Underachiever or overachiever?

janitor · 11-26-2012, 04:48 PM

For each of the lineal haevyweight champion, say whether you think they were an underachiever or an overachiever?

If your pick is likely to be controversial then please giver reasons.

Jawn L
Jim Corbett
Bob Fitzsimmon
Jim Jeffries
Marvin Hart
Tommy Burns
Jack Johnson
Jess Willard
Jack Dempsey
Gene Tunney
Max Schmeling
Jack Sharkey
Primo Carnera
Max Baer
Jimmy Braddock
Joe Louis
Ezzard Charles
Joe Walcott
Rocky Marciano
Floyd Patterson
Ingemar Johansen
Sonny Liston
Muhamad Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Leon Spinks
Larry Holmes
Michael Spinks
Mike Tyson
James Douglas
Evander Holyfield
Riddick Bowe
Michael Moorer
Shannon Briggs
Lennox Lewis
Hasim Ramhan
Wladamir Klitschko

Unforgiven · 11-26-2012, 04:56 PM

Overall, I think they all achieved what they were meant to achieve. No more, no less.

They were all lucky to get a shot, to variant degrees.

lufcrazy · 11-26-2012, 05:02 PM

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.

bazza12 · 11-26-2012, 09:28 PM

I've got a feeling some will pick Baer and Douglas as underachievers, given the short nature of their reign versus how good they sometimes looked.

Walcott and Sharkey are guys I see on film and think they could have perhaps achieved more, but it's not as if they under-achieved.

11-26-2012, 04:48 PM	#1
janitor P4P King East Side VIP Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 19,043 vCash: 1000	Underachiever or overachiever? For each of the lineal haevyweight champion, say whether you think they were an underachiever or an overachiever? If your pick is likely to be controversial then please giver reasons. Jawn L Jim Corbett Bob Fitzsimmon Jim Jeffries Marvin Hart Tommy Burns Jack Johnson Jess Willard Jack Dempsey Gene Tunney Max Schmeling Jack Sharkey Primo Carnera Max Baer Jimmy Braddock Joe Louis Ezzard Charles Joe Walcott Rocky Marciano Floyd Patterson Ingemar Johansen Sonny Liston Muhamad Ali Joe Frazier George Foreman Leon Spinks Larry Holmes Michael Spinks Mike Tyson James Douglas Evander Holyfield Riddick Bowe Michael Moorer Shannon Briggs Lennox Lewis Hasim Ramhan Wladamir Klitschko
Top

11-26-2012, 04:56 PM	#2
Unforgiven Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 13,141 vCash: 1000	Re: Underachiever or overachiever? Overall, I think they all achieved what they were meant to achieve. No more, no less. They were all lucky to get a shot, to variant degrees.
Top

11-26-2012, 05:02 PM	#3
lufcrazy requiescat in pace East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: England, Up North Posts: 22,710 vCash: 330	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.
Top

11-26-2012, 09:28 PM	#4
bazza12 Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,177 vCash: 2605	Re: Underachiever or overachiever? I've got a feeling some will pick Baer and Douglas as underachievers, given the short nature of their reign versus how good they sometimes looked. Walcott and Sharkey are guys I see on film and think they could have perhaps achieved more, but it's not as if they under-achieved.
Top