View Single Post
Old 11-26-2012, 05:02 PM   #3
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,600
vCash: 330
Default Re: Underachiever or overachiever?

Well the weak guys were overachievers.

Leon got a a shot at a shot champion rather than the best heavyweight in the world.

Moorer never beat bowe and he barely beat a heart attack suffering holy.

Carnera was lucky to get a shot at Sharkey as opposed to schmelling.

Briggs probably has the weakest claim ever and is only recognised by internet people. Real world never saw him as a champion. He was a journey man and a good one at that, never anything more.

Vitali was an underachiever due to injuries I believe. Tyson was an underachiever but redeemed himself by regaining his crown ten years after first winning it.

Johnson was an underachiever. Had he stayed in shape he'd have been a huge favourite over the 4 guys he was busy ducking. Probably solidifying a status as the goat.

Jeffries retired when he could have probably beat Johnson hence missing a potentially career defining victory.

Holmes would also have been a huge favourite in any unification fight but he shied away for some reason.

Rahman overachieved with one of the best right hands in heavyweight history.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote