A FUN THREAD......Overated/Underated heavyweight contenders of EACH decade...who/why?

Hook line and sinker :yep Yes I wasn't going to do an overrated but couldnt resist bating Suzie Walcott isnt overrated although some of the points still stand:

1/10. Yes Bivins declined because in 1946 the year he lost to Walcott he started losing to fighters he clearly beating and in some case dominating in the past such as Charles, Maxim, Lee Q Murray and Moore

2/11. Ray only fought for 2 more years after the disputed Walcott loss, if truth be told both fights are exceedingly close

3. Charles relied on physical gifts which drop off in the mid 20s, I'd say he was partly past prime, but Charles got the better of the series anyway

4. Great wins, maybe all were a little jaded though

5. That was a wind up, but my point is Charles clearly won the first 2 and arguably won the last, outside of that KO punch Walcott isnt looking that good

6/9. Actually Walcott found it hard going a year without a loss and your wrong from 1945-1947 Walcott had 4 losses not 1, illustrating my point

7. Abe Simon, Louis, Marciano - the last 2 arent too harmful because they're greats the first is

8. Maxim/Simon

12. As mentioned I don't really see Walcott as overrated (by anyone except yourself :yep )

 

Biggs is definately an overrated guy. He was just fortunate to be part of that great Duva stable from that timeframe. But anybody that bothered to watch that David Bey fight knew had zero chance against a Tyson, based on that earlier form.

 

Underrated: another vote for Jimmy Young. He has a boring style, but when he hit his prime, he'd give hell to anyone. Although he lost officially, most (myself included) thought he beat Ali, he decisively beat Foreman with a knockdown in the final round, had a close one with Norton that could've gone both ways (again, didn't get the verdict), and should've gotten the win against Shavers in the rematch. He also did quite well against Cooney until he suffered a horrendous cut. His prime was very short however, which is remarkable because boxers his style usually age slow. I guess those Philly gym wars took a lot out of him.

Overrated: Ken Norton. He matched up great with pure boxers, but chocked against pressure fighters. He could beat the greatest boxer one night, and lose to a journeyman pressure fighter the next.

 

Something was wrong upstairs with Thomas, IMO, as his form against Witherspoon, especially that world quality left jab was so impressive to me. If he could have gotten his head on straight, for whatever reason, to replicate that fight every time out, he would have been truly great.

 

For the note, Bivins never beat Walcott.

 

He did start losing to Charles and Moore (his results against Murray didn't really change much- prior to this he'd had a disputed win followed by a clear win, and he did later beat Murray again), but this is more due to the fact that they were maturing and peaking than that Bivins was declining.

I haven't seen any newspaper account that disputed the decision in Walcott's 1947 win over Ray. Note also that Walcott had Ray down in the first, third and fourth rounds.

Note that Walcott was winning the third fight even before he landed that knockout punch. It was an all-around great performance in my book.

1. The Abe Simon fight was a short-notice match in 1940, when Walcott was an obscure manual laborer who boxed on the side to keep putting food on the table, not even close to so much as being in consideration for the top 10, and he was actually winning until he ran out of gas- not even CLOSE to "prime" Walcott. Walcott can't be reasonably considered to have been in his prime before about 1945-46.
2. Let it be pointed out that the Maxim loss was a disputed decision, and the AP scorecard had the match 6-3-1 for Walcott.

 

If Tubbs-Butler was a certified dive, both deserved numerous oscars, especially in best directing & cinematography.