Top 5 most overrated boxers of All Time

I do rate dominance and longevity quite highly. Although I make exceptions, like for instance Sugar Ray Leonard, who didn't have longevity, but his resume is phenomenal.

Between Whitaker and Floyd, it's very close, you can prefer Whitaker and I respect that.

Dominance, longevity and a phenomenal skill-set.

Roy didn't beat the Hopkins that destroyed Trinidad, and unified the division. He beat Bernard when he was a contender.

James Toney has a terrible SMW and LHW resume, he had been fighting at CW before coming down to face Roy at SMW. Don't get me wrong, James Toney was a great fighter at the time, he was P4P number 1, but I personally think it's an overrated win. That wasn't the Toney that fought Mccallum in 1990, James was out of shape and looked terrible in that fight, Roy, like Drake Thadzi or Dave Tiberi fought Toney on one of James' off nights.

Roy's LHW reign is one of the most dubious in history. DM had a claim to all the belts Roy won. Surely you cannot argue with this - Hill and Maske were 1 and 2 in the division. Hill beat Maske, and DM beat Hill, making DM the man. You can argue that Roy was better, but Roy didn't want to test himself and travel to Germany, to legitimise his reign. Sorry, but that's the way I'll always see it.

Roy fought Tarver only 8 months, then a year after Ruiz, so don't try and make out that he was so far gone. then 18 months after Ruiz, he gets in with Johnson, so I don't think the argument holds that he was so far gone. I think Roy didn't take Tarver and Johnson seriously, and that's his own fault, and his resume must suffer for it (like Tyson and Douglas).

Skill wise Roy wasn't a great fundamental boxer, which is why when his athleticism diminished, he got exposed. Floyd's clearly not the same fighter he was 8 years ago, but he's still dominant. Those are true skills, and sound fundamentals.

It seems Floyd is getting somewhat underrated around here.

(PS I replied to Sugarsean on the previous page).

 

You're critizing him for not looking fantastic 24 lbs over what you claim was his best weight? That would be like slating Robinson for not looking great when beating top LHWs.

For what it's worth I think Floyd looked quite good when beating DLH. It was not close in any way shape or form IMO.

 

Starting to think Hearns belongs somewhere on this list, even though iy's a fighter I really like.

 

No way! Remember Virgil Hill!

 

Why do you think Tommy is overrated?

 

The way he's made into this unbeatable monster at 154 and even a major force at 160 when he never beat a really notable fighter that was a natural at any of these weight. He was obviously at the very least near great at WW and clearly great p4p, though.

 

Fair enough, I guess by your criteria I overrate Tommy. Let me ask you this, if Tommy started his career in 2000, what do you think his record would look like?

 

i don't seriously disagree with any point, except that post ruiz roy jones counts for anything. also the technical lineage of light heavy is well and good but jones was truly clearing out a relatively weak division. DM was offered a deal for 6 million he didn't take it, Roy was offered a deal to fight in germany and didn't take it. Either way it's the only notable fight that didn't happen but roy was beating superior opposition. i can't say a new lineage is just created but a new division number 1 was. the same as when mike tyson ruled heavyweight but spinks was lineal. no one really cared about spinks

 

I've had this discussion many times before on here, and personally I feel the Tarver and Johnson fights do count. Roy wasn't nearly as diminished as gets made out, especially from the second Tarver fight onwards. I tried to find the video clip, but sorry I can't, Jones himself said he feels 7/10 to Larry before the fight, because he can't motivate himself for the likes of Tarver. Same, with Johnson he said he didn't train seriously, and he paid for it. We saw that Roy struggled to adapt against Johnson, to find a way to win. Against Tarver, we saw him stopped by a single shot. Although, he did push Tarver hard in the third fight. It's like with Floyd now, he's evidently slowed down, but he's so smart, tough and technically sound that he's still finding a way to win (Cotto is comparable to Tarver).

Ignore 'technical lineage'. Hill and Maske were the number 1 and 2 in the division, Hill beat Maske, then DM beat Hill, making DM the man. For Jones to legitimise his reign, he had to beat DM. Spinks enhances Tyson's legacy.

 

Rocky Marciano
Khaosai Galaxy
Larry Holmes
Joe Calzaghe
Terry Norris

 

for a minute i thought i was on the underrated thread and was a little surprised by this post:tong

 

Very hard to say. But can't see who would really threaten him below 160. Martinez at 154 or 160 could have been an interesting fight.

 

Dempsey and Langford---YES! Duran, Ross and Charles---NO!!:hat

Aaron Pryor comes to mind...:deal

MR.BILL:bbb

 

I think it's his personality that turns people off him, and clouds their vision a bit.
The whole Money May persona can get pretty irritating sometimes. But he's an outstanding fighter no doubt, extremely skilled. Now he just needs to fight and beat Pacquiao...it's a disgrace they haven't fought yet.

 

Hearns fought much better prior to Hagler. I think if you take his fights after Hagler where he struggled and his legs were a little more off balance, then you probably are applying that to the lighter younger Hearns, but his hands were quicker and he had better balance. And that was at 154. And Benitez was a champion who fought great. And Duran was champion also. Then 160 Shuler and winning that title. Hearns is my favorite fighter, but there is a reason why. He fought good fighters and destroyed them and persevered. Most fighters if you dissect their career you can start to think they are overrated.