Up until a few months ago I would’ve absolutely agreed with you, but (and it pains me to say this) I’ve grudgingly come to accept he’s a lot better than I gave him credit for. Whether we like it or not, he’s a “great” modern fighter, at least for the early 2000’s. The clen scandal, the A side diva bullsh!t, the ridiculous scorecards, the ***gy/smarmy promoter, ducking GGG and dropping his wbc belt obviously all work against him but the reality is that other than Floyd outpointing him at a catchweight when he was only 22 he’s not been clearly beaten, or even really hurt in a fight. There’s a lot of “yeah but” and qualifications to his biggest victories but he’s been consistent at the top level for awhile and if he were to retire today he’s a first ballot HOFer. It is what it is
Frazier defeats Foster, Lyle, and Shavers handily. If he gets by Liston in the first three rounds, he pulls away and wins that one handily as well.
Duran. Yes yes, I know he's a great fighter. One of the best, yes, I get that. But the mythic pedestal upon which he has been raised in the last couple decades is overdone. He is now positively godlike and unassailable in the eyes of a cadre of folks here. Not seeing it. Dempsey. Every era needs its heroes, and the "Roaring 20's" were the perfect fit for a swashbuckling, devil-may-care, mongrel-made-good well-known swell guy like Dempsey. He perfectly fit the age, boring ahead with caution to the wind and a sense of fun to go along with the menace, much as the generation described in The Great Gatsby or The Sun Also Rises. This had %&$#-all to do with his qualities or non-qualities as an actual fighter, but that was rather beside the point really.
Canelo is far from great. He’s a good fighter and it can be argued he only qualifies as such because of the era and because he has so many advantages politically and chemically.
Around here....Liston. I frequently see him rated above fighters with better resumes and title runs. While he did have a very good contender run, subpar era or no, it's also easier to do that than to defend a title. Basis :I dont think his resume is any better than Bowe's (and neither is his title record), yet I routinely see Sonny as top 5 and usually a top 10 lock while Riddick isn't anywhere near that.
I'm far from a Canelo fan but he is a very good fighter. He hasn't proven himself as great, and I doubt he will, but in terms of talent he is a very, very good fighter. The 6th round against GGG in the second fight was a brilliant display of how to merge defence and offence.
Have said it many times, but - Ruben Olivares. Looked indomitable and truly terrifying when he swept aside Rose and Rudkin, but never really scaled those heights again. Only just scraped his series with Castillo, then loses the Bantamweight title for a second time inside-schedule to Herrera. Moves up to 126 and, while always being good value for money, loses more title fights there than he wins. Can let him off for the Arguello (winning before the stoppage, a little undersized and against an emerging ATG) and Pedroza (washed up by then) defeats, but the reverses against Kotey, Chacon and Lopez are costly blotches on his record, for me. And in between all that, a knockout loss to Hafey, who was really just a (admittedly heavy-handed) gatekeeper at best. It's not that I don't think Olivares was a year fighter. He was. But it's pretty common for Mexican fans (from what I've seen, anyhow) to rank him second only to Chavez amongst their countrymen, and regularly ahead of Zarate, Saldivar, Sanchez, Canto etc., which I just can't get my head around. I wouldn't actually have him inside my top five Bantams, which I suspect would put me in the minority here. Crowd-pleasing style and superb power (which always helps a fighter's achievements get that extra bit of credit) and a fine record, don't get me wrong. But just gets rated too highly for my taste.
Marciano his 49 - 0 especially considering the competition is not nearly as impressive as its made out to be. Also some will favour him over anyone no matter how much of a size & skill disadvantage he has, they'll still believe he's near unbeatable. One even stated Holyfield (who has a much better resume) being compared to him was insulting to Rocky. I've read people claim he goes through Tyson, Foreman etc with little trouble even attempt to claim beating the shell of Louis was a great win.
