Top 5 most overrated boxers of All Time

show me LEGIMATE lists with those ranking

 

international boxing research organization. all historians. look it up.

 

Willis was not in the top 15 heavyweights and also 1 list does not mean all historians.

 

Bert Sugar had Jack Dempsey in his top ten P4P. Mainstream historians are not necessarily a more informed opinion than any 'amateur' historian on here.

 

Mayweather and Hagler are overated. As is Tua, Harry Wills, Aaron Pryor, Diego Corrales, Harry Berg, Cuevas, Holyfield at heavy, George Foreman

Also de la Hoya and Mosley are very overated at welter while Tito is hugely underated.

 

Yes, because Tito wasn't outclassed by Oscar at the weight.

 

Everyone judges him by this fight when he was severely weight drained, yet he still made Oscar run the last 4 rounds. he beat better guys at welter than Oscar. Tito beat Whittaker convincingly (first man to do so) yet Oscar was lucky to get the win against a worse version of Sweet Pea.

 

My mistake, top 18. Point is he's a great heavyweight with a top notch resume. You're nitpicking though, of course not EVERY historian will have him that high. You still havent answered my question, how many fighters have beat all time greats and top 10 rated contenders in every weight class from lightweight to heavyweight? All this while be totally avoided and forced to hold back.

 

Personally I don't see many flaws in Floyd's skillset and not in Kalambay's either. But I would like to see Floyd tested more and using more combination punching as well.

 

Me neither and I agree. Kalambay had the better left hand IMO, Floyd faster. I give Sumbu the edge for the right hand as well. Both have had fights where they've coasted but won well in first gear. Both have stepped it up and looked sensational.

When two guys are this closely matched I say 'who did they beat well' and Kalambay has the clear edge here. McCallum I eclipses anything Floyd has shown IMO.

I can understand the argument of course but I'm not on that side of the fence :good

 

Swapping Foreman with Liston and this list is spot on for me.

 

I just don't see it. I've tried.

 

You may feel I'm overrating him, I feel you're underrating him.

Robinson did fight fantastic opposition throughout his career, but a lot of these fights were against journeymen just to keep busy, that's how boxing worked back then. If Robinson was active in this decade, he'd have had about 50 fights, as opposed to 200. You have to appreciate that Floyd is still dominant at age 35, after winning his first world title 13 years ago.

Undefeated is relevant based on the context of the fighter in discussion. For instance, when someone says Julio Cesar Chavez jr is undefeated, it means nothing because he's beat no-one of note. When you point out that Floyd is undefeated, when he's moved from 130-154, won 7 world titles, been the lineal champ at 130, 135, 147 and he's beaten the man twice at 154, then that's highly impressive. Wins over Corrales, Castillo, Hernandez, Mosley, ODLH, Hatton, JMM, Judah, Cotto and even at 34 he fought a young champion in Ortiz.

Whilst you look at the best wins to enhance a fighters legacy, you also have to look at losses which diminish a fighters legacy (whilst they're green, prime or close to prime). Kalambay got blasted out by Nunn in a round, lost to a journeyman when he was green, Floyd's been dominant for years now, fighting the best opposition available and he hasn't taken a loss.

You tell me who's been better in the laslt 25 years, and I'll happily discuss with you why Floyd is better.