Fighters that you (controversially) think are overrated

[BIG H]

Should be a good topic for discussion. Been done before, but still fun nonetheless.

I'll start with

Kostya Tszyu

Best win? Judah?
Duffed up by Vince Philips! (who was coming off a loss and 2 losses in 4)
Duffed up by Hatton!

Very very good fighter and the best of his time, but in all time terms I don't think he belongs with Aaron Pryor, Barney Ross, Wilfredo Benitez, PBF, Pac and maybe Cervantes and Canzoneri.

[erics44]

sergio martinez

very good fighter but not the 3rd best in the world

[gest12645]

pongsaklek wonjongkam- he's almost top 5 in ring magazine- what has he done to deserve it?

[Fenster]

Any fighter in history there is little footage of. Fact. Unless you're a hardcore creationist how can you possibly judge fighters you haven't actually seen? And if you haven't seen them then how can you possibly rate their opposition, who are even more obscure by association?

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[marbleheadmaui]

Any fighter in history there is little footage of. Fact. Unless you're a hardcore creationist how can you possibly judge fighters you haven't actually seen? And if you haven't seen them then how can you possibly rate their opposition, who are even more obscure by association?

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

It is a world class DUMB point of view. How the hell do you think history gets studied exactly?

On the other hand

The only post 1900 fighter of significance I have found NO footage of is Greb. That's it. Gans? Got him, Jeffries? Got him. Dixon, McGovern, Fitzsimmons, O'Brien, Ketchell? Got'em all.

Oh, and Greb's "more obsucre opposition?" Men like Loughran and Tunney and Walker? Plenty of footage on them.

[Fenster]

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

It is a world class DUMB point of view. How the hell do you think history gets studied exactly?

[Laughing]. Of course they can make an educated assessment. However, they can form an even more ACCURATE educated assessment based on actual modern events they have witnessed. Fact.

It's a world-class DUMB point of view to suggest we can KNOW more about something we HAVE NOT seen compared with something we have. Madness.

You can read all you want about fighters - you will ALWAYS be putting FAITH in the writers OPINION. How can you possibly believe that is superior to something you've seen with your own eyes? Utter madness.

[marbleheadmaui]

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

It is a world class DUMB point of view. How the hell do you think history gets studied exactly?

[Laughing]. Of course they can make an educated assessment. However, they can form an even more ACCURATE educated assessment based on actual modern events they have witnessed. Fact.

It's a world-class DUMB point of view to suggest we can KNOW more about something we HAVE NOT seen compared with something we have. Madness.

You can read all you want about fighters - you will ALWAYS be putting FAITH in the writers OPINION. How can you possibly believe that is superior to something you've seen with your own eyes? Utter madness.

It's simply not true! If it were history would NEVER be studied beyond the lifetime of witnesses.

I mean let's face it, there's nothing more to learn beyond what you experience right? The angle from which your viewed was the perfect one, your mind wasn't distracted by other things, right?

You ever hear the story of the blind men and the elephant?

The idea that one set of eyes watching something reveals "truth" is incredibly wrong. Especially in boxing. You ever hear of a split decision?

And no, when you read a SINGLE writer on something you are forced to simply accept or reject an opinion. When you read MANY writers, as well as trainers, fighters themselves, judges, you are forced to do no such thing. Instead you can do what historians do always and everywhere. Sift, compare, contrast, recheck etc. Then one make's one's own judgement.

It is far superior to being lazy and simply saying "It can't be known."

Of course for everyone but Greb the point is moot as plenty of footage exists...if you're willing to do the work.

[AdamGB]

Any fighter in history there is little footage of. Fact. Unless you're a hardcore creationist how can you possibly judge fighters you haven't actually seen? And if you haven't seen them then how can you possibly rate their opposition, who are even more obscure by association?

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

Stupid analogy... historical generals are only assessed against their contemporaries. Nobody looks at Napoleon through nostalgia tinted, vintage glasses and says that the armies and commanders of today just don't match up, he'd beat them and that has era was some mythical, glorious age of warfare.

You can judge napoleon against wellington... but could you really judge either against rommel? The enviroment and context that they existed had operated in had changed dramatically and more is known about rommel. History is written by the victor and the more history something is.. the less flaws you'll see.

All too often people are only too happy to compare old fighters that they've seen little of (and even less of their opposition, to accurately judge their standing) against modern fighters... without the context needed to properly do so.

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Which begs the question: How far removed from a fighters era can you honestly place that fighter in contextually. (does that even make sense?! )

I mean fighters of the 40's being compared with fighter of the 60's, sounds fine by me but what about fighters from the 30's being compared with fighters of the 70's? Wouldn't there be a fundamental flaw from just about every analytical angle?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

historical generals are only assessed against their contemporaries. Nobody looks at Napoleon through nostalgia tinted, vintage glasses and says that the armies and commanders of today just don't match up, he'd beat them and that has era was some mythical, glorious age of warfare.

You can judge napoleon against wellington... but could you really judge either against rommel? The enviroment and context that they existed had operated in had changed dramatically and more is known about rommel. History is written by the victor and the more history something is.. the less flaws you'll see.

Very Good Point btw. For a moment there, I was having flash backs to one of my favourite video Games!

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I agree with all so far (just to what degree still tbc).

What about Jack Dempsey? Huge draw, shit boxer.

[Pugilistic]

Nonito Donaire.

3rd best p4p in the world ?? I don't think so.

He's clearly a gifted fighter and he has good wins over Montiel and Darchinyan but what else, no one else appears to be worth mentioning.

Maybe i should learn more about the lower divisions before i make this post though.

[Spicoli]

On any given day a great chance HBO will be calling him "the next" whoeva.

Oh and Mike Tyson. Gamboa. Berto...nevermind. Mayweather, I'm convinced he'll go down as never maximizing greatness, it'll always be who he didn't fight and such. Sort of like Roy Jones Jr. on a way.

[Taeth]

You should learn more about the lower divisions, Donaire has beaten a lot of good fighters, and you can see just based on what he does in the ring that he is an amazing fighter.

Sergio Martinez is starting earn my respect. I'm not sure how high I would rank him because I never thought much of Paul Williams, but I definitely think his last fight and his fight against Pavlik put him way up the p4p list.

Also Kostya Tszyu beat a lot of good fighters, Roger Mayweather, JCC, prime Sharmba MItchell. He, also, is a great fighter, and you can see it when he fights. Great technique, power, and boxing savy.

It's guys like Juan Manuel Lopez, Margarito, Pavlik, Soto, Mares, Mijares who have been so overhyped IMO.

Not that he isn't great but even Evander Holyfield I think is vastly overrated. I think he was a ATG for sure, but not a top 50 type guy like they rank him. I can't think of a modern era where he would have ruled the heavyweight division. I think Ali, Foreman, Larry Holmes, prime Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, Klitschko brothers beat him far more often than not.... except maybe Tyson.

[Pugilistic]

You should learn more about the lower divisions, Donaire has beaten a lot of good fighters, and you can see just based on what he does in the ring that he is an amazing fighter.

Sergio Martinez is starting earn my respect. I'm not sure how high I would rank him because I never thought much of Paul Williams, but I definitely think his last fight and his fight against Pavlik put him way up the p4p list.

Also Kostya Tszyu beat a lot of good fighters, Roger Mayweather, JCC, prime Sharmba MItchell. He, also, is a great fighter, and you can see it when he fights. Great technique, power, and boxing savy.

It's guys like Juan Manuel Lopez, Margarito, Pavlik, Soto, Mares, Mijares who have been so overhyped IMO.

Not that he isn't great but even Evander Holyfield I think is vastly overrated. I think he was a ATG for sure, but not a top 50 type guy like they rank him. I can't think of a modern era where he would have ruled the heavyweight division. I think Ali, Foreman, Larry Holmes, prime Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, Klitschko brothers beat him far more often than not.... except maybe Tyson.

I don't base my fighters solely on their ability in the ring. I mainly base my fighters on their resume and because i don't know much about lower weight classes, his resume don't look that great to me, not to be rated 3 p4p anyway.

Can you give me some of the good fighters Nonito beat so i can look them up.