Fighters that you (controversially) think are overrated

[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?

[Fenster]

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?

Without doubt it's totally flawed. Boxing "experts" today get fights WRONG all the time. Doesn't matter who the "expert" is - fighter, trainer, writer, manager, matchmaker, promoter. Even with the benefit of following the fighters entire career progress, and having collateral form, they still get it wrong. That's the nature of the sport.

Judging fighters from different eras is nothing but pure fantasy. NO-one could ever be 100% right.

Virtually every fighter named on this thread has actually had a fantastic successful career. It's only our nerdness about this boxing lark that makes us see them as overrated. Great stuff.

[El Kabong]

I think Bowe is OK vs fighters with less power and in that instance I think he'd match up well vs Larry Holmes or Ali (I use Ken Norton as a precedent)but when you look at how Riddick handled Holyfield (or didn't) the pressure, the combinations, the power...(even Evander's power!) You've got to figure that a bigger puncher would have flattened Bowe. Bowe was lazy as shit on defense and if Briggs can catch Lennox Lewis good and basically knock him down (it should have been scored a knockdown because the ropes held him up) then you've got to figure he'd catch Bowe.

I think Morrison and Mercer would be very difficult for Bowe. If Rudduck was more consistent I would say he'd be a sure thing to beat Bowe.

[CutMeMick]

As I opened this thread I said if anyone fucken dares to put Alexis or "Finito" I will fucken lose it... Thankfully all of you know your shit.

Where's Taeth? Why hasn't he added Duran to this thread...

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.

You have footage from all those fighters? Wow! Some collection you must have.
Can you check your Index/Fight List and see if you have Foster-DePaula?

Riddick Bowe - thinnest resume of any true heavyweight champion...maybe in the history of boxing when you look at who he could have fought and who he chose to fight.

Damn you! I always roll out with this one...

[Spicoli]

I think Bowe is OK vs fighters with less power and in that instance I think he'd match up well vs Larry Holmes or Ali (I use Ken Norton as a precedent)but when you look at how Riddick handled Holyfield (or didn't) the pressure, the combinations, the power...(even Evander's power!) You've got to figure that a bigger puncher would have flattened Bowe. Bowe was lazy as shit on defense and if Briggs can catch Lennox Lewis good and basically knock him down (it should have been scored a knockdown because the ropes held him up) then you've got to figure he'd catch Bowe.

I think Morrison and Mercer would be very difficult for Bowe. If Rudduck was more consistent I would say he'd be a sure thing to beat Bowe.

I hear you on power and the number of concussive hitters Bowe faced, rather the lack of. But again its a two way street and while Briggs tagged Lewis (frankly thats his "moment" and has become his tag line) but you can't forget the trouble he got himself into after, sloppily and the fact that Lewis WON? Its just not one hit and guy fall down, Briggs was erratic and very easy to find...if anything Bowe was a big man with very good infighting and a potent jab and right. These guys were on two different levels of intinsity...Briggs too much so, and Bowe at times lackadaisical.

I think your spot on about Mercer. Man I wish that would have happened. He was a hard nut with a killer short jab and had the tenacity and volume inside to make Bowe shit bricks I think. I still think he let ol' Larry get in his head and was reading his own press clipping going in.

I gotta think Bowe gets Morrison late. If Purity and Carl Williams are snapping him with jabs and long rights Bowe wouldn't get careless with that left hook and had too much punch selection for Morrison who had high frequent flyer to the canvas and could be busted up.

[El Kabong]

Fair enough Spicoli, now to be honest I didn't say with certainty Briggs would 100% win vs Bowe but I do think Briggs had the gunslinger style and power to hurt damn near anyone. Briggs wasn't mentally tough enough to dominate a top tier heavyweight, but hell a prime Briggs vs Wlad would be scary for Wlad and that's no disrespect to Wlad its just Briggs had game changing power and good delivery left hook or right cross.

What do you think about Bowe vs Ruddock?

Bowe vs Wlad would have been a decent scrap, but Wlad is more refined and technically dedicated (if that makes sense...he makes fewer mistakes).

Vitali would massacre Bowe as would Lewis.

I am also interested in what Norton, Lyle, Foreman, and Frazier would do vs Bowe, maybe Rahman. Also let me know how a Tyson vs Bowe fight goes

Remember Bowe got hurt by Holyfield and SCHOOLED by Golota, both of whom didn't pack a huge punch. Bowe was an exciting fighter though, wish we had more like him.

[0james0]

How's this for controversy, I think Ali is over rated.

I've watched countless fights of his, not just the big ones, sometimes he wasn't that special at all. I think his persona gave him that little bit extra.

I'm not saying he was shit, of course not, but he certainly wasn't flawless like many think.

[BIG H]

How's this for controversy, I think Ali is over rated.

I've watched countless fights of his, not just the big ones, sometimes he wasn't that special at all. I think his persona gave him that little bit extra.

I'm not saying he was shit, of course not, but he certainly wasn't flawless like many think.

Lyle is saying the same thing further up mate

[El Kabong]

How's this for controversy, I think Ali is over rated.

I've watched countless fights of his, not just the big ones, sometimes he wasn't that special at all. I think his persona gave him that little bit extra.

I'm not saying he was shit, of course not, but he certainly wasn't flawless like many think.

Lyle is saying the same thing further up mate

Always nice to have people agree with you

[Master]

How's this for controversy, I think Ali is over rated.

I've watched countless fights of his, not just the big ones, sometimes he wasn't that special at all. I think his persona gave him that little bit extra.

I'm not saying he was shit, of course not, but he certainly wasn't flawless like many think.

Lyle is saying the same thing further up mate

Always nice to have people agree with you

What more can a man do than beat 3 great and feared fighters, give his heart and soul in the ring and achieve worldwide fame and yet be considered over rated.

[0james0]

I should have read through the rest of the thread first!

Like I said, I'm not saying the guy (Ali) wasn't something special, but people make him out to be invincible, which he certainly was not.

I saw him struggle against some fairly average fighters (all be it he raised his game against some of the better ones)

Here's a question for you, do you learn more about a fighter from watching their very best fights or their worst?

[BIG H]

I agree that Ali is overrated! I still think he is one of the top 3 greatest fighters of all time, but he is not God. His amazing personality has a big bearing on peoples opinions of him imo. I'm not saying he wasn't amazing, he was but people get carried away.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Master, Ali is a massive overachiever, that's why

You could make a case that he lost to Norton three times. Liston won the belt when he was already past it, Patterson was physically shot, Fraizer wasn't smokin' past 1973, had one eye, Whooped Ali the 1st time round. Foreman would of spanked him 9 times outta 10. Jimmy Young should of got the nod, Leon Spinks beat him after barely taking his Olympic head gear off & Cooper knocked his arse out!

Alot of bones to be picked out of it but I'm just sayin...

[Master]

Master, Ali is a massive overachiever, that's why

You could make a case that he lost to Norton three times. Liston won the belt when he was already past it, Patterson was physically shot, Fraizer wasn't smokin' past 1973, had one eye, Whooped Ali the 1st time round. Foreman would of spanked him 9 times outta 10. Jimmy Young should of got the nod, Leon Spinks beat him after barely taking his Olympic head gear off & Cooper knocked his arse out!

Alot of bones to be picked out of it but I'm just sayin...

There is no fighter in the world that you would rate if you looked at all the bad points.