would not favor him over more than two or three max of the HW champs of my lifetime, and no better than 50/50 at lhw, 30/70 if we limit the lhw question to the mid 70s to the present. His style would be characterized as jab and move, no more, unless to say "no combos" and one would wonder if he were simple; what the hell else did he do with his hands while running around jabbing and taking his sweet time about getting back up.
Being a huge admirere of Tunney I looked and read and learned that he was considered so disciplined and determined a fighter that only he was Marciano's equal in those regards. His jab was considered to be harder than that of Liston and with the left uppercut and str rt to the heart and solar plexus he worked the body very well; had a str rtt hard enough to ko 41 of 56 fighters he defeated. He meticulously planned each fight and made them go that way, except for the Greb fight, and until his hands got shaky he was quite a slugger in style.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 14 Oct 2005, 08:57

Tunney was certainly the best of the list, it's hard to say who is the most underrated.
People have been saying that Walcott and Charles have been underrated so often and for so long that it seems that they are now getting their due.

Willard wasn't that good so he doesn't deserve much attention.
I don't see how Schmeling is underrated. Of course he beat Louis, but people seem to overlook some bad losses on his record.

Sharkey and Johannson get a little attention, which is about what they deserve.
Spinks wasn't great at heavyweight, so he really isn't underrated at heavyweight. (He was at lightheavy, but thats a different story).

Patterson seems to divide a lot of people. He is underrated by some and overrated by others.

If I had to pick someone, I guess it would be Tunney. He isn't rated in the top 10 by most people and he should be.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 14 Oct 2005, 09:57

Ambling Alp wrote: I don't see how Schmeling is underrated. Of course he beat Louis, but people seem to overlook some bad losses on his record.

What losses are you talking about ?

of his total of 10 losses 4 were early in his career (as a light heavy) and 2 in the years 1947/48 after an 8-year break.

so he had only 4 defeats in his prime.... 3 of them against coming or defending world heavyweight champions:

1. Sharkey second fight (a split descision....and an extreme unfair verdict)
2. Baer (l.t.k.o. 10, Schmelings worst performance of his career).
3. Louis second fight (no one would have survived Louis that evening, it was a wonder that Max did stand up after all 3 knockdowns if you consider his injuries).

then there was the point defeat against Steve Hamas in early 1934(following the Baer-fight).... Schmeling won the rematch by k.o. one year later.

on the other hand there is not only the victory over Louis.... think for example of his big k.o. wins over Johnny Risko, Young Stribling, Mickey Walker, Walter Neusel or Harry Thomas. And even after his defeat against Joe Louis he stood up and became European Champion one year later...

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 15 Oct 2005, 01:17

I'm not saying that he was overrated, just that he isn't underrated.
As for his losses, I guess it's it's how you want to look at things. I do think that losing fights early in his career aren't as important as during the peak of career, but they shouldn't be dismissed entirely.

As you mentioned he lost 10 fights. He was stopped in his 5th fight by Max Diekman who did do much else noteworthy except get a draw with Schmeling 2 years later, though Schmeling did ko him in their 3rd fight.

His loss to journeyman Jack Taylor was in 17th fight. This is an opponent he shouldn't have lost to.
His loss to Larry Gains is more forgiveable, but he was ko'd in only 2 rounds.

Schmeling was a veteran of over 40 fights when he got ko'd by Gypsey Daniels, who was a journeyman.

He lost "only 4 times" in prime if you don't count the loss to Daniels. The loss to Sharkey was controversial, but so was his victory over Sharkey.

Many other fighters would have last past the first round against Louis.

He was completely manhandled by Max Baer in their fight.

Hamas was a good fighter, but Schmeling shouldn't have lost to him.

Yes Schmeling had some nice wins as well. He had some pluses and minuses. I just think that he should be rated at the Sharkey/Baer level as most people rate him. He isn't one of the top 20 heavyweights of alltime, (maybe top 30) but he was far better than say Carnera or Braddock or Willard.
He seems to be rated fairly by most people.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Oct 2005, 01:41

As you mentioned he lost 10 fights. He was stopped in his 5th fight by Max Diekman who did do much else noteworthy except get a draw with Schmeling 2 years later, though Schmeling did ko him in their 3rd fight.

His loss to journeyman Jack Taylor was in 17th fight. This is an opponent he shouldn't have lost to.
His loss to Larry Gains is more forgiveable, but he was ko'd in only 2 rounds.

Schmeling was a veteran of over 40 fights when he got ko'd by Gypsey Daniels, who was a journeyman.

schmelling was green and young when he lost all those fights. schmelinng was just 19 when gains and diekman knocked him out.

- schmelling and baer fought on even terms through 8 then baer took over, but schmelling fought a bad fight, he just wouldnt let his hands go.

- schmelling beat a prime joe louis and that win alone holds him in high regard, not to mention he beat sharkey(on a foul) but seemed to outbox him in a rematch despite losing the unpopular split decision.

- he knocked out mickey walker(who held sharkey to a draw)

- retained his title by knocking out HOF young stribling who had over 100 knockout wins on his resume

- and beat other contenders like uzcuden, hamas, risko, harry thomas, and adolph hueser

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 15 Oct 2005, 04:27

Ambling Alp wrote:
As you mentioned he lost 10 fights. He was stopped in his 5th fight by Max Diekman who did do much else noteworthy except get a draw with Schmeling 2 years later, though Schmeling did ko him in their 3rd fight.

His loss to journeyman Jack Taylor was in 17th fight. This is an opponent he shouldn't have lost to.
His loss to Larry Gains is more forgiveable, but he was ko'd in only 2 rounds.

In the fights against Max Dieckman (who was one of the best lightheavyweights in Germany that time), Jack Taylor and Larry Gains Max was stopped by injuries. The fight against Gipsy Daniels was surley a lucky punch (that happens in the heavyweight division) ... btw, it was the only time in his career Schmeling was counted out !

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 15 Oct 2005, 08:21

Ambling Alp wrote: Yes Schmeling had some nice wins as well. He had some pluses and minuses. I just think that he should be rated at the Sharkey/Baer level as most people rate him. He isn't one of the top 20 heavyweights of alltime, (maybe top 30) but he was far better than say Carnera or Braddock or Willard.
He seems to be rated fairly by most people.

Actually most rankings I see have him in the top twenty, and personally I put him at 14 or 15. He lost 10 times, but so what? Boxers lose, it's life. Corbett lost 4 times in less than 20 fights, Johnson lost 14 times, Walcott lost 13 times, lightweight champion Joe Brown lost 44 times! Does that mean they weren't good? And unlike most fighters, he avenged, or had already beaten, nearly eveyone who beat him.

Overall, Schmeling is not nearly as purely talented as most on this list, but he was agruably the smartest. He designed great fight plans to beat the best. He had a resounding heart, taking that beating against Baer and going into the ring unafraid of Louis, whom everyone was saying was an indestructible fighting machine. He also should, and would have been, the first champion to regain the crown if Braddock wouldn't have been afraid to lose the title overseas.

And name me any heavy who could have survived Joe Louis on June 22, 1938. He had everything that night, and no heavy would have stayed on their feet, or lasted the entire round- not Johnson, Ali, Dempsey, not anybody in my opinion.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 15 Oct 2005, 09:44

The original thread was about who was the most underrated.
I guess it depends what is meant by "underrated"?
To me it means someone who doesn't get the respect that they deserve.
Well, if most of the time you have seen Schmeling ranked in the top 20, how is he underrated?

As for his loss to Louis, certainly Ali, Johnson and others would have lasted stayed on their feet through the first round. There are other fighters who were better defesively, had a better ability to take a punch and better offensively than Schmeling and wouldn't have been stopped in less than one round against Louis.
I certainly don't see how the Baer-Schmeling fight could be considered even for 8 rounds. Baer was in control. Most importantly, he got stopped.

You can make excuses for Schmeling's losses, like he was young, had an off night, got beat by a lucky punch etc. What about his wins? Was the other guy ever inexperienced, did the other guy ever have an off night, or get beat by a Schmeling lucky punch?

I guess I don't agree with the "so what " arguement about losses. They should count against anyone. Obviously losses in a fighters prime should count more, but losses early on have to count for something.

Certainly Schmeling had some decent wins. Schmeling does get some respect, which he deserves. He isn't underrated, which is what the topic was about, thats all.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 15 Oct 2005, 10:15

Ambling Alp wrote: What about his wins? Was the other guy ever inexperienced, did the other guy ever have an off night, or get beat by a Schmeling lucky punch?

hmm. interesting fact : Max was the first guy to knock out:

Johnny Risko (despite a low blow defeat Risko has taken)
Young Stribling (after more than 200 bouts !)
Walter Neusel
Steve Hamas
Joe Louis
and
Harry Thomas

...so he managed to knock out guys where others felt to do that before him !
Probably they all had their worst career-performances when they faced the German.

I would rank Max definitly in the top-15, maybe in the top 12.

to his early losses...Max wasn't that kind of protected career boxers you find often nowadays...he had to fight his way to the top.
Another point is that he had mostly "away-matches" fighting major fights in the USA... wich is more different than fighting at home.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 15 Oct 2005, 10:15

Ambling Alp wrote:The original thread was about who was the most underrated.
I guess it depends what is meant by "underrated"?
To me it means someone who doesn't get the respect that they deserve.
Well, if most of the time you have seen Schmeling ranked in the top 20, how is he underrated?

As for his loss to Louis, certainly Ali, Johnson and others would have lasted stayed on their feet through the first round. There are other fighters who were better defesively, had a better ability to take a punch and better offensively than Schmeling and wouldn't have been stopped in less than one round against Louis.
I certainly don't see how the Baer-Schmeling fight could be considered even for 8 rounds. Baer was in control. Most importantly, he got stopped.

You can make excuses for Schmeling's losses, like he was young, had an off night, got beat by a lucky punch etc. What about his wins? Was the other guy ever inexperienced, did the other guy ever have an off night, or get beat by a Schmeling lucky punch?

I guess I don't agree with the "so what " arguement about losses. They should count against anyone. Obviously losses in a fighters prime should count more, but losses early on have to count for something.

Certainly Schmeling had some decent wins. Schmeling does get some respect, which he deserves. He isn't underrated, which is what the topic was about, thats all.

He's underrated because all anyone remembers is his loss to Louis. Everyone forgets the magnificent boxing display he showed against Louis. Tunney is surely underrated, but he had a limited career at heavy, only 4 or 5 fights, so its hard to judge him at heavy. I have Tunney at 11, and I see that as pretty fair. Even when Schmeling died, all the news agency showed was his kayo loss to Louis.

The loss against Baer showed his heart. He was thoroughly beaten by Baer, but was on his feet at the end. He didn't get counted out and he didn't quit. And Baer had the ability to be a top 5 all time, he just never exerted himself. And when he did, look what he could do. And Schmeling obviously went through a slide after that loss to Baer.An regarding the Steve Hamas fight, I know nothing of this fight and don't know if it was close or not, maybe somebody here has a fight report of it. And fighting to a draw against Uzcudan in Spain with the head of the Spanish Boxing Federation as ref might have factored into his draw against Uzcudan.

His losses early to Dieckmann was stopped due to a cut, as was against Gains. The loss to Daniels was a pure knockout loss, he got caught clean and couldn't beat the count. He was running high and was brought back to reality.

And to me, a loss is one of the most important things a fighter should experience, and the early the better. If you are not challenged early, you get exposed late in the limelight and can never adapt. When I see an undefeated record, I feel they havn't been challenged, and most of the time they haven't. And most importantly, Schmeling avenged them, showing he learned. For the most part, most all time greats in that era lost on the way up because they took the hard fights, unlike today where fighters are protected as much as possible. Look at the other underrateds on this list-Charles has 25 losses, Walcott has 13, Patterson has 8, and on and on. Losses are a part of the boxing experience. Yes, they should be factored in, but for the most part I'd say you, or anybody else for that matter, hasn't seen Schmeling's early fights to say if he was valiant in defeat or not.

theone · Post by **theone** » 15 Oct 2005, 21:15

Both Schmeling and Walcott were very good championship calibre fighters who experienced moments of greatness. In recent times they have actually become overrated. Neither of the two had any long stretches of dominance. Waloctt for instance was 11-9 in his last 20 fights, when most of his supporters say he was actually in his prime. Along with two wins against Ezzard Charles, a should have been upset to Louis and a knockout of lightheavy Harold Johnson, were also two losses to Charles, a vicious ko from Louis, two Marciano ko's and losses to Rex Layne, Joe Maxim, and Elmer Ray. Close but no cigar into the all time great club in my opinion.

Underrated

Who is the most underrated HW Champion?

Underrated