Sorry, but this is just an awful post. Losing to fighters of Walcott's, Charles's and Marciano's quality when you are way past your prime or even shot is no shame. There's not one ATG not named Marciano who don't have losses like that or worse. AND THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALI IS THE ONLY OTHER HW WHO FACED AS MANY QUALITY OPPONENTS. The others are miles behind. Miles. Perhaps with the exception of Holmes, who's closer, but still behind. That's what you and many others just don't get. When you constantly take on the best for many years you are bound to look bad now and then. It's one thing to look good against a handful fringe contenders, like Vitaly did. Quite another to beat every other relevant fighter of one's era. Which Louis did for 15 years. Feel free to name other HWs not named Ali who did that. And feel free to name ANY fighter who can match Louis record for the undisputed title. If you can't you should really stop calling him overrated.
Exactly, John. If you look at his 1st post on this thread he listed Ali, Duran and Sam Langford amongst others who are on his greatness is overrated list. This is a fellow that swears Naseem Hamed is one of the greatest featherweights ever. Need I say more?
Oh no I agree. Maybe I should've been more specific. Similar to Louis, Tyson's 80's opposition gets underrated because they weren't marquee names. I think a lot of Ali's opposition become overrated because they fought Ali. Guys like Bugner, Wepner (hell they even made a movie about him), and even solid guys like Quarry, Lyle and Shavers are lifted up and perceived to be better than they really were. Norton belongs there too. Not bum of the month caliber, but breaking down their particular resumes leaves a lot to be desired. Head and shoulders above Louis's and Tyson's opposition?
Well, you saw my position on that in the other thread, I presume. For me, Norton is no better than just among one of the better contenders of his era. What's special about him is that he was a walkover for punchers but a nightmare for boxers. But on average he's a good contender, no more, no less. I think there was plenty of talent among the guys Tyson beat, and I defended his opposition in length in that other thread. No stand out ones, but good fighters, some with the talent to be bad headaches for anyone on a given night.
I understand where you are coming from. But. I feel all the contenders you mentioned there had legit wins. Quarry beat plenty of good and very good fighters. No greats, no legends. But based on good wins and how he fought a win over him counts for a lot. Its possible to focus too much on resume and not actually look at the fighter and recognise the qualities they bring and therefore the praise a fighter should get for beating them. For example Iran Barkley beat Hearns twice and has no wins coming closevto that. Even if he didn't fight Hearns Barkley would still be a good scalp to me. Because he beat good fighters and he was dangerous.
I completely agree with this. This all started with who I thought was overrated, and I mentioned Ken Norton. He missed out on a lot contenders. One win over Ali is huge but the 70's version of Ali had many, many close calls. I used his name as an example of fighters being overrated just because they fought Ali. I was generalizing, but then people here tend to debate any little discrepancy they see and it turns into this. I'm not even disagreeing with either you or Bokaj. I shouldn't have to explain myself since I thought my original post was fairly clear, but I will. I'll say Norton might be the 4th best heavyweight from the 70's after Ali, Frazier and Foreman. But then there's a huge gap to fill after Foreman's position. I guess Norton fits the automatic 4th position since he beat Ali. Who comes next? Lyle? Shavers? Young? Good fighters but overrated to not just me but many here taking a closer examination of their resumes. Then there's Quarry who I love as a fighter. But is he any better than, say, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon or Godoy?
You ain't including 70s Holmes in your list? Best heavyweight of the last part of the decade. In fact in retrospect, might even be an argument that he may well have been h2h the best heavyweight of the entire decade. Or is he one of the fighters on this thread whose greatness is overrated? Lol.
Holmes is more if an 80's guy for me. But you're right. Holmes should be #4 and above Norton. Some of his best work is in the 70's.
John Ruiz was a Champion too. I stand by what I said, Joe Louis is overrated. He is still an all time great. But , Overrated means he is not as great as most people think. Remember, He lost to the greats the first time around ( Walcott was an official win) He was pushed by Galento, Braddock, B Baer, Godoy. AND he lost to EZ Charles, Schmelling, ( and got gifts the first time with Walcott and Godoy.) HE loses in H2H vs almost every great champion. He had a long run, and he proved his greatness in those rematches. But he is listed to high on most peoples top 10 in my opinion.
I agree with Bowe being overrated. His best claim to fame was using a big weight advantage over Holyfield and goading him into fighting the wrong fight consistently. I also think Ali is overrated. The case for him being #1 is a good one, but people mention him like he couldn't be touched H2H. In actual fact he was beatable by top-flight opponents, and some of them did, in fact, beat him.