Is this, like Calzaghe, a Brit thing? Hatton's most damaging flaw, by far and second to almost none, was his love of partying. He was a big time, generational talent in my eyes who blew it.
His eating habits, booze, and coke certainly didn't help him much as well. I remember he would always be Ricky Fatton in between fights.
As much as I don't want to say this but I always thought people highly overrate the abilities of Salvador Sanchez and Ricardo Lopez and view them as these unbeatable and perfect fighters. As great of a technician and joy to watch as they both are they are very overblown in terms of skills and achievements (more so Ricardo Lopez). Both guys had their strengths but they also had their weaknesses which seems to always be overlooked.
Being underrated? Yeah, by none Brits. But most Brits tend to overrate a lot of guys, almost nobody overrates Hatton.
Sugar Ray Leonard being the best boxer of the fab 4. Leonard was not a bad boxer. I'm saying that explicitly before someone gets the idea that that's what I'm implying. But compared the other 3, I definitely don't think he was the best. He won most of his big fights on physicality, for example, the Benitez fight was won on speed and athleticsm. Hearns too. Even lower tier fighters like Kalule & Lalonde were guys who Leonard had to outfight, rather than Box. Duran of the No Mas fight was mostly down to speed imo, as Duran still managed to be competitive before the final 2 rounds. Both Duran and Hagler lost imo because they were #1, not at their peak, or #2, they fought the wrong fight. Leonard used his feet really well, but even that was down to his speed. In fact, based off textbook fundamentals or outboxing skills, I'd say he was actually the worst. And my rankings would probably look like this, for fundamentals. #1, Roberto Durán #2, Marvin Hagler #3, Tommy Hearns #4, Ray Leonard
Works just as well! Thread title already suits, just figured that was what you had in mind initially. I'm assuming you were thinking of boxing myths or misinterpretations.
People do something kind of similar with Joe Louis when they exaggerate how much he changed after the first Schmeling fight.
Walcott having elite skills, like being a better mover than Holmes, or having better footwork than Usyk. No breakdown needed, it's just not true.
First few that come to mind: Tyson wilted whenever people stood up to him. Tyson dramatically fell off right before the Buster Douglas fight. Deontay Wilder is utterly lacking in skill, ring smarts, balance, and technique. Just has a right hand that he gets lucky with once or twice a fight. Marciano...I don’t even know where to start. Jersey Joe finding the fountain of youth and becoming a far superior fighter in his old age. The narrative in which Duran destroyed and dominated Leonard in their first fight.
Max Schmeling having some kind of brilliant boxing mind and vision. The narrative around Walcott misses that he was really a slugger with a bag of tricks more so than the purely back foot slickster he appears to be in his highlight clips.