Most overrated HW of all time.

It is clearly Ali, if it wasnt for his iron jaw and the dodgy decisions he got he would have been seen for what he was a very good heavyweight.

He is only called the greatest by many because he called himself the greatest.

 

The Worse??? So you favor L Spinks or Rahman over Marciano?? Even had Marciano lost a fight, he still make the top ten for mostly cleaning out the 50's in the fashion he did. Dempsey lost, and he makes people's top ten. So has Jeff, and he is on people's top ten. Outside of Foreman, I think Marciano gives eveyone hell.

Also in Marciano's day, they train DOWN. Marciano weight a good 220 when he was not in training.

 

yes, Leon Spinks and Rahman aren't even rated, and of course are thought off as chumps.

To be overrated you need to be rated for a start. rahman and Spinks aren't, Marciano is.

 

and about this weight, Dempsey only weight 190 pounds. He only had 5 mere pounds over the Rock. What makes Dempsey so differnt in this regard?? Same goes for Louis who weight about 200. It was not that big of a weight gap. Even 170 pound Bill Conn gave Louis hell.

 

Dempsey and Louis were far faster, had better handspeed and had better punch combinations.

Marciano was predicatble he just did Left hook, right hook,left hook, right hook, left hook,right hoo........you get the picture.

 

Marciano was one of the MOST predicatble heavyweight champions ever, He may look sloppy, but he was dam akward. Charles says he feits with his fist and he feits his feet, you never know what he thown next, he was always thinking out there.

One of the Rock's most fame punchings the right that took out Walcott, was started off of a feit. He feit with the left and drove home with the right hand. Than we have Marciano leading and bobing and weaving. It was dang near impossible to land any thing clean on him as Walcott found out. underated defense, and tricks up the sleeves in regards to feits to get the punch home.

 

Marciano is often over-rated as a head to head heavyweight, but he is vastly under-rated as a all time pound for pound fighter. No one at 185 and perhaps up to 205 beats him.

 

and he could knock you out with any single one of them.

A fighter who defeated the Robinson who knocked out Fullmer, the Tiger who beat Benvenuti, the Monzon who beat Valdez, and the Hopkins of the last few years would have defeated a bunch of old men but he would have to have been a great fighter.

 

Yup, knocking out every rated fighter you ever fought will do that for you. Sweeping your Hall-of-Famers will do that for you. Defeating the man with the longest winning streak of any man defeated by any heavyweight champion will do that for you. Having the highest knockout percentage against champions and rated fighters of any man at any weight in the Hall-of-Fame will do that for you. Having the highest knockout percentage of any heavyweight champion, and also obviously the highest winning percentage, will do that for you.

If you have the best record of anyone who ever fought against the men you fought and the men you fought were the best of their time, some will jump to the conclusion you are a good fighter.

 

I think that you are making the same mistake that a lot of Rockys opponents made.

They said before they fought him that he was a neanderthal and predictable.

After they fought him they were all saying that he feinted them into knots and that they could never time his punches.

If you read what guys like Moore, Charles and Walcott said then go back and look at the film then you start to see it.

 

Most of them were a bit of both. Dont get me wrong, Ali's superiority to those fighters is what won him the fights, so I guess it's more about them not being good enough, rather than age and size. Ali's speed and reach were his most apparent assets in the 60s, and no one was equipped to do much against him.

The point is, men like Frazier and Norton were better than those who he faced in the 60s. I dont think he'd even have had an easy time with Oscar Bonavena or Jimmy Young.

Marciano's opposition isn't relevant.
I dont think Patterson was too old. Folley had seen better days but I just dont rate him particularly highly - he was skilful but not very durable.

By size, I mean his height and reach.
The point is, a lot of the fighters he fought in the 70s were better.

He avoided no one. He fought the best available.
He fought no one as good as a 1971 version of Joe Frazier. That's the point.

 

Ali didnt have an easy time with Bonavena or Young,but he did something Frazier couldnt do against Oscar ,though rusty from his exile,with only 3 rounds of competitive boxing in 3 1/2 years,he kod Bonavena,against Young Ali scaled 230lbs he was undertrained ,but still won aginst a man who spent most of the fight with his head outside the ropes,this is the Young who gave Norton a good fight and beat Foreman.The point about Alis fights in the70,s is that he was getting older ,his style which had relied on reflexes and movement had to be adapted as he hit his middle 30,she was heavier and slower,something Chuvalo noticed and commented on after their second fight.

 

"he fought no one as good as the 1971 Frazier".Frazier ,fighting the best fight of his life beat a comebacking Ali by decision,and finished up looking like a gargoyle after the fight,that fight ruined him he was in his prime Alis prime we never saw ,it would have been the 3 years he was denied the right to fight.

 

I wonder if the people who criticise Marciano for fighting older and smaller oponents would give Joe Calzaghe any credit if he beat Bernard Hopkins.