Biggest underachievers in heavyweight history

Hmm...Ray Mercer?
Guy blew so hot and cold in his career, he should've been able to achieve more. Heavy jab, great chin, good power, good technique and lots of experience, amateur and pro.

Morrison, Holyfield, Lewis, Witherspoon...but also Holmes, Ferguson twice and Wilson.
Life was like a box o' chocolates with Ray.

 

If he could go through Schmeling then he ought to have been able to go through Braddock or for that matter any other heavyweight of the early-mid 30s.

If his skillset was good enough to do that then it was good enough to take him as far as he wanted untill Louis imposed himself upon the scene.

It is all verry well saying he was never going to get far but apart from Louis who exactly was going to stop him if he had consistantly turned up as he did for the Schmeling fight?

 

Mercer definitely.

He should have beaten Lewis but just couldn't pull it out of the bag.

 

Buster Douglas - Should have beaten Tony Tucker before fighting the fight of his life against Tyson, then coming in at a flabby 245 lbs to lose to Holyfield.

 

Wow i got to the end of the thread thinking 'yessssss, noone's mentioned Douglas yet',
Then you broke my dreams

 

In the sense that his reputation outruns his accomplishments--possibly not all through his own fault--I might go with George Godfrey. It could be racism and wearing the cuffs, or it could just be that he ate himself out of his career.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

I don't know if Big George Foreman exactly fits the bill here, as he whooped Norton and Frazier with relative ease, but lost to the greatest of them all... It just stings that he retired his first career when he did, I would have loved to have seen something like Foreman/Holmes, but still, Foreman achieved a hell of a lot in his first career and the comeback is quite an amazing feat, maybe I'm pissing in the wind a bit here

I agree what the poster on page one said about Mike Tyson, I feel very much that way also. Ibeabuchi and Bowe are great picks, and I'm more familiar with them than the old-timers.

 

Why? I think that's very much an insult to Braddock. Schmeling had a weak jaw and other assets than did Braddock. And it's not like the Schmeling fight was an easy win for him.

Yep. OR until he runs into Braddock, Nova, Schaaf, Loughran, Risko, Uzcudun, Farr or Davis, and loses.

Or you are buying into this magical, unbeatable version of Baer who took advantage of a lesser durable opponent, but still lost tons of times i've pointed out.

Different fighter or not, he wasn't all that. It was a weaker division after the Dempsey/Tunney retirement gap where a former journeyman LHW could climb up to win the title against a highly respected champion.

 

I can agree with that

Had Foreman stayed permanently retired, he could be considered an "underachiever" because he gave up early in his first run. However Foreman's comeback, regardless the ups and downs, vindicated him and proved that he had the courage and skill of a real ATG.

On the other side, regarding Tyson, as I mentioned, a focused, dedicated Tyson would have been even greater, because in my opinion, at the very minimum:

a) Doesn't lose to Douglas (not taking anything away from Buster, who fought very well)
b) Doesn't miss 3 prime years for going to jail
c) Doesn't lose to Holyfield (However, it is worth noting that without Tyson's trip to the jail the Holyfield fight happens in 1991 and not in 1996)

Anyway, the boxing universe is full of shoulda, woulda, coulda :nono

 

Mike Dokes - booger sugar
Ike - crazy
Jess Willard - just didn't like the fighting game

a few that come to mind. the lesson here is that 90% of the game is half mental.

 

Jack sharkey is a good example, tis is a pretty good article

DON’T UNDERRATE JACK SHARKEY!
By Eric Jorgensen​

If Jess Willard isn’t the most underrated heavyweight champion of all-time, then Jack Sharkey surely is. Yes, Sharkey was erratic; ‘twas not for nothing they called him the "The Fighting Fool". Yes, he frequently allowed himself to get out of shape (188 v. Jack Dempsey; 201 v. Primo Carnera the 2nd time). Yes, he sometimes fought with less than 100% effort — sometimes far less, as in his draw with Mickey Walker. Yet, notwithstanding all of that, when Sharkey was "on", as he was against Harry Wills, George Godfrey, Jack Delaney, Max Schmeling, Tommy Loughran the 1st time, Carnera the 1st time, and even Dempsey, he was a truly great fighter — he could move, box and bang — the whole package. Too many people have forgotten that.
The reason why is easily discernable. In the minds of a great number of pundits, Sharkey permanently vacated his place in the all-time pantheon by 2 profoundly discreditable performances: his 15-round draw with middleweight champion Walker and his knockout loss to Carnera. For a variety of reasons, however, I suggest that these fights are indicative only of Sharkey’s inconsistent temperament, not of his true ability, and that to focus on them alone is to do Sharkey a great injustice.
First, the Walker fight. Of course, I have heard the arguments (in fact, I used to make them myself). They go

This content is protected

something like this: "Look, the fact that Sharkey couldn’t beat a middleweight — no matter how great — proves he was a ham-and-egger, period. After all, could anyone imagine Marvin Hagler securing a draw with Larry Holmes?" But, there is more to it than that. The first point that should be made about that fight is that Sharkey probably did "win" it, in the sense that he deserved the decision. Contemporary accounts typically referenced Walker’s gallant effort and Sharkey’s half-hearted one, but also typically stated that the draw was "sentimental". Nowadays, you hear a lot of people getting carried away, particularly when writing adoring blurbs on the popular Walker, by implying Walker deserved the nod. If anyone who actually saw the fight had that impression, I am unaware of it. At the same time, though, I concede that that’s not the whole point. That the fight was close at all is indeed embarrassing from Sharkey’s standpoint and so must be addressed.
At bottom, the explanation for that performance is that Sharkey just did not give it his best; for whatever reason, he simply didn’t try. It happens sometimes. [Remember Eddie Gregory sleep-walking against Victor Galindez? Howard Davis Jr. against Jim Watt? Same thing.] That sounds like an excuse from an advocate rather than an assessment from an analyst, I know, but the films absolutely bear this out. You cannot watch that fight and tell me that Sharkey looks like he’s interested in winning it: he didn’t throw any punches. One look will tell you that that is not the same Sharkey who fought Dempsey & Wills; not even close. Perhaps the same mob connections that bought Tiger Flowers’s middleweight crown for Walker also bought him an evening without left hooks against Sharkey, or perhaps Sharkey just wasn’t in the mood that night. Again, I fully acknowledge he was erratic. Nevertheless, that was not vintage Sharkey and this fight should not be accorded much consideration when assessing how Sharkey, at his best, compares with the other champions.
Okay, now Carnera. Nobody disputes that Sharkey beat him easily the first time around — knocked him down and pitched a near-shutout. By the time of the rematch, Sharkey was an old 32, was coming off 1-year lay-off, and was about 10 lbs. overweight. So, he was (1) rusty, (2) past his prime, and (3) out of shape. In other words, Sharkey was no longer remotely the fighter he had once been. In addition, Carnera himself has been severely underrated. True, he got hammered by Joe Louis & Max Baer, but so did Schmeling, and nobody laughs at him. Plus, he beat legitimate first-raters in Paolino Uzcuden, Ernie Schaaf and Tommy Loughran (all 3 of whom tattooed Baer at his best, recall). Despite all that, after 5 rounds, the fight was arguably 5-0 Sharkey.
Then came the much-debated 6th. Sharkey was cruising merrily along when Carnera pushed him to the ropes and threw an uppercut that looks like it was mostly "arm". Sharkey reared back dramatically and dropped "senseless" to the canvas. Cynics said the fight was an obvious tank. Until his dying day, Sharkey passionately disputed that characterization. His story was that he suddenly became overwhelmed by visions of his close friend and protégé Ernie Schaaf and just froze (or "choked", to use the modern parlance). Films are inconclusive (no matter what anyone tells you).
For my money, the answer does not much matter for purposes of evaluating the in-prime Sharkey’s place in history. Though I actually tend to favor the "dive" explanation (Sharkey did seem to encounter fighters with "ties" to the mob with alarming frequency: Stribling, Carnera, Walker, etc.), Sharkey’s version may be plausible. Occasionally fighters gain reputations — auras of invincibility — that they do not deserve, and fighters who could beat them do not because they don’t believe they can. I have no doubt, for example, Michael Spinks would have performed better against Mike Tyson had he seen the Buster Douglas debacle beforehand. Similarly, I think Floyd Patterson would have performed better against Sonny Liston had he foreseen how Liston would come apart against Muhammad Ali. So, maybe the Schaaf fight had Sharkey thinking Carnera was invincible and maybe Sharkey did choke. Maybe as his lack of conditioning began to tell a bit and Sharkey became concerned whereupon his always-fragile psyche really did place Schaaf’s ghost before him. Or, maybe it’s as simple as a washed-up fighter running into one. Regardless, I say that the Sharkey of the Wills & Dempsey fights was Carnera’s clear superior, as their first fight plainly demonstrates. If Sharkey did choke, I think it was a function of his age and deteriorating ability, as well as the emotional scars left by the Schaaf tragedy, that eroded his confidence and left him psychologically vulnerable; a bizarre combination of circumstances not likely to happen twice, and which never would have happened at all had Sharkey been fit, in his prime, and on his game.
Now for what Sharkey did right. For starters, he proved himself a better fighter than Schmeling, whom virtually everyone regards as having been a great fighter. He trounced Schmeling in the first fight, dominating it completely. Regardless of whether he did in fact hit Schmeling low, I am convinced after watching the films that Max stayed down because he would rather have obtained the title that way than get up and get knocked out, which was about to happen. Schmeling got the win, yes, but there is no question that Sharkey was the better fighter that night. As one commentator described the fight:

"This was one of those nights when Sharkey was at his brilliant best. His jabs, hooks, and uppercuts were working to perfection, completely baffling the dark-browed Schmeling. Jack kept throwing leather so fast and accurately that Max could not get set to throw his big gun. . . . Sharkey had the German groggy in the 4th round and was battering him all over the ring. Then, trying to shift inside one of Max's feeble leads, he brought a hook to the body. Instantly, Max doubled up and clutched his groin as if fouled. . . . Referee Jim Crowley had seen no foul and started the count. . . . [¶] Although Max wore a type of protector which had been proved to withstand the hardest blow without harm to the wearer, he went into a grimacing act that would have drawn applause from the Barrymores . . . . [¶] Was Schmeling really fouled? A careful study of the movies by unbiased observers later revealed that the blow was not low. It was on the beltline, close to foul territory perhaps, but certainly not in the groin."
​

 

John Durant, The Heavyweight Champions, Hastings House (1976), pp. 87-88.

Sharkey was also better than Schmeling in the rematch, notwithstanding his weird decision to handicap himself by refusing to throw any body punches as some sort of infantile protest against the disqualification in the first fight: "Fifteen long rounds; I never hit him below the chin." Peter Heller, "In This Corner. . .!" 42 World champions Tell Their Stories, Da Capo Press (1994 ed.), Jack Sharkey chapter, p. 158. Joe Jacobs yelled "We wuz robbed!" when the decision came down, of course, and many people who did not see the fight jumped on the bandwagon. That made things simple for those preferring to rate Schmeling as an all-timer (after all, he beat Joe Louis), but ignore Sharkey at the same time (after all, he lost to Carnera). But, referee Gunboat Smith’s comments on the decision dispel the all-too-convenient "robbery" explanation:

"From the first til the 10th or 11th, Jack Sharkey win every round. The other fellow did nothing but dance. . . . [Schmeling] got the last 4 rounds, but how could I give him the decision when he won only 4 rounds? . . . I give it to Sharkey. Eleven to 4, I've got to do it."

Heller, "In This Corner. . .!" 42 World Champions Tell Their Stories, supra, Gunboat Smith chapter, pp. 44-45. Thus, Sharkey outfought Schmeling 2 out of 2 times, no small feat and one which should be afforded the respect it merits.

Besides Schmeling, Sharkey easily beat the 2 top black fighters of the period, Harry Wills and George Godfrey, who could punch holes in brick walls and whom most white fighters did not want to get anywhere near. [Wills was past his best but still a terrific heavyweight at the time, and Godfrey was in his prime.] He also flattened 2 of the greatest light-heavyweight champions of all-time in Tommy Loughran and Jack Delaney, and whipped another top all-time light-heavyweight, Young Stribling, by decision. So, when he was "right", he could handle both speedy boxers (Loughran, Delaney, Stribling) and hard-hitting powerhouses (Schmeling, Wills, Godfrey). Few heavyweights of any era have displayed such versatility. As one author commented:

"Jack’s repertoire of punches was something to behold. When he first started out, his only weakness was a looping right that he’d toss as though he were pegging an indoor baseball. After painstaking study, he developed the short lethal jolt that begins at the chest and travels only a foot.

There are no more than eight real blows in boxing - the left jab, left hook to the head, left rip to the body, right cross to the chin, straight right to the body and right uppercut. If you wish, you might ring in the left and right inside uppercuts. Few heavyweights past or present could deliver them all, and no one but Sharkey could deliver each one with devastating effect.

Jack’s left jab was no flickering thing like Tommy Loughran’s but a solid smash with his whole shoulder behind it. Tunney had it, but he never had Sharkey’s whizzing left hook that could separate a man from his senses as quickly as his right. Sharkey would step in with his right under the heart just like Tunney, but then he’d risk a right cross to the chin, which was not for Gene. Tunney preferred to reach with the punch - it was safer."

John D. McCallum, The World Heavyweight Boxing Championship - A History, Chilton Book Company (1974), pp. 154-155.

Perhaps longtime boxing guru Stanley Weston summed Sharkey up best when he remarked:

"Throughout his career, Jack Sharkey was an enigma. He had everything going for him: dazzling speed, size, the artistic boxing moves of a Jim Corbett and the knockout power of a Bob Fitzsimmons. He also possessed a braggart's confidence. If it lived and breathed, Sharkey was sure he could bust it apart. Most experts would have agreed were it not for one failing: Sharkey’s short temper. . . . f Jack Sharkey had been able to keep his cool under pressure, he would almost certainly be rated among the elite heavyweight champions, with Dempsey, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson."

Stanley Weston, The Heavyweight Champions, Ace Publishing Corporation (1970), pp. 142-143.

So, where does Sharkey rate? No, even I would not put him among the top 10 or 15 heavyweights of all-time. But, after that, his name surfaces pretty quickly; certainly, he makes the top 25. I say he was equal to or better than any of the five men who held the title between Tunney and Louis. As to those who preceded him, I would make him a clear underdog to only 4: Jim Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey & Tunney. As those coming after Jim Braddock, I place him ahead of Ingemar Johansson, Jimmy Ellis, Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, Buster Douglas and Michael Moorer, even-money against Jersey Joe Walcott and Floyd Patterson, and only a slight underdog against Ezzard Charles and Lennox Lewis (an oaf, but a very big oaf). As to the rest, he’s probably a more sizeable underdog. On the right night, however, ya never know. . . .

One thing is for certain, though: Sharkey was too good to be dismissed out of hand as he often is today — far too good!

 

I'm going to say James Toney.

He has accomplished a lot but, like the poster before that said Tyson, could have accomplished more.

 

The overweight Toney couldnt do too much at heavyweight. Maybe if he came in at 210 lbs he could do well but not at his weight