Fighters who should have been GREAT but fell short

I rate him as an ATG too, Vasquez was a 3weight champ, Bungu the most proven at 122, he dominated top5 FWs like Kelly/Johnson/Soto/Vasquez/Medina, H2H hes very strong at 118-126. Yet some say he was exposed by the first elite he faced

Despite his achievements he could have been so much more.

Plus he retired as a 27yo, he still could have had a great career, if he'd been hungry I think he could scalp Morales/Pacquaio/Marquez with the right preperation. He was at his worst against Barrera and the style of MAB was all wrong, the other 3 are much more easier to hit than MAB, plus Morales lost worse than Hamed to Barrera but got a gift

Apparently HBO didn't want to air a vocal Muslim after Sep11th, Hamed also said he got many death threats. Plus he had £50-£100million in the bank. If you had death threats and couldn't get big paydays anymore (because of HBO), why bother?

 

Some of these guys are so close to great many might accept them.....

Edwin Rosario (Didn't develop and became power reliant at about the same time)

Greg Page (All the talent on earth but incredibly small desire the most part)

Eddie Mustafa Muhammad (Incredible tools but just lacked the true greatness of fire within)

Hector Camacho (IMO lacked love of the battle and true guts deep down)

Mike McCallum (Ironically the factor (lack of opportunity) that makes him fall short also may have found him short regardless)

Dwight Braxton (Unfortunately run parallel an even greater fighter he probably needed to beat)



Howard Davis and Mark Breland held HUGE hopes too but were found wanting when push came to shove.

 

I didnt rate him very highly and won some dough when Barrera schooled him,which made it doubly enjoyable as I think he is an obnoxious little arsehole.ATG ? NO WAY!

 

Top choices, mate. I'd have guessed what your HW choice was goin to be (I'd agree in terms of ability, in terms of 80's 'lost era' I also thought that Dokes was capable of doing a fair bit more). Other fighters who I'd consider who 'could've been great' in my list would be:


Jack Sharkey
Antonio Tarver
Max Baer
Zab Judah
Montel Griffin
Razor Ruddock

 

Reggie Johnson comes to mind.

 

Meldrick Taylor.

 

Yes, actually. Perhaps the most obvious one. :good

 

Montell Griffin?

I disagree on Hamed. Saying: "He could've been a great if he had far more technical skills and far better defence" is basically saying "He could've been a great if he was much better at boxing", which can basically be applied to any boxer in history!

Despite the flashy KOs of bum after bum, the fact is the guy never had it at the top level.

 

Firstly no one said 'if he had better technical skills' because he was technically better when he was younger, he threw combos, threw bodyshots and was far more elusive and very hard to hit, plus his counters were so so sharp.

How is clearing out your division, 'never fighting at the top level'???

 

Arguably Charles Burley could be in this category, most don't rate him or know him, had he his shot at the WW and MW titles, and got his shot at Sugar Ray it would be far different

 

I can answer both of these points with a question: ever heard of a little thing called "resume"?

 

I'll also include Ken Buchanan. He was marginally great, but could have been greater. I'm just looking at it from his angle to be potentially greater.

 

That's a very good list for this topic. Eddie Gregory could have been one of the alltime greats at light heavy. If he would have had the heart and desire of a Matt Franklin he would have been very special.

 

I think what JT is trying to say is that McCallum could have been greater, especially if he got marquee type fights. The thread question is a matter of opinion, so I guess it's just how a certain poster defines exactly how great.