BoxRec

For me, the most under-rated HW contender of all time was...

'Merciless' Ray Mercer 8)

Mercer had a late start in boxing, but he was an accomplished amateur who won the Olympic Gold Medal in 1988, and his chin of granite, cannon ball bursts of power, solid skills and sheer determination won him the WBO HW title twice. He was quite the feared opponent, who never quite got to face the world's best as much as he deserved or wanted. His viscous kayo over Tommy Morrison is quite possibly the most grotesque beating ever seen in the last 50 years.

His losses to Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis put him out of the running of major title shots, but some could argue that Mercer was robbed against Lennox Lewis, and that anybody else from that time period: Ruddock, Stewart, Seldon, Bruno, etc would have fell to his hands in defeat.

HomicideHenry wrote:For me, the most under-rated HW contender of all time was...

'Merciless' Ray Mercer 8)

Mercer had a late start in boxing, but he was an accomplished amateur who won the Olympic Gold Medal in 1988, and his chin of granite, cannon ball bursts of power, solid skills and sheer determination won him the WBO HW title twice. He was quite the feared opponent, who never quite got to face the world's best as much as he deserved or wanted. His viscous kayo over Tommy Morrison is quite possibly the most grotesque beating ever seen in the last 50 years.

His losses to Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis put him out of the running of major title shots, but some could argue that Mercer was robbed against Lennox Lewis, and that anybody else from that time period: Ruddock, Stewart, Seldon, Bruno, etc would have fell to his hands in defeat.

I disagree.

Mercer had a great chin, very good jab, and good punching power, but his skills were one-dimensional, his footwork slow and plodding, had a weak defense, and bad stamina. His losses to Lewis and Holyfield were largely due to his gaping holes in stamina and defense, as he had good leads haflway through the fights but let some of the later rounds slip away. I think he actually deserved the decision vs Lewis, but that still doesn't erase his huge fumbles vs Jesse Ferguson (twice), Marion Wilson (by most accounts a Wilson victory), and struggling greatly with the average Damiani . . plus he got schooled by a 40 something year old Holmes.

Those are good points, but I'd take Ken Norton over Mercer.
Do you have some kind of criteria for what a contender is? If the only qualifieris not winning the title, then Langford would probably top my list.

I'd say Norton, as well as Ron Lyle, and Shavers are very close to the number one spot. But I do think Mercer is vastly under-rated, more than the other three. Jerry Quarry also springs to mind, he too, is vastly under looked.

Decagon wrote:Mercer never actually contended for a legitimate title, unless you count his WBO fight against Wladimir Klitschko.

Mercer also won the WBO title in the early 90s, albeit the WBO had even less credibility back then

Razor Ruddock.

The man started off as a boxer - mover and possessed a quick left jab outscoring his opponents, he showed he can take a very good punch when he took Weavers best left hook - the kind of hook that put Tate away but yet Ruddock refused to fall and comfortably outpointed the far more experienced Weaver.

He adapated his style from boxer to puncher when he knocked out the veteran Larry Alexander with a single blow and beat the likes of Bonecrusher Smith, James Broad and Dokes in sickening fashion. His fights with Tyson comfirmed his ATG chin and heart, but it was these fights that aged Razor when he fought Lewis. Despite Ruddock being good enough to knock out Greg Page for the first time in his career and Jackson, Lewis fought the former shell of Ruddock as well as the disgusting treatment Razor recieved from the crowd which further comfirmed his defeat.

If Ruddock fought Lewis in 1990 Lewis's career would of been over, if Ruddock would of fought Lewis in 92 like they did but elsewhere other than London; Lewis would find himself waking up eating hospital food.

Well not very fair as Lennox had only had 13 fights by the end of 1990. Also I admire you sticking to your guns over Ruddock only losing because the fight was held in London when there is no real sustance to it

If Ruddock fought Lewis in 1990 Lewis's career would of been over, if Ruddock would of fought Lewis in 92 like they did but elsewhere other than London; Lewis would find himself waking up eating hospital food.

Really? Did the fight being in London make that much difference? I thought this was a pretty silly comment, and was about to say so until I saw who the author was. I'm sorry, Razor, but I think I have less respect for you than any other poster on BoxRec. Fair enough that you are no fan of Lewis, but you are so obviously biased against him that I really cant take anything you say about him seriously. I am a Lewis fan, don't get me wrong (I rate him No7 of all-time), but at least I am not a hater. I just don't get haters. Mike Tyson has done some pretty horrible things, but I still respect him as a formerly great fighter, and don't let my dislike of the man get in the way of his obvious skills as a fighter. I think that Dempsey and Johnson are overrated, but I don't go about making angry comments about it.

RazorKO wrote:Razor Ruddock.

The man started off as a boxer - mover and possessed a quick left jab outscoring his opponents, he showed he can take a very good punch when he took Weavers best left hook - the kind of hook that put Tate away but yet Ruddock refused to fall and comfortably outpointed the far more experienced Weaver.

He adapated his style from boxer to puncher when he knocked out the veteran Larry Alexander with a single blow and beat the likes of Bonecrusher Smith, James Broad and Dokes in sickening fashion. His fights with Tyson comfirmed his ATG chin and heart, but it was these fights that aged Razor when he fought Lewis. Despite Ruddock being good enough to knock out Greg Page for the first time in his career and Jackson, Lewis fought the former shell of Ruddock as well as the disgusting treatment Razor recieved from the crowd which further comfirmed his defeat.

If Ruddock fought Lewis in 1990 Lewis's career would of been over, if Ruddock would of fought Lewis in 92 like they did but elsewhere other than London; Lewis would find himself waking up eating hospital food.

Ruddock is a decent shout, if he could have done anything other than left hand smashes post Dokes. He had the tools but didn't use them.

As regards Lennox well Lewis was nowhere near the fighter in 1992 that he became later in his career, and he still demolished Razor. You can't blame the crowd, if Ruddock was so weak minded that he couldn't box in front of a hostile crowd then this might tell why he never held a belt. Hagler and Witherspoon fought in front of much more hostile British crowds than Ruddock and managed to win.

Sorry mate but Lewis was just better than any version of Ruddock, deal with it.

How about good old Vaughn Bean?

jezzamundo wrote:

If Ruddock fought Lewis in 1990 Lewis's career would of been over, if Ruddock would of fought Lewis in 92 like they did but elsewhere other than London; Lewis would find himself waking up eating hospital food.

Really? Did the fight being in London make that much difference? I thought this was a pretty silly comment, and was about to say so until I saw who the author was. I'm sorry, Razor, but I think I have less respect for you than any other poster on BoxRec. Fair enough that you are no fan of Lewis, but you are so obviously biased against him that I really cant take anything you say about him seriously. I am a Lewis fan, don't get me wrong (I rate him No7 of all-time), but at least I am not a hater. I just don't get haters. Mike Tyson has done some pretty horrible things, but I still respect him as a formerly great fighter, and don't let my dislike of the man get in the way of his obvious skills as a fighter. I think that Dempsey and Johnson are overrated, but I don't go about making angry comments about it.

I respect Lewis the fighter, I respect all men that get into the ring. But I dont respect Lewis the man nor do I think he should be in the top 30 let alone top 10. Compare the times when Tyson has constantly picked up his fallen opponents and embraced them when they are defeated, to the times when Lewis jumped and down like a gorilla thumping his chest whilst showing off how 'knocked out' his opponent is. Tyson is by far the more respectful and a credit to this sport.

On a different matter Lewis is vastly over-rated and should not be compared to the HW greats. Outjabbed by Bruno for 7 rounds, outjabbed and outbrawled by Mercer only to be given the decision, beaten around like a rag doll by Vitali, beaten comfortably by a past it blown up cruiserweight Holyfield in the rematch only to again be given the decision, shaken by Tucker, shook up by Briggs, floored by Akiwande and knocked out cold by McCall and Rahman.

As allegedly rightfully said, great fighters just do NOT get knocked out by the likes of McCall and Rahman.

Flump wrote:

RazorKO wrote:Razor Ruddock.

The man started off as a boxer - mover and possessed a quick left jab outscoring his opponents, he showed he can take a very good punch when he took Weavers best left hook - the kind of hook that put Tate away but yet Ruddock refused to fall and comfortably outpointed the far more experienced Weaver.

He adapated his style from boxer to puncher when he knocked out the veteran Larry Alexander with a single blow and beat the likes of Bonecrusher Smith, James Broad and Dokes in sickening fashion. His fights with Tyson comfirmed his ATG chin and heart, but it was these fights that aged Razor when he fought Lewis. Despite Ruddock being good enough to knock out Greg Page for the first time in his career and Jackson, Lewis fought the former shell of Ruddock as well as the disgusting treatment Razor recieved from the crowd which further comfirmed his defeat.

If Ruddock fought Lewis in 1990 Lewis's career would of been over, if Ruddock would of fought Lewis in 92 like they did but elsewhere other than London; Lewis would find himself waking up eating hospital food.

Ruddock is a decent shout, if he could have done anything other than left hand smashes post Dokes. He had the tools but didn't use them.

As regards Lennox well Lewis was nowhere near the fighter in 1992 that he became later in his career, and he still demolished Razor. You can't blame the crowd, if Ruddock was so weak minded that he couldn't box in front of a hostile crowd then this might tell why he never held a belt. Hagler and Witherspoon fought in front of much more hostile British crowds than Ruddock and managed to win.

Sorry mate but Lewis was just better than any version of Ruddock, deal with it.

I dont rate Ruddock as a great fighter and Lewis did overall have somewhat better boxing skills, but Lewis had no where near the heart, the chin or the will power of Ruddock. Could you imagine Lewis getting up from the Morrison left hook? Let alone from the count of 1 like Ruddock, because I couldn't.

The crowd treated Ruddock like he had murdered a child, the booing and the hissing was a sickening spectacle; the treatment Ruddock recieved was almost as bad compared to the way McClelan was treated when he fought Benn.

Overall - Ruddock was a far more stronger, determined and braver fighter than Lewis. There is a reason why Lewis fought both Holyfield and Tyson when they were both past their primes while Ruddock fought the veteran Weaver when he was still green and Tyson when he was still a paralyzing puncher.

RazorKO wrote:

Flump wrote:

RazorKO wrote:Razor Ruddock.

The man started off as a boxer - mover and possessed a quick left jab outscoring his opponents, he showed he can take a very good punch when he took Weavers best left hook - the kind of hook that put Tate away but yet Ruddock refused to fall and comfortably outpointed the far more experienced Weaver.

He adapated his style from boxer to puncher when he knocked out the veteran Larry Alexander with a single blow and beat the likes of Bonecrusher Smith, James Broad and Dokes in sickening fashion. His fights with Tyson comfirmed his ATG chin and heart, but it was these fights that aged Razor when he fought Lewis. Despite Ruddock being good enough to knock out Greg Page for the first time in his career and Jackson, Lewis fought the former shell of Ruddock as well as the disgusting treatment Razor recieved from the crowd which further comfirmed his defeat.

If Ruddock fought Lewis in 1990 Lewis's career would of been over, if Ruddock would of fought Lewis in 92 like they did but elsewhere other than London; Lewis would find himself waking up eating hospital food.

Ruddock is a decent shout, if he could have done anything other than left hand smashes post Dokes. He had the tools but didn't use them.

As regards Lennox well Lewis was nowhere near the fighter in 1992 that he became later in his career, and he still demolished Razor. You can't blame the crowd, if Ruddock was so weak minded that he couldn't box in front of a hostile crowd then this might tell why he never held a belt. Hagler and Witherspoon fought in front of much more hostile British crowds than Ruddock and managed to win.

Sorry mate but Lewis was just better than any version of Ruddock, deal with it.

I dont rate Ruddock as a great fighter and Lewis did overall have somewhat better boxing skills, but Lewis had no where near the heart, the chin or the will power of Ruddock. Could you imagine Lewis getting up from the Morrison left hook? Let alone from the count of 1 like Ruddock, because I couldn't.

The crowd treated Ruddock like he had murdered a child, the booing and the hissing was a sickening spectacle; the treatment Ruddock recieved was almost as bad compared to the way McClelan was treated when he fought Benn.

Overall - Ruddock was a far more stronger, determined and braver fighter than Lewis. There is a reason why Lewis fought both Holyfield and Tyson when they were both past their primes while Ruddock fought the veteran Weaver when he was still green and Tyson when he was still a paralyzing puncher.

Am I in 'boxers of the past' or 'fantasy boxing'?

Collins2000 wrote:

RazorKO wrote:

Flump wrote: Ruddock is a decent shout, if he could have done anything other than left hand smashes post Dokes. He had the tools but didn't use them.

As regards Lennox well Lewis was nowhere near the fighter in 1992 that he became later in his career, and he still demolished Razor. You can't blame the crowd, if Ruddock was so weak minded that he couldn't box in front of a hostile crowd then this might tell why he never held a belt. Hagler and Witherspoon fought in front of much more hostile British crowds than Ruddock and managed to win.

Sorry mate but Lewis was just better than any version of Ruddock, deal with it.

I dont rate Ruddock as a great fighter and Lewis did overall have somewhat better boxing skills, but Lewis had no where near the heart, the chin or the will power of Ruddock. Could you imagine Lewis getting up from the Morrison left hook? Let alone from the count of 1 like Ruddock, because I couldn't.

The crowd treated Ruddock like he had murdered a child, the booing and the hissing was a sickening spectacle; the treatment Ruddock recieved was almost as bad compared to the way McClelan was treated when he fought Benn.

Overall - Ruddock was a far more stronger, determined and braver fighter than Lewis. There is a reason why Lewis fought both Holyfield and Tyson when they were both past their primes while Ruddock fought the veteran Weaver when he was still green and Tyson when he was still a paralyzing puncher.

Am I in 'boxers of the past' or 'fantasy boxing'?

i am kind of wondering that also.lewis is an all time great.ruddock
was a good contender but far from world class.

Answer is......Joe Jeanette

Decagon wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Answer is......Joe Jeanette

He's continually overrated.

Who do you say Decagon? No way in hell is Jeanette over-rated. I think Norton gets his just due, although he was better than Mercer.

On a different matter Lewis is vastly over-rated and should not be compared to the HW greats. Outjabbed by Bruno for 7 rounds, outjabbed and outbrawled by Mercer only to be given the decision, beaten around like a rag doll by Vitali, beaten comfortably by a past it blown up cruiserweight Holyfield in the rematch only to again be given the decision, shaken by Tucker, shook up by Briggs, floored by Akiwande and knocked out cold by McCall and Rahman.

To the point of Ruddock, he was a very good heavyweight, who could have been better than his record suggested. No arguements there.

The word outjabbed appears frequently in your post, and I agree with it. Lewis had a very good jab (although he didn't use it enough and sometimes poured it out rather than snapping it like he could) but was susceptible to other fighters who used their jab well. Bruno was certainly beating Lewis before he was stopped. The Mercer fight was close, I scored it to Lewis by 1, but it could have gone either way and a draw may have been a fairer result, as Lewis gave a very poor performance. I score Lewis-Holy II to Lewis by 2 points, it is a close fight, I suggest watching it again, only a fool would suggest either fighter won it comfortably. Vitali was certainly beating a past-his-best, overweight Lewis, but if you watch the fight again, Lewis clearly won the 6th and Vitali was close to out-on-his-feet by the end of the 6th. Lewis was relatively inexperienced when he unwisely relaxted when well ahead of Tucker, and was most certainly shaken. Against Briggs and Akinwande, Lewis was momentarily stunned, but recovered well. Lewis was only visited the canvas twice in his career, and both times were after receiving huge punches from big punchers. Both of which he avenged. I agree that Lewis should never have lost those fights, and that they are black marks on his record. He got careless, that was certainly a flaw he possessed.

You can compile a list of flaws of any boxer to make him look bad. You just seem to have chosen Lewis.

BTW I think a bit of showboating after an impressive KO is fine, and certainly nothing compared to ear-biting, thigh biting, punching joe-public etc. Lewis was a little arrogant, but generally a nice guy. Get over it.

Decagon wrote:I often see him ranked as one of the top-20 heavyweights of all time simply because he got a DQ win against Johnson, he beat Langford, and he beat a few guys from 100 years ago.

Decagon, take this opportunity to slap yourself. It's the right thing to do after such a thoughtless statement. I hope your not a "timeist". Those who hold that certain times are better than others. As we all know, being a "timeist" is bigoted/prejudicial and prehistoric in it's arrogance.

How about Ezzard Charles.

One of the greatest heavies ever, but there are even alot of boxing fans that overlook his significance.

Decagon wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Decagon, take this opportunity to slap yourself. It's the right thing to do after such a thoughtless statement. I hope your not a "timeist". Those who hold that certain times are better than others. As we all know, being a "timeist" is bigoted/prejudicial and prehistoric in it's arrogance.

The light heavyweight division was better in 1977 than it is in 2007. I have no problem saying that. A lot of the guys Jeanette beat there is no footage of, and you can't ignore that. It's not like Harry Greb, where we can see footage of Tunney and Walker and know that he was hot shit; Jeanette beat a small Langford, got a DQ win against Johnson, and beat a bunch of guys - like Sam McVey - who quite simply don't look very impressive in the scant video there is of them.

Decagon, the reason cameras were not prevalant in the old days is natures way of protecting us from the sheer horror of the power of the prehistoric pugilist. IF any film did exist of these guys the right thing to do would be to destroy it.

On the other hand you can't make assumptions on what you can not view and assess. Based on this clear and concise information Joe Jeanette remains the answer to this question.

Maybe Quarry. People site Lyle and Shavers all the time as two of the greatest men to never win a belt, and they forget that Quarry schooled Lyle and knocked Shavers out in one round. Gave Frazier a great fight in the first fight. Beat Patterson 1-1. Obviously he had holes, lost a number of times, but I think he might be underrated at times. Maybe not the most underrated, but he is underrated.

I think that the mosu underrated boxer today would be: Sinan Samil Sam.

There are some fights when he looks very impressive, and like a true world-beater (eg his fight aganist Williams)...And I think he's overlooked as a title contender...

OF ALL TIME:

I would have to say either Billy Conn or Archie Moore.

Billy Conn was a truly great Light Heavyweight in his day & even done well in the Heavyweight division, but lost twice to Joe Louis.

Arhcie Moore, basically the guy just fought anyone...and 99% out of 100, he would win!!!!!

Decagon wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Decagon wrote:The light heavyweight division was better in 1977 than it is in 2007. I have no problem saying that. A lot of the guys Jeanette beat there is no footage of, and you can't ignore that. It's not like Harry Greb, where we can see footage of Tunney and Walker and know that he was hot shit; Jeanette beat a small Langford, got a DQ win against Johnson, and beat a bunch of guys - like Sam McVey - who quite simply don't look very impressive in the scant video there is of them.

Decagon, the reason cameras were not prevalant in the old days is natures way of protecting us from the sheer horror of the power of the prehistoric pugilist. IF any film did exist of these guys the right thing to do would be to destroy it.

On the other hand you can't make assumptions on what you can not view and assess. Based on this clear and concise information Joe Jeanette remains the answer to this question.

I've seen McVey and a lot of those other fighters. Not impressed.

How you can't seem to understand that if you filmed the likes of Lewis, Hopkins, Klitschko with a hand-cranked camera and the technology/resolution of 1916 they would look pretty damn goofy in spots as well, is beyond me.

Funny how boxing "suddenly modernized" in the late 1920s/early 1930s, right when we start seeing properly filmed fights filmed with more advanced cameras.

How you can't seem to understand that if you filmed the likes of Lewis, Hopkins, Klitschko with a hand-cranked camera and the technology/resolution of 1916 they would look pretty damn goofy in spots as well, is beyond me.

Someone should do an experiment; it would be interesting. Personally I'm with Dec on this one. I don't think modern fighters would look anywhere near as goofy as the turn of the century fighters on that type of film.

I was high on Ruddock at the time, but all he proved was how overrated Tyson is.

Mercer,Quarry,Shavers & Norton are good answers.

I would say Jimmy Young. He got starched by Shavers, but got robbed against Norton & Ali.

Cleveland Williams was formidable. Not the faded one Ali fought.