Most overrrated fighters ? (or, who do YOU "underrate"?)

Its always an awkward discussions. Dempsey and Marciano make my top ten but Tyson and Liston, men who barely scrape my top 10, (sometimes their in sometuime their out) beat them comfortably H2H imo.

Overrated though has to be Joe Louis (Sorry Janitor!). this is coming from a man who happily puts Joe Louis as the no.2 heavyweight of all time (mainly due to number of succesful title fights)! H2h he falls short, he was flat footed, he wasnt that quick, he could be stung and was overral beatable by many champion who came after him, Liston, Tyson, Lennox, Ali, Holmes all beat him imo.

Aaron Pryor also deserves a shout for the ovverrated pile. You got to love his fights but he falls very short in H2H arguments.


Larry Holmes is very underrated, he has a very simlar record to the likes of Louis and Marciano and wasnt unlike Ali in style, but nobody really took notice of him. the public when taling about great heavys, tend to talk about Ali skip Holmes and go straight for Tyson... This is unfair he had all the tools and would beat Lennox prime for prime and i rate Lennox very highly indeed.

ill come back with more suggestions in a bit!:rasta

 

No. Sardu is right - I can testify to this.

You have to dock Leonard points not only for losing to Norris but also in the fashion he lost. I recently convinced one of the members of Ibro on this to which he confessed I was correct.

Among other things, Leonard was 1) favored 3-1 over Norris
2) Showed excellent mobility in the Duran fight 3) It is impossible for a shot fighter to move about the ring on his legs non stop in the manner Leonard demonstrated if they are shot. 4) There was really no significant layoff this time - rust cannot be the reason for blame 5) He was not fighting two divisions up above his best weight as for the Hagler fight or higher as in the Lalonde match.

Therefore, Leonard was not shot. The theory of Leonard being shot is a fallacy. He should have won but wasn't prepared because of the opposition he had been facing over the years. He had been fighting a lot of repeats and easy fights. When it came time for a legitimate challenge, he fell short.


I can excuse him for the loss to Camacho but he still shouldn't have been stopped. I thought he was tougher than that.

When you put together his won/lost ratio it is a meager 35/5 (I like most others felt he lost the hagler fight)

Those who I feel are underrated are Roy Jones and Terry Norris.

 

Oh come off it, Leonard was like 36 years of age when he fought a 24 year old Norris. If you're trying to insinuate that a prime Leonard loses to prime Norris, you've lost all credibility. And even if Leonard wasn't shot, which he most certainly was or close too, then the fact still remains he beat Duran twice, stopped Hearns, and beat Hagler. Regardless of whether or not you felt Hagler won, the fight was still razor thin, and that in itself is a major achievement considering the circumstances.

Leonard doesn't get half of the respect on this board that he deserves, and you further solidify that fact by suggesting Leonard wasn't shot when he lost to Norris. Leonard was finished as a fighter, nothing compared to the Leonard of the early 80s.

 

He ranks much higher in head to head terms than he does in career/accomplishments terms. he ranks quite high as a matter of fact, what makes you say otherwise?

 

Overrated- Anyone before 1950
Underrated-Anyone after 1950

 

Fool.

 

No, I'm actually right and all others wrong. So if I lose credibility that is not a bother to me because those who discredit me are those who are in error.

Leonard was a mere 34 which is not old unless you been in the ring a lot which, Leonard wasn't. He also got to pick a lot of his own fights too - you can't deny that.

Now regardless of Leonard losing the fight, he should never have lost the way he did. Remember that Leonard challenged Norris. He wasn't forced into taking this fight. This is something that people fail to see. I fail to see why he would want this fight. The characteristics of Norris certainly bore no resemblance to other Leonard hand picked opponents; he had speed, youth, mobility, defense. Norris put him in a cage because he always beat Ray to the punch every time.

As to Leonard's prime you keep bringing up, would you please tell me what was so great about Leonard's prime? I've seen the very same fights as you:
Duran 1 where he lost, Duran 2 where Leonard clowned his way over a poorly conditioned Duran (you were impressed by this?) After that he labored his way to an 11th round tko over Bonds, a very average performance.

Pea, I still don't see what you're talking about. I've seen the Kalule fight - no big deal. Davey Moore & McCallum did the same. In the Hearns fight, he fell too far behind in the fight for me to ever call him a great boxer, a great tacticican. The guy didnt even know what he was doing and it took a scolding from his cornerman Dundee (you're blowing it son) to get his ass in gear. he almost LOST the fight.

You can't expect me to believe that someone like that could take Terry Norris? This could never be.

I am actually the leading expert on Leonard in addition to being his biggest detractor. I know you don't believe it but it's true. Now Ray is a guy who has very fast hands when he puts them together but...his history shows that he spends too much time looking for openings. he thinks too much which is something that I have noticed early in his career, but the rest of you can't.

Because of this he always makes for a bad matchup with Norris who is trigger fisted and can deal with speedster types; Meldrick Taylor. Therefore, Norris beats Ray every time. It's just a fact of life-accept it people.

On the other hand, Hagler, while just 32, actually was shot which is the sole reason why Leonard could win. He was not the caliber of fighter that Hagler was; 4 straight p4p titles, undisputed champion for 6 years and 12 defenses. Leonard, while great, is very overrated and I'm very sorry that his standing has suffered on account of me but Leonard wasted much of his career and so he has only himself to blame.

 

Predictable. First time I have ever viewed this thread, and seen your name next to it as the last poster. When I seen the thread titled "most overrated fighters ever?" I knew right away you'd be posting about Leonard. I was right.

 

I agree to a certain extent. But not "anyone", as thats just stupid. Henry Armstrong sure can't be overrated and many others after 1950 are overrated.

 

You dare deny it?

 

You're a comedian Rooster. But are good for the forum. You do have knowledge.

 

^ I have the best kind of knowledge: firsthand knowledge

 

Negative. :bart

 

I agree with the bolded part there are alot of guys in the pre film era who tend to get overrated because of the legend factor.

 

Naseem Hamed,Ismael Laguna,Bernard Hopkins.