Are swarmers overrated?

You're trying to extrapolate a definitive sense of something that is very much an individual case by case basis (being overrated or underrated) from something very broadly generalized (stylistic categorization, at its widest-funnel and least granular level no less).

That doesn't work, isn't ever going to.

Round peg, square hole.

 

Swarmers are the best thing that ever happened to boxing. Out-boxers are boring as ****.
As for Greb, until we see footage, he ain't anything, we cannot classify him.

 

Sluggers, big punchers tend to be overrated in general. Good technicians can be overlooked because their not always spectacular performers. Bernard Hopkins, McCallum, Pedroza perhaps.

Boxing is like tennis in that way

 

Swarmer feels like too broad of a generalization. You can swarm and crowd your enemy by forcing infighting, by constantly staying in the pocket, or by turning the fight into an outright war. Mike Tyson on the other hand was a mid-range counterpuncher who, once he landed a solid counter, could turn into a high volume combination puncher.

Perhaps asking whether aggression is overrated, which could be the case in some instances, would be more fitting.

 

If you mean overrated in terms of popularity among the hoi polloi and even likeliness to get voted into Canastota (the BWAA have never been immune to fanboyism), then yes, that has legs.

If you mean overrated in arenas like here, a Classic boxing sub-forum dedicated to pretty much day in day out analysis of fighters' historical standing? I'd say not really. By aggregation our collective more discerning and less easily beguiled instincts generally prevail. Au contraire, I'd say - this place is at times in fact absurdly harsh on, since you specifically mentioned him, Tyson. And, probably a tad more deservedly (but still frequently overboard in a manner that feels like overcompensation for mainstream casuals' views), Marcheggiano.

 

I don’t think any of the names listed are overrated except for perhaps David Tua.

 

And even he's a borderline case, because usually the most aggressive claims made about him are that he is among the best heavyweights to never claim a belt - which is objectively not all that hard to swallow even if you do have several names of more complete fighters that you'd put ahead of his, and I think most historians agree that he is better than a good many titlists and could easily have joined their ranks if dealt a slightly luckier hand. If anything, boasts on Tua's behalf skew more conservative and modest proportionate to his abilities than a Marciano's (who is on the one front maligned unfairly, but then on the other side is still propped up as being top 5 all-time h2h when that has become less and less tenable a position as more time passes).

 

True. Tua was a good contender. Extremely durable. Hard punching. Lots of courage. Scored a few big wins too. Not a bad fighter at all

 

Swarmers are less boring. They're so entertaining bcuz they like to get inside just to force the opponent to fight.

 

So we cannot clasify anything from any discipline because we don't have footage? Fo you hold the same criteria to other sports or other aspects of life?

 

I was talking about boxing. I cannot say about something else until you give me the circumstances.

 

Do you think we can't say anything about how Roman army worked on battle field? Or do you think we can't say that Maurice Stokes was a good defensive basketball player without footage?