just to test a theory that you can portray ANY great fighter as being over praised if you do it properly;i'll start; JOE LOUIS-ko'd by max schmelling,who had 7 losses at the time; outpointed by the much smaller Ezzard Charles; The division was weak during his reign,hence 'bum of the month'. anyone?
Sugar Ray Robinson. Undoubtedly one of the best there ever was. But failed to fight many of the best fighters of his era. Holman Williams Cocoa Kid Charley Burley Eddie Booker All of these guys are better than the men Sugar fought, with the exception of Gavlin, who may have beaten all of them. Sugar also talked himself out of a fight with Archie Moore. I rate Sugar top 2 all time p4p, I have no problem with him being at #1. But I do think that the best fighters that he didn't fight are better than the best fighters he did, and that has always bothered me.
Is Riddick Bowe considered by anyone a "legend".....well then he is overrated. Holyfield is disgustingly overrated at Heavyweight. Why? He lost his career defining trilogy in his prime to Bowe. Bowe is a guy who's only claim to fames are beating Holy twice, gettin his nuts smashed and face smashed by Golota and throwing his belt in the trash. Holy was then outboxed by another fighter while in his prime. His early wins at Heavy are over two former Ali opponents and the end of his career has been a train wreck.
Bernard Hopkins. He has never beaten a truely great fighter at the weight class he fought them at. Was Trinidad great? Yep. Great at middleweight? No. Was De La Hoya great? Of course. At middleweight? Nope. Glen Johnson? Yes. Middleweight prime? No. Winky Wright? Yep. At 170lbs? No chance. The highest ranked fighter he has beaten is probably Antonio Tarver, who ranks about 30th all-time at light-heavyweight. great win for Hopkins, but Tarver isn't that good and never was. He made a previously unimpressive career out of beating an old Roy Jones. Then you have the two losses to Jermain Taylor. I disagree with the two results, but over the two fights, Taylor was the better man. This is the Jermain Taylor who was pushed to the limit by Cory Spinks, a good welterweight. His career is decent, but it makes me sick when people rank him above people like Monzon, Greb, Walker and even lesser talents like Jake LaMotta. His resume is full of weak names. If he beats Calzaghe I will retract anything negative I have ever said about Hopkins, with pleasure. If he loses, his resume goes like "He beat a bunch of blown up fighters and nobodies, but was outclassed aginst the true talent he faced". It's a legacy he deserves.
Not to mention Light Heavy is/was/always has been Bernard's Natural Fighting Weight by self admission.
Legend gets used pretty damn casually on this site. I think there are very few of them. That's why they're legends, not just excellent fighters. And most or all of them lost when they shouldn't have, maybe didn't have the best competition, or got some gift decisions. I can't think of one legend who's resume you couldn't tear apart in one way or another.
Co-sign. And that is one of the reasons I love "Ghosts of Manilla". More pro-Frazier and less pro-Ali.
Folks, wake up here, this thread is not about who you actually think is overrated, but about how you can make a case for anybody being overrated if you try hard enough. Anyway, here i go: Sugar Ray Leonard's resume is overrated because: - he fought Duran 12 pounds above Duran's original weight class, and Duran still beat him the first time, - he fought Hearns when Hearns wasn't really battle-tested and at his peak yet, and hearns really beat him in the 2nd fight, - he fought Hagler near the end of Hagler's career, Hagler was slipping and Leonard didn't deserve the decision anyway. See? You can always think of a way to diminish a fighter's legacy. The only Leonard fight that i couldn't find a way to discredit was with Benitez. BTW, i do hope i don't get any dimwits pissed off because they think i'm actually seriously attacking Leonard's record. I'm just making an example to support the thread.
But you are talking about him being overrated at 147 , and apart from Burley , the guys you mentioned were natural middles. You ant fight them all (you probably can, but not many guys fight 100% of the best around) , and Robinson beat so many , and giving Gavilan that title shot after their first fight means he was willing to fight guys. I agree totally on the Burley point though , Burley made it loud and clear he wanted it
I know that there will be people debating this , and giving some stik , but the ase could be made for Archie Moore. I agree that he was one of the greatest 175s ever , but i have him at number 4 , i might have him lower , but i have him above Foster only because of the comparisons in resume. I just think that he was beaten so many times when in his prime , people will argue that it was beause of his level of oposition . And i forgive fighters who fought in that era for losses , as they were fighting so often. But he was beaten by some no1s , and his trilogy with harles totaly puts him out of the running for number 1 atg lhw . Also , some of the fighters he lost to - losing to harley Burley is nothing to be criticised about , but when you are being made out as one of the / the best 175 pounder ever , i dont think you should lose to a great natural ww , just opinion
Jimmy Wilde, no question a great fighter with explosive power, and a great record. He beat many good fighters but when he got to another ATG in Villa he was beaten quite handly(possibly a bit old but he got handled) some people have him as high at #5, I have him between 15-20 as an ATG.