This thread has gone overboard….there’s a difference between a fighter being overrated as a whole …and having overrated talent or attributes
- This is an excuse. Frazier had perfect vision when he fought Ali. Not to mention Ali was coming off a 3 year layoff fighting an active champion. - Ali beat Norton in their second fight quite clearly. And Norton wasn't mediocre. He was good enough to give an ATG like Holmes fits. - Inexperienced? Foreman had 40 fights lol. Foreman took 15 months off after losing to Ali. Ali didn't avoid him.
He fought and won two fights before the Frazier fight so not really coming directly off a lay off. He didn't second fight was close and I had it for Norton nothing clear about it and besides giving Ali and Holmes tough fights his heavyweight resume is pretty lacking. Most of which was against cans or no ones only his last 3 fights were significant. Foreman really wanted a rematch afterwards but Ali avoided him.
Did Ali make Foreman take a 15 month layoff? No. Look we will respectfully agree to disagree. I thought he clearly won the second Norton fight. You can pick holes in any fighters resume. Usyk beat Fury after Fury escaped with what many people thought was a gift decision vs an MMA fighter. Usyk beat Joshua who had lost to a fat fighter in Ruiz and who was then demolished by Dubois. He arguably lost to Breidis at cruiserweight and both Huck and Bellew were past it. See? Its easy to pick holes in any fighters resume. Ali has the greatest resume in heavyweight boxing history. Foreman of 1974 wasn't inexperienced. Frazier wasn't past his prime in 74: he came off a terrific win vs Bugner and looked as good as ever. And frankly i will take 1964 Liston to beat both Joshua and Fury. We can pick apart any fighters resume if you use this type of criteria.
You seem to have an unusual level of disdain for Usyk, which is odd—especially considering you claim to be Ukrainian.
Just being honest. I don't claim anything as you disrespectfully put it. I am half Ukrainian and I've mentioned that here way befor Usyk was ever heard of. Don't be that guy....
Hi Buddy. Quite happy to be corrected, and appreciate your polite and informative reply. stay safe buddy, chatsoon.
Not sure that he's universally rated highly, but it's Calzaghe for me. Beat a faded but still half decent Eubank. Then spent the bulk of his career fighting low level opposition in Fortress Wales defending a periphery belt. Some ATGs get criticised for their opposition. But I genuinely think Calzaghe's run from '97 to 06 was pretty dreadful .. Shobot, Veit, Pudwill and McIntyre anyone??! Even vaguely recognisable names like Mitchell were at the end. Lacey was all hype and simply exposed. I don't get that Zags 'ruined ' him - he was never that good to begin with and achieved nothing of note after. Kessler was a good win. But Joe only reared his head above the parapet to face Hopkins and Jones once they were declining forces. He was smoke and mirrors for me - and was 'rewarded ' for biding his time and waiting out the big guns. I Im not saying he was terrible. I actually find it quite hard to rate him because most of his competition was so weak. But I certainly think he is vastly overrated in some quarters- and isnt criticised enough for not seeking out top competition until it was too late. Too many Manfredo Jnrs to pad his thin resume and not enough quality
Max Baer ... I often read he'd have been an all time great if he took it seriously ... I don't see it Greg Page ... something was missing .. John Conteh .. very good not great Virgil Hill