Most overrated old-timer?

And what if that reporter was stuck in the past? What if he ranked a good car from Johnson's era over a car from the 50's that was bigger and never lost a fight? Fleischer ranked Marciano #10 and Fitzsimmons #3. Go figure.

Who is Jem Mace? I'm talking about Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Corbett, Johnson, Willard et al.

You're telling me those fighters knew how to counter punch so that's why no one jabbed back then? Watch a Johnson fight. They couldn't counterpunch a long punch to save their lifes. They could throw a punch after taking one, if that's counter punching to you then they could.

What you suggest is that the primitive (for gloved boxing) fighters of the 1890's, 1900's and 1910's had an astonishingly effective way to counter jabs, to such extent that they didn't use it, yet somehow that technique was lost and never recovered in the 90 years of gloved boxing after, causing primitive fighters after them like Robinson, Louis, Ali and Lewis to have a great jab ?

Well i've never seen it on film. I don't believe in fairy tales. They're not reliable.

No it wasn't. They kept their hands low very often and their gloves were very small so it was less effective. What's more - in bareknuckle boxing, the style they came from, it was completely absent because there were no gloves. There is your explanation.

Yes indeed. And it is for this reason that Johnson would drown against skilled boxers under post 30's rules. And vice versa.

This is contradicted by the film of him and the fact that fighters after him, say, Johnson, still had a primitive style whereas the fighters after Johnson had a more modern, gloved style.

 

That doesn't speak well for him. Imagine Tyson being 50/50 with Tucker or Thomas.

Maybe so, but they were also his best opponents.

There is some truth to this although it is also speculation. However, what does it say about Dempsey that he is completely dominated twice by Tunney (who almost no HW record to speak off outside of Dempsey) or Sharkey, who was very inconsistent as well?

How often since then has a 168'er been the baddest man? Not once. Awfully poor heavyweight division is the only logical conclusion.

Well he was pretty far into his career when he still took a beating from Fitzsimmons.

I would be interested to hear your completely different series of events, though.

 

A small man rolling his fists like Popeye and beating guys who wouldn't even make it out of my local bar impresses me little.

 

You would make Dempsey favourite over Foreman head to head? I'd be interested to hear why McGrain, I'm the total opposite I feel Foreman would blow Dempsey out fairly early.

 

Makes sense to me, Dempsey always was good against big, slow fighters.

 

Explain. I have him #6 all time P4P. He certainly deserves to be among the very best, easily one of the best resumes of all time.

 

Jack Johnson.

 

I don't see the argument for Bivins as overrated at all. As I said on another post, about 75 of his fights were against men who were rated in the Ring Magazine yearly rankings at one time or another--2/3 of all his fights, which in sheer volume and percentage has to be near the top of anyone at all and up there with Langford among non-champions. Bivins might have faced the toughest opposition of anyone. He defeated eight world champions, including Bettina, Christoforidis, Lesnevich, Maxim, and Moore among the lightheavies. This includes every champion from 1939 to 1962 except Conn and Mills, neither of whom fought him. He also defeated the uncrowned champion, Charles. And Bivins badly defeated the incumbent champion, Lesnevich, in 1942 in a non-title fight while never getting a shot at the title.

You mention he lost to 18 different men. He also defeated ten of those men and proved himself superior to several of them, such as Christoforidis.

On balance, he certainly deserves his Hall-of-Fame position. He did a lot more than a non-champion such as Tom Sharkey and also did more than many champions, such as for example, Battling Levinsky, who likewise faced a lot of tough men and who likewise lost a great many fights.

 

...ah..those gentlemen who considered Ezzard Charles and Jimmy Bivins as overrated really should find a forum about....oh, say....bowling and leave boxing to those of us who know what we're talking about. okay...there are legitimate differences of opinion on many boxing matters...but...CHARLES!!! BIVINS!!!!! OVERRATED!!!!! Not even worthy of discussion.

 

corbett is somewhat overrated. his record is comparatively weak, outpointing kilrain over six rounds (without hurting him at all), running from sullivan until he about fell over from exhaustion, drawing with a sick and injured peter jackson, then barely beating a very green, very crude sharkey before he loses the title and never getting another significant win.