We had a thread recently on the most talented heavyweight underachievers from the 1980's. Several names were mentioned especially Page, Dokes, Biggs, Thomas and Witherspoon (though in Tim's case it was more Don King) Would you regard any heavyweights in the 70's as underachievers?
I'm gonna go against the grain and pick Joe Bugner. After he accidentally killed someone early in his career, he wasn't nearly as aggressive. If he fought in the manner in which he destroyed Lubb more often, he would've reached new heights.
The Aussie Joe year 1986/87...said a lot about Bugner..37 (which was like 41 back than.)...pretty much broke..a v long career behind him and he comes back and beats tillis, bey and page...those were impressive wins...than he puts on 20lbs of flabs and puts on the same non effort vs bruno that he did against Marvis 5 yrs before...as others say the tragic death took away some of his aggression..
Andrewe, Wepner couldn't punch (it was more of a big slap), couldn't box, couldn't duck and bled like a stuck pig. He was tough as nails and had a good jaw, that was his pluses. What he was was very lucky. In '73 he was the recipient of one the worst decisions of that time by a sole official (the other worst decision in that era was the Patterson - Ellis fight, which, coincidentally, involved the same official as the sole arbiter) and that was his 12 rounder with top-ten rated Ernie Terrell. Despite all the magazine's claims of the worst decision they had seen, Wepner broke into the ratings at #10 and stayed there by fighting easy comp. I should say the only decent fighter he fought was Randy Neumann, who was ahead on points until he was stopped around 6 or 7 rounds from a butt-induced cut. But miracles upon miracles, Ali signed him up to fight for the title with his #10 ranking. What I'm getting at is Wepner, if anything, was one of the biggest over-achievers I've ever seen.
I remember a quote from him, "When I started boxing I was 6'1". Now, after all the uppercuts im up to 6'5"."