Fighters whose greatness may be overrated

I will get grief I'm sure, but Joe Louis to me in overrated in a h2h sense. You can't fault the guys championship reign, but truthfully, it was rather ordinary when viewed under a microscope. So his h2h "fame" was built on beating pretty subpar competition, which is to say, many people can look really devastating when they are fighting meh fighters. Whenever he stepped up and faced all time greats, whether in his prime or slightly past it, he either struggled badly but found a way to win, lost, or was gifted a win. The ATG's he faced were Charles, Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and Marciano. His record and performances against those men weren't spectacular, which goes to the point I'm making. If he struggles against the best he fought, and most times lost, why is he rated so high in a h2h sense? I can name quite a few HW's who I'd favor over Louis h2h, that doesn't mean Louis as a champion is rated higher. Shoot I have him in my top 3 all time, but h2h, he drops down the list some.

 

This content is protected

 

I AGREE.

He is probably lower than 3 on my list. Like you said, he lost or was given gifts against fellow greats. The one thing that I do like is his performance in many of the second fights against those opponents. Longevity is a big thing for me as well.

That said, He is overrated by many.

 

McGrain and Klompton2

I think the arguments you make are mainly valid, but are only half the story.

1--Cerdan spent most of his career at welter. Yes, and I think he was probably better at welter. He won the French welter title in 1938 and the Euro welter title in 1939. About the time Cerdan is to step out on the world stage WWII intervenes.

2--Robinson was better--okay, but I don't think anyone ever maintains otherwise.

3--campaigns at middle for five years. And on the world stage from 1946-1949, when he was 30 to 33. His best years might have been behind him, lost to WWII

4--"that guy almost knocked Cerdan out"--yes, the Raadik fight is the best evidence against Cerdan. His hardest to explain away performance.

5--LaMotta was hurt also--but was his injury as crippling? The film shows him using his right even in the 9th round. Cerdan was 33 to begin with, to LaMotta's 28, and to fight LaMotta with one arm? How much weight can we give this fight?

6--"not a top ten man. Not to me."--Nor me, but I rarely see him on top ten lists. Who rates him that high? But does his record prove him hyped, or merely truncated and incomplete, and so impossible to really form a definitive opinion on. I think the latter.

7--"Zale was totally shot"--He was the champion and Cerdan did what he had to do. In fairness, Zale didn't look shot against Graziano in 1948 just before fighting Cerdan. I know I'll get a knock on Graziano, but these guys WERE the American champions.

8--"came here to fight the best"--well, Cerdan came to the US to fight Abrams, Zale, and LaMotta. I don't see how he is that much different from the others.

9--"America had an incredibly weak boxing scene during the war years"--But Cerdan had his American career after the war years.

10--Interestingly, other than Holman Williams, none of his major fights were in France. He won the Euro welter title from Turiello in Milan. Beat Abrams, Roach, and Zale in the US. Beat D-ck Turpin in London. Beat Delannoit in Brussels. And fought LaMotta in Detroit.

My bottom line is that Cerdan is less hyped than incomplete. His best years might have been lost to WWII. He still won the title in his 30's. His two legit losses came when 32 and 33, the first quickly reversed. The second when injured. So I don't think he is a good addition to an overrated list.

 

Great post. DeJesus stops both Boomer and Gatti inside 10. Hall of Fames (any sport) have become popularity contests like you said. Complete joke.

 

Silly. Louis is easily the most highly skilled of all hwt champions. He is also one of few that can be rated p4p without issue.

 

Go back and reread the post.

 

Agree with you. Don't really see how you can overrate Ali. He fought everyone - multiple times - and almost always won.

 

LaMotta.
Tough as old boots, great chin and an underrated boxer.
But he got schooled by Lloyd Marshall and a lot of his big fights are against Welterweights including Robinson, Zivic and Tommy Bell.
I like the man and his past prime victory over the tough Bob Murphy is underrated as far as he's a slugger out boxing a tough southpaw.

 

I think he's generally rated correctly by those who follow the sport closely, but there's still too many voices that label him as the U.K.'s greatest or think he would have handled a prime Jones Jr. Frankly, he's not the greatest from Wales, let alone the entire country.

A name I list in discussions like these is Ricardo Lopez. I don't want to spend a long time rehashing arguments and I do think he was a very good little fighter, but he is too often grouped with Mexico's greatest, despite him hanging around a ghost town and missing nearly every notable fighter around his weight. That's on top of him arguably losing at least one fight to the best guy he faced.

I don't have the authority to speak on this with clarity, so maybe someone more familiar can add color, but Orlando Canizales strikes me as one who is likely overrated. Stylistically he is appealing but a glance at his record shows that he beat very few ranked fighters during his tenure and even a guy like Hardy, who became ranked, only did so because he fought Canizales close. From the HBO commentary, he also struggled quite a bit with Sergio Reyes. Surprisingly enough, it was his brother Gaby who became Lineal Champion at the weight and not him.

 

Of all the replies I posted in this thread you respond to this one, which is a reply to someone else's post and not the thread starter's...

...why?

 

I’m a fan but Jersey Joe Walcott. He was the definition of a pro but he outlasted a guy to get his winning shot a LHW at the end nearly and didn’t quite do enough to beat an ageing Louis when it mattered most.I believe the rematch represents how things were meant to always go.

His fight with Marciano really showed us just how desperate he was to hold onto being a champion, the rematch showed us the unpredictability of fighting but possibly just his real motive for boxing. He was intelligent and a good fighter but I don’t think you can call him an ATG.

 

I get the others but Griffith?

 

Agree with you. Griffith overrated? No way. Be interested to read a justification for the claim. (I don't think Ali is overrated, either.)

 

Not trying to be smart/argumentative. I don't understand what it is you are asking me.