The concepts of over and under-rated assume a consensus rating which is silly. This thread is moronic.
No doubt this thread's title is. I also agree regarding the consensus thing - ratings are, to a large degree, based upon one's own opinion regarding a fighter. In other words, they generally don't mean anything except to that ONE person that produced the opinion.
I personally don't think so, considering Heavyweights are the only true open weight class. The weight differences are much greater, an opponent of a 6'0, 210 guy may be 6'5, 260. It's a different ballgame than the other weight classes.
On top of that, if anyone was to name the 100 best fighters ever, at least 12 of them would be heavyweights. Historically its actually one of the 4 best weight classes.
Yes, that's the problem. I think that Frazier and Foreman would both stop pre-exile version of Ali, while at the same time that young version of Clay would outpoint Ken Norton by a wide margin (looking at how when Ali desided to dance around the ring, Norton was totally lost at what to do, getting tagged repeatedly and not being able to land anything in return).
Yeah, but on the other hand, the beauty of weight divisions is that it gives small fellas the chance to compete and become champions, wheras in most other sport it's just tough **** if you're Baby Jake Matlala. Also, your average featherweight fight, for example, is far more entertaining than your average heavyweight fight. Even many 'great' heavyweight fights aren't even that good. Check out Ali's 'espn superbouts' for obvious proof.
True. I am not as big a fan of Heavyweight boxing for that reason, but still they, while not being as exciting or as skilled(or at least as quick), they are the only real open weight class. So I have to give them respect.