Who is the most underrated heavyweight Champion between 1920-1970?

Definitely. In fact I can't see any era in boxing where Evander wouldn't have had a presence of some sort. No, I don't envision him being "The Champ" in every era, but his name certainly would command respect where ever he traveled in time.

 

Holyfield went from being overrated (#3 all time heavyweight Ring 1999) to underrated in a span of 15 years. He certaintly was consistently good. Tremendous chin, incredible will to win and tactically sound. Even if he didn't fight in the 1920-1970 era.

 

Holyfield feature in the annual ratings in 15 years, if you include his cruiserweigth career, which is less than Patterson if you include his lightheavyweight career.

 

I assume the only reason he didn't get in for 1994 was because he announced his retirement after that "heart scare" thing.
He actually ran Moorer razor-close in that fight April 1994, so without a retirement announced, he merited an end of year ranking. Yes, very impressive.

 

I did wonder about that myself.

 

Wrong again! Check the Rings Annual Rankings he is ranked

FOR FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISON.

Holyfield was only ONCE out of the end of years rankings between 1987 and 2002 that was in 1994 when he did not feature. He was Champion , in 1900,the number one contender for SIX years [88,91,93,96,97,98,],
the number two contender THREE times ,[87,89,99] that is a ten years gap quite an achievement.
For FIFTEEN years he was never below SIXTH ranked at years end.

Holyfield was rated.
87. 2
88 1.
89 2.
90 Champ
91 1.
92 3.
94 Unranked
95 5.
96 1.
97 1.
98 1.
99 2.
200 4.
2001 6.
2002 4.

* He was also rated Number one to Champion Carlos Deleon in the Cruiserweight division in 1986.

 

Had he received the decision against Valuev for the WBA title in 2008 as some felt he should have, he would have been ranked there too.

 

I can't take that fight seriously. It genuinely seemed like there was a gentlemen's agreement to take it easy and for Valuev to get the decision. The whole thing just came off like a sparring match.

 

Floyd Patterson was ranked in the following years:

Light heavy
1953 7
1954 4
1955 1

Heavyweight
1956 Champion
1957 Champion
1958 Champion
1959 2
1960 Champion
1961 Champion
1962 1
1963 7
1964 2
1965 2
1966 4
1967 7
1968 10
1969 Unranked
1970 Unranked
1971 7
1972 5

That’s 15 years ranked at heavyweight.

18 years ranked in total.

An incredible 20 year period where he was only unranked for two years, and that probably due to a couple of bad decision!

Now factor in that Holyfield is considered something of a standout for longevity, and one of the stronger lineal heavyweight champions, and you can see why I think Patterson has some overlooked qualities.

 

A very valid point.

On the flip side of the coin, Paterson might have been ranked in 69 and 70, if certain controversial decisions had gone his way.

 

That makes him tied with Holyfield ,not beating him.

Where Patterson stands was not the issue.

 

A 7th place ranking for end of 1963 is generous to the extreme.
His entire body of work over the previous 24 months was LKO1 and LKO1.
I feel some of us here could emulate that. (debatable, have to survive the first time). I guess he gets points for bravery.

On the other hand, he lasted 4 seconds longer in '63 so maybe he should have climbed the rankings to #1.

 

EDIT : Wrong thread

 

What? Not winning a fight in two years, and getting starched in 1 round twice, makes you 7th best qualified person to challenge the guy who's been starching you ?