Fighters that you (controversially) think are overrated

[JazMerkin]

I agree with Tszyu to a point (& what a shock to see The Third Man straight into defend ), however H, I think you're wrong about the wear & tear. The man had nearly 300 amateur fights, not to mention all those years of sparring, that all catches up, hence his shorter pro career. I think he had a good career, just not a great one. What is his defining win? Old Roger Mayweather & Julio Cesar Chavez? Zab Judah? Everyone tries to go on about guys 'ducking' him, but the fact is he was a win away from bouts with Oscar & Floyd & on both occasions blew the opportunity by losing to guys he shouldn't have (really shouldn't have in the case of Phillips). I think he had all the ingredients to be a great fighter especially looking at him as an amateur, but I think he falls slightly short for me.

My unpopular choice is going to be Aaron Pryor. An incredibly exciting fighter? Yes for sure. An ATG? Not for me. Don't get me wrong the Cervantes win is a good one, but in truth he'd seen better days & I think he was some way from the guy who beat up Locche & De Jesus as evidenced by some of his pedestrian defences of the title prior to that.

The Arguello wins were very impressive, but was he really a force at Light-Welter? I mean he'd come up some way already. They were great fights, but I've always found that this idea that everyone was ducking Pryor slightly laughable. Why didn't he force the issue & chase them like Duran did? If he wanted Leonard, Benitez or Duran, why didn't he give them no alternative but to face him? Or instead of taking a year between defences, why not go up & get into the mix with the likes of Starling & Curry? He's a guy who always gets mentioned as loving the glory, but to me he didn't really chase it.

I've clearly got a beef with Light-Welters

On those mentioned, I think saying Johnson & Louis is pure madness, if anything they don't get rated enough by people, although admittedly all great HWs get overrated in the greater scheme of boxing history. I also disagree with Jim on Dempsey, he had some nice things to his game & he was called the Manassa Mauler, he wasn't going to be the most technically astute, but he did provide a blueprint for many of the great infighters of the future so gets praise there from me.

[marbleheadmaui]

I agree with Tszyu to a point (& what a shock to see The Third Man straight into defend ), however H, I think you're wrong about the wear & tear. The man had nearly 300 amateur fights, not to mention all those years of sparring, that all catches up, hence his shorter pro career. I think he had a good career, just not a great one. What is his defining win? Old Roger Mayweather & Julio Cesar Chavez? Zab Judah? Everyone tries to go on about guys 'ducking' him, but the fact is he was a win away from bouts with Oscar & Floyd & on both occasions blew the opportunity by losing to guys he shouldn't have (really shouldn't have in the case of Phillips). I think he had all the ingredients to be a great fighter especially looking at him as an amateur, but I think he falls slightly short for me.

My unpopular choice is going to be Aaron Pryor. An incredibly exciting fighter? Yes for sure. An ATG? Not for me. Don't get me wrong the Cervantes win is a good one, but in truth he'd seen better days & I think he was some way from the guy who beat up Locche & De Jesus as evidenced by some of his pedestrian defences of the title prior to that.

The Arguello wins were very impressive, but was he really a force at Light-Welter? I mean he'd come up some way already. They were great fights, but I've always found that this idea that everyone was ducking Pryor slightly laughable. Why didn't he force the issue & chase them like Duran did? If he wanted Leonard, Benitez or Duran, why didn't he give them no alternative but to face him? Or instead of taking a year between defences, why not go up & get into the mix with the likes of Starling & Curry? He's a guy who always gets mentioned as loving the glory, but to me he didn't really chase it.

I've clearly got a beef with Light-Welters

On those mentioned, I think saying Johnson & Louis is pure madness, if anything they don't get rated enough by people, although admittedly all great HWs get overrated in the greater scheme of boxing history. I also disagree with Jim on Dempsey, he had some nice things to his game & he was called the Manassa Mauler, he wasn't going to be the most technically astute, but he did provide a blueprint for many of the great infighters of the future so gets praise there from me.

Let me at least try to make a case on the Hawk. Wins over ATG's on three occasions (we'll come back to that) and he defeated five top five ranked guys (three of whome were the HOFers) and a total of six top ten ranked guys.

Cervantes was clearly long in the tooth. But he still had enough left in the tank to go on to beat Lennox Blackmoore who prior to losing to the Hawk was ranked number 2. So Cervantes wasn't shot. it was more of a passing of the torch thing like we see so often in the sport.

Alexis had been talked about as having been on the decline since the Jim Watt fight eighteen months before. But he kept winning, getting up against Ganigan to do so. There is no question he was reaching for the stars that night. There is also no question (in my mind anyway) Alexis Arguello was a GREAT, GREAT, GREAT fighter that night. Full credit to Pryor.

Your points on Duran and the rest are ENTIRELY Pryor's fault. The drugs got him VERY early and by the end of 1983 he was a shadow. He was presented with a contract for a $700k contract to fight Duran but because of the drugs, the paranoia that went with it and trouble with his team (gee I wonder why) he threw it away.

Now having said all that he beat as many great fighters, at at least a good a point in their careers, as Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson or Roy Jones or Floyd Mayweather.

Pryor is one of those guys for the "You have to see him with your eyes" crew who in my view is a strong choice in the theoretical "who beats who at 140" games, but in terms of what we know isn't a top 50 and maybe not a top hundred kind of guy. And in my view it is all his own fault.

Anyway, that's the fanboy's case

[JazMerkin]

Let me at least try to make a case on the Hawk. Wins over ATG's on three occasions (we'll come back to that) and he defeated five top five ranked guys (three of whome were the HOFers) and a total of six top ten ranked guys.

Cervantes was clearly long in the tooth. But he still had enough left in the tank to go on to beat Lennox Blackmoore who prior to losing to the Hawk was ranked number 2. So Cervantes wasn't shot. it was more of a passing of the torch thing like we see so often in the sport.

Alexis had been talked about as having been on the decline since the Jim Watt fight eighteen months before. But he kept winning, getting up against Ganigan to do so. There is no question he was reaching for the stars that night. There is also no question (in my mind anyway) Alexis Arguello was a GREAT, GREAT, GREAT fighter that night. Full credit to Pryor.

Your points on Duran and the rest are ENTIRELY Pryor's fault. The drugs got him VERY early and by the end of 1983 he was a shadow. He was presented with a contract for a $700k contract to fight Duran but because of the drugs, the paranoia that went with it and trouble with his team (gee I wonder why) he threw it away.

Now having said all that he beat as many great fighters, at at least a good a point in their careers, as Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson or Roy Jones or Floyd Mayweather.

Pryor is one of those guys for the "You have to see him with your eyes" crew who in my view is a strong choice in the theoretical "who beats who at 140" games, but in terms of what we know isn't a top 50 and maybe not a top hundred kind of guy. And in my view it is all his own fault.

Anyway, that's the fanboy's case

I won't be convinced on Pryor. Are we really calling Cervantes an ATG? I mean he was a good fighter, probably a hall of famer, but an ATG? If we are then let's add him to my list of heavily overrated 140lbers. I mean look at Cervantes defences, was there any good reason for him to fight the mighty Carlos Gimenez twice? A guy who made Pongsaklek look like Ray Robinson when it comes to comp. I also think Cervantes was past his sell-by date by then. A win over Blackmoore doesn't convince me of anything. For me, Cervantes is probably a step below Tszyu & I think his best days went in his effort against Benitez.

Arguello was a great fighter, but he'd seen better days & a win over Kevin Rooney (admittedly was a great win) doesn't convince me that he was a light-welter.

I can definitely see the comparison with Tyson in fact it is apt with a win over a faded fighter (Holmes/Cervantes) & another over a smaller guy (Spinks/Arguello). I almost made that point earlier, but I thought I'd gone on enough as it is. Lewis & Holmes have slightly better resumes for me based on their overall opp being better, but their top wins are comparable & Arguello was a better fighter than Vitali or Norton.

But, I think Roy Jones & Floyd Mayweather have much better resumes. Roy has wins over a prime James Toney & Bernard Hopkins, while I think Mayweather has the most underrated resume in the sport & I personally feel it shits all over Pryor's. Not to mention that for me, both guys beat their opposition far more dominantly. Pryor is by far the most exciting of the three, but his achievements are very weak in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, Pryor is great to just chill back & watch & he'd just about make the borderline of greatness for me, but I think when people talk about him beating up guys who are real ATGs for me, I think their letting their admiration for the excitement he created cloud their judgement. Like I said, he's a mini-Tyson

[ICB]

Let me at least try to make a case on the Hawk. Wins over ATG's on three occasions (we'll come back to that) and he defeated five top five ranked guys (three of whome were the HOFers) and a total of six top ten ranked guys.

Cervantes was clearly long in the tooth. But he still had enough left in the tank to go on to beat Lennox Blackmoore who prior to losing to the Hawk was ranked number 2. So Cervantes wasn't shot. it was more of a passing of the torch thing like we see so often in the sport.

Alexis had been talked about as having been on the decline since the Jim Watt fight eighteen months before. But he kept winning, getting up against Ganigan to do so. There is no question he was reaching for the stars that night. There is also no question (in my mind anyway) Alexis Arguello was a GREAT, GREAT, GREAT fighter that night. Full credit to Pryor.

Your points on Duran and the rest are ENTIRELY Pryor's fault. The drugs got him VERY early and by the end of 1983 he was a shadow. He was presented with a contract for a $700k contract to fight Duran but because of the drugs, the paranoia that went with it and trouble with his team (gee I wonder why) he threw it away.

Now having said all that he beat as many great fighters, at at least a good a point in their careers, as Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson or Roy Jones or Floyd Mayweather.

Pryor is one of those guys for the "You have to see him with your eyes" crew who in my view is a strong choice in the theoretical "who beats who at 140" games, but in terms of what we know isn't a top 50 and maybe not a top hundred kind of guy. And in my view it is all his own fault.

Anyway, that's the fanboy's case

I won't be convinced on Pryor. Are we really calling Cervantes an ATG? I mean he was a good fighter, probably a hall of famer, but an ATG? If we are then let's add him to my list of heavily overrated 140lbers. I mean look at Cervantes defences, was there any good reason for him to fight the mighty Carlos Gimenez twice? A guy who made Pongsaklek look like Ray Robinson when it comes to comp. I also think Cervantes was past his sell-by date by then. A win over Blackmoore doesn't convince me of anything. For me, Cervantes is probably a step below Tszyu & I think his best days went in his effort against Benitez.

Arguello was a great fighter, but he'd seen better days & a win over Kevin Rooney (admittedly was a great win) doesn't convince me that he was a light-welter.

I can definitely see the comparison with Tyson in fact it is apt with a win over a faded fighter (Holmes/Cervantes) & another over a smaller guy (Spinks/Arguello). I almost made that point earlier, but I thought I'd gone on enough as it is. Lewis & Holmes have slightly better resumes for me based on their overall opp being better, but their top wins are comparable & Arguello was a better fighter than Vitali or Norton.

But, I think Roy Jones & Floyd Mayweather have much better resumes. Roy has wins over a prime James Toney & Bernard Hopkins, while I think Mayweather has the most underrated resume in the sport & I personally feel it shits all over Pryor's. Not to mention that for me, both guys beat their opposition far more dominantly. Pryor is by far the most exciting of the three, but his achievements are very weak in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, Pryor is great to just chill back & watch & he'd just about make the borderline of greatness for me, but I think when people talk about him beating up guys who are real ATGs for me, I think their letting their admiration for the excitement he created cloud their judgement. Like I said, he's a mini-Tyson

I love RJJ he is one of my favourite fighters of all time, but B-Hop was not in his prime. Phyiscally maybe but he certainly hadn't learnt his craft the way he had when he destroyed Felix Trinidad.

[BIG H]

Let me at least try to make a case on the Hawk. Wins over ATG's on three occasions (we'll come back to that) and he defeated five top five ranked guys (three of whome were the HOFers) and a total of six top ten ranked guys.

Cervantes was clearly long in the tooth. But he still had enough left in the tank to go on to beat Lennox Blackmoore who prior to losing to the Hawk was ranked number 2. So Cervantes wasn't shot. it was more of a passing of the torch thing like we see so often in the sport.

Alexis had been talked about as having been on the decline since the Jim Watt fight eighteen months before. But he kept winning, getting up against Ganigan to do so. There is no question he was reaching for the stars that night. There is also no question (in my mind anyway) Alexis Arguello was a GREAT, GREAT, GREAT fighter that night. Full credit to Pryor.

Your points on Duran and the rest are ENTIRELY Pryor's fault. The drugs got him VERY early and by the end of 1983 he was a shadow. He was presented with a contract for a $700k contract to fight Duran but because of the drugs, the paranoia that went with it and trouble with his team (gee I wonder why) he threw it away.

Now having said all that he beat as many great fighters, at at least a good a point in their careers, as Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson or Roy Jones or Floyd Mayweather.

Pryor is one of those guys for the "You have to see him with your eyes" crew who in my view is a strong choice in the theoretical "who beats who at 140" games, but in terms of what we know isn't a top 50 and maybe not a top hundred kind of guy. And in my view it is all his own fault.

Anyway, that's the fanboy's case

I won't be convinced on Pryor. Are we really calling Cervantes an ATG? I mean he was a good fighter, probably a hall of famer, but an ATG? If we are then let's add him to my list of heavily overrated 140lbers. I mean look at Cervantes defences, was there any good reason for him to fight the mighty Carlos Gimenez twice? A guy who made Pongsaklek look like Ray Robinson when it comes to comp. I also think Cervantes was past his sell-by date by then. A win over Blackmoore doesn't convince me of anything. For me, Cervantes is probably a step below Tszyu & I think his best days went in his effort against Benitez.

Arguello was a great fighter, but he'd seen better days & a win over Kevin Rooney (admittedly was a great win) doesn't convince me that he was a light-welter.

I can definitely see the comparison with Tyson in fact it is apt with a win over a faded fighter (Holmes/Cervantes) & another over a smaller guy (Spinks/Arguello). I almost made that point earlier, but I thought I'd gone on enough as it is. Lewis & Holmes have slightly better resumes for me based on their overall opp being better, but their top wins are comparable & Arguello was a better fighter than Vitali or Norton.

But, I think Roy Jones & Floyd Mayweather have much better resumes. Roy has wins over a prime James Toney & Bernard Hopkins, while I think Mayweather has the most underrated resume in the sport & I personally feel it shits all over Pryor's. Not to mention that for me, both guys beat their opposition far more dominantly. Pryor is by far the most exciting of the three, but his achievements are very weak in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, Pryor is great to just chill back & watch & he'd just about make the borderline of greatness for me, but I think when people talk about him beating up guys who are real ATGs for me, I think their letting their admiration for the excitement he created cloud their judgement. Like I said, he's a mini-Tyson

I just found this......


Junior Welterweight Fighter of Century as chosen by a five-member panel for The Associated Press in 1999:

1. Aaron Pryor
2. Barney Ross
3. Tony Canzoneri
4. Wilfred Benitez
5. Antonio Cervantes