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.

I think this is shit. First of all who really overrates him? How is he overrated? He was probably ranked 4 or 5 P4P at his absolute best which was fair. His weakness was always pressure guys like Hatton, Philips and Hector Lopez. He blitzed speed guys tho. Gotta keep in mind that almost all his major fights were in foreign countries. To say he shouldnt be up there with Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri is stupid. What did they do that was so much more impressive? Who ever said he should be named with PBF and Pac, they are clearly superior.
15 or so title defenses, won all the major belts, more than half career was title fights. 75% KO percentage.

What a urprise another Aussie doesn't agree

It aint 'Shit' mate, it's an opinion that I have.

Well back up your opinion. Who overrates him? Why are Pryor, Ross, Benitez, Cervantes and Canzoneri so much better than Tszyu that he shouldnt be mentioned with them. Who overrates him? Its all well and good to have an opinion but atleast back it up. Did I say anything in my post that was false?

Look I'm a great Kostya respector but you REALLY need this question answered? OK.

Ross-An undisputed champion in three divisions. Five wins over HOFers. Over twenty five wins over ranked fighters. Over 70 wins.

Canzoneri-An undisputed champion in three divisions and fought a draw for the undisputed champion in a fourth division. Defeated over 30 ranked fighters, Defeated HOFers over ten times. Over 130 wins

Benitez-The youngest lineal champion in history. Three wins over HOFers. Ten wins over ranked fighters.

Cervantes-Beat HOFers on two occasions, had a draw with one on a third, defeated ranked fighters over ten times. Over 90 wins.

Pryor-Defeated HOFers on three occasions. A dozen wins over ranked guys. Over 30 wins.

Kostya-One win over a HOFer, a dozen wins over ranked guys and over thirty wins.

What exactly are you trying to say? Pryor and Tszyu have very similiar records. Lots of dominant defenses against ranked opponents yet never got their shot at the big guys. Kostya had more defenses, but one more loss. Kostya unified too. Why shouldnt Kostya be named with Pryor?

Its very hard to compare records with the earlier guys, they had a lot more fights, more wins, more losses. Cervantes title run was also similiar to Tszyu. Not a lot of big names. I never stated that Tszyu was better than all those games but to say he doesnt deserve to be mentioned with these guys is ridiculous. Your post really confirmed this more than proving me wrong.

[laughing] Yeah because THREE division undisputed champions is the same as one, 70+ wins is the same as 30, 25 wins over ranked fighters is the same as a dozen and 3+ wins over HOFers is the same as one.

Kostya is deficient to EVERY ONE of those guys in a major category and superior in nearly none isn't he?

Again, I have great respect for Kostya, but putting him in the above's league seems overrating him to me.

It's no insult to not be as accomplished as men like this. It really isn't.

Again I bring up Pryor. He did not unify the belts so Pryor is deficient in that respect. Tszyu had 5 more defenses than Pryor. Pryor is deficient there. I dunno who would have won between the 2 and i honestly think Aaron may have cos his style would have troubled Tszyu. But to say Kostya does not deserve to be mentioned with him is ludicrous. Its a similar argument with Calvacante. Similiar amount of title defenses as Tszyu. A lot more fights, a lot more losses. Never unified the belts but had one or two more notable wins. There are arguments for and against Calvacante and Tszyu, but to say Kostya shouldnt be mentioned with him again is stupid.
As for the whole 70 wins is better than 30, thats just stupid. Kostya fought 1 person with a losing record. The older guys fought dozens. Tszyu had fought 2 ex champs by his tenth fight, and won a title by his 14th. To show how ridiculous that argument is, Tszyu had more title fights than Ross but about 50 fewer fights. If its all about wins i guess u could add Tszyus amateur career of 259-11.

UNIFYING belts means NOTHING. Pryor was the LINEAL champion! Don't confuse straps with true championships.

Who the hell is Calcavante

Sorry i meant Cervantes. Unifying belts means nothing? Are you serious? Nothing? Correct me if i am wrong but wouldn't unifying the belts make you lineal champ? You are a very hard man to please if yout think unifying a division means nothing. another piss weak and stupid argument.

By lineal champ, he means 'beating the man that beat the man' Winning all the belts wouldn't necessarily make this the case. i.e Lewis didn't become champion until he beat Biggs, Tyson wasn't champion until he beat Spinks etc. In terms of having any bearing on how good a fighter is, I agree that it doesn't necessarily have any bearing. I mean Shannon Briggs being lineal champ in the 1st place for example.

I agree being lineal champ is important. But surely its a ridiculous statement to say unifying means nothing. He makes it sound like anybody could do it. If you have beaten all the other champs in your division its hard to do much more at that weightclass.

It DOESN'T mean anything. Why? because it is NOT a function of just what happenes in the ring. The WBA/WBC etc basically pick and choose champions and then strip them at will.

ANYTHING driven by the alphabet gangs doesn't mean anything. Why? Their process is corrupt!

Thats clutching at straws old mate. Beating all the other champs in your division means nothing at all...... Ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because its hard to argue against someone who isn't logical.

Playing devil's advocate here...he's basically questioning the criteria for defining a 'champion' and saying that holding a belt is meanlingless because the sanctioning bodies control who fights for and often who holds those belts. It's a tough argument and I see both sides.

It's the ONLY argument that allows one to escape the corrupt clutches of the alphabet gangs.

There are SEVEN men at 160 with "championship belts." There is only ONE middleweight champion and that is Sergio Martinez whether he holds no belts, all the alphabet belts or some of them. The rest is meaningless.

It's the best argument, but it is also floored. Champions retire, there are breaks in linage and there are terrible decisions. There are so many reasons, for example, that Shannon Briggs should not ever have been lineal champion, not least becuase he clearly lost to George Foreman.

At least it is all a function of what happens in the ring. Just because it is imperfect doesn't mean it isn't the best way to view the sport.

I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)

There is no prefect answer. But whilst sport is about money there will always be coruption and having a lineal champion 'crowned' by virtue of a judging decision in a fight he clearly hasn't won, negates the 'function of what happens in the ring' part

[BIG H]

P.S - I take it you are all also seeing the mulitquotes all over the place? It's doing my nut in!!

[ICB]

P.S - I take it you are all also seeing the mulitquotes all over the place? It's doing my nut in!!

Yes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.

[BIG H]

P.S - I take it you are all also seeing the mulitquotes all over the place? It's doing my nut in!!

Yes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.

This is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday

[eagle]

P.S - I take it you are all also seeing the mulitquotes all over the place? It's doing my nut in!!

Yes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.

This is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday

Its all in good fun. No use contributing to a third of it then complaining

[BIG H]

P.S - I take it you are all also seeing the mulitquotes all over the place? It's doing my nut in!!

Yes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.

This is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday

Its all in good fun. No use contributing to a third of it then complaining

Lol, no I meant the multiquotes that are making threads unreadable. Is that not happening for you?

[eagle]

P.S - I take it you are all also seeing the mulitquotes all over the place? It's doing my nut in!!

Yes mate it made me all dizzy just looking at it, no way i can't be asked to read all that i'll go cross-eyed.

This is what happens when Saddo fucks off on holiday

Its all in good fun. No use contributing to a third of it then complaining

Lol, no I meant the multiquotes that are making threads unreadable. Is that not happening for you?

Yeah i know but i meant you were involved in the multiquotes. My brain hurts more trying to follow some of the thoeries on here. Including my own!

[eagle]

Look Marbleheadmaui, if Kostya was not lineal champ at 140 after unifying who was? What else could he have done to become lineal champ?

[marbleheadmaui]

I MUCH prefer vacant championships to multiple ones. They should be hard to win, not participation certificates (No hyperbole there huh?)

There is no prefect answer. But whilst sport is about money there will always be coruption and having a lineal champion 'crowned' by virtue of a judging decision in a fight he clearly hasn't won, negates the 'function of what happens in the ring' part[/QUOTE]

Not in a million years it doesn't. It detracts from it. But it hardly negates it. Boxing is a subjectively judged sport. I don't know what can be done about that. Attempts to make the amateurs more objective have caused more harm than good as far as the pro sport goes.

I agree there is no perfect answer. But it is IMPOSSIBLE for the alphabet gangs to be part of a good one

[El Kabong]

Muhamad Ali - Yes yes I know, "The G.O.A.T" beat Frazier, beat Foreman, fought anyone and everyone and was no doubt one of the most skilled boxers (not just heavyweights) in the history of the sport. He alone changed how big men fought (don't know now if that's so great but still).

The reason I say he's overrated (and I assure you it won't get more controversial than calling Ali out) is that long ago he became a caricature of himself, he's an idol, and people only look at him through the prism of how great he was, they don't see his flaws (not that those flaws ended up costing him much) but they don't view him as a MAN they view him as a boxing God, infallible, perfect, and capable of inhuman feats! To me as a boxing fan I think it does a disservice to the man because it certainly took a lot of hard work and skill to be considered "The G.O.A.T" and Ali deserves the respect of being judged as a boxer and not as some perfect icon.

Every other great is remembered for their flaws (maybe bar Ray Robinson or maybe Joe Louis). Lennox had a glass chin (not true but that's the argument), Tyson's flaws get glossed over a lot too, Holyfield and Rocky were too small and Evander couldn't punch, Holmes had a weak era and little power, etc etc. Ali had flaws...overcoming them and being as great as he was is amazing, but Ali the idol is beyond overrated!

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Muhamad Ali - Yes yes I know, "The G.O.A.T" beat Frazier, beat Foreman, fought anyone and everyone and was no doubt one of the most skilled boxers (not just heavyweights) in the history of the sport. He alone changed how big men fought (don't know now if that's so great but still).

The reason I say he's overrated (and I assure you it won't get more controversial than calling Ali out) is that long ago he became a caricature of himself, he's an idol, and people only look at him through the prism of how great he was, they don't see his flaws (not that those flaws ended up costing him much) but they don't view him as a MAN they view him as a boxing God, infallible, perfect, and capable of inhuman feats! To me as a boxing fan I think it does a disservice to the man because it certainly took a lot of hard work and skill to be considered "The G.O.A.T" and Ali deserves the respect of being judged as a boxer and not as some perfect icon.

Every other great is remembered for their flaws (maybe bar Ray Robinson or maybe Joe Louis). Lennox had a glass chin (not true but that's the argument), Tyson's flaws get glossed over a lot too, Holyfield and Rocky were too small and Evander couldn't punch, Holmes had a weak era and little power, etc etc. Ali had flaws...overcoming them and being as great as he was is amazing, but Ali the idol is beyond overrated!

You yourself have even managed to overrate him, just know when you said he ''was no doubt one of the most skilled boxers (not just heavyweights)''.

You really think Ali was that skilful?

[El Kabong]

Ali had fast hands, great footwork, and a phenomenal chin. His flaws come more from using an unorthodox style much like a Roy Jones Jr. Ali was so gifted as an athlete he didn't need to "box" perfectly his athletic ability more than made up for his flaws as a boxer.

Meanwhile you look at someone like Marciano and his skill set and athletic ability and you wonder how he got to 49-0, its all the more amazing IMO.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Ali had fast hands, great footwork, and a phenomenal chin. His flaws come more from using an unorthodox style much like a Roy Jones Jr. Ali was so gifted as an athlete he didn't need to "box" perfectly his athletic ability more than made up for his flaws as a boxer.

Meanwhile you look at someone like Marciano and his skill set and athletic ability and you wonder how he got to 49-0, its all the more amazing IMO.

As an example... Floyd Mayweather & Roy Jones' athletic ability allowed them to NOT get hit with repeated left hooks through out a fight, let alone their careers though.

Muhammad Ali was more hittable than he's elusiveness gets credit for.