OVERRATED ATGS? Hot take it!

Thank you, good to see you too man.

1) Manny Pacquiao
2) Muhammad Ali
3) Sugar Ray Robinson
4) Joe Louis
5) Sugar Ray Leonard

What about your list?

 

Thank you for the response. With respect I have seen a lot of Calzaghe. Virtually all of his fights, in fact. So I dont feel the need to revisit them as part of this discussion. I feel the same about him today exactly as I did at the time.
It's not that he isn't talented. He obviously had some quality traits, as you list here. And I don't disagree with them. But, again, it's the quality of opposition, for the most part. You can display all those traits in the ring - but who, or what version of a fighter, were they displayed against?
Yes he did embarrass Jones. But Jones had been done for years. Calzaghe even said so in his autobiography, published years before they faught. Hopkins had more left, but still wasn't the dominant force of old (and Joe just scraped by that one).
I respect your opinion, though I have mine. Calzaghe was a good but protected fighter who feasted on B and C level opposition. When the big fights came (Kessler aside) they were when the opponents were clearly sliding (despite whatever age Joe was - he wasn't fading in the same way).
Again, I am not saying he was no good. More that he should have done much, much more in his career to show us. Instead we, as fans, were treated to an almost endless litany of Branco Shobots, Tocker Pudwills, Mario Veits and at the same time told that Joe was an ATG. And all the time promoters were talking about him fighting the likes of Jones and Hopkins when it still meant something - but they only came when those fighters had shown clear signs of decline - especially Jones.
No. What I saw at the time I still see now. Not enough quality opposition and lots of good timing.

 

I don`t understand why Antonio is so highly rated, his only claim to fame is beating Cotto with loaded gloves then losing a rematch, he was big, had decent power, but not one punch KO power, he also had a good chin but was a plodder and easy to hit, his resume is just average, I don`t get why he`s such a big deal on this forum, he just looked average to me, just strong with decent skills, was it his work rate?

 

Okay but there are plenty of fighters who have had similar or more P4P success whilst also having a deeper/better resume and being more skilled. There are also a boatload of fighters who were much more successful and dominant against opponents their own size.

Winning titles as a malnourished teenager is obviously impressive, but let’s not act like Pac wasn’t a full natural lightweight at least. A lightweight beating welterweights is hardly unprecedented historically

 

Whilst Zags DID have some 'fodder' mandatories, AND he was overly content to let Fwank Warren guide his WBO reign, there are a number of his defences and wins that I feel are glossed over, and some a number of circumstances that were outwith his control

Robin Reid, Charles Brewer and Byron Mitchel, were all very solid, and would have been unification fights with all 3 if they all hadn't been egregiously robbed by Sven Ottke before fight Calzaghe (especially Reid and Brewer, the both beat Ottke clearly!) - he would have unified long before Lacy. Additionally Joe had something like 9 or 10 champs or former champs on his resume, which can excuse some of the fluff - most great boxers have some filler on their resume

The Lacy fight is another thing that gives for Joe but takes away - the beating was so lopsided and severe, that Lacy was never the same again, and of course now folks just say he was exposed and was a hyped bum - but I that that's somewhat reductionist and revisionist considering what most were saying going into that fight. How could Lacy ever be the same in the ring after that loss?

Finally, I think Joe was unfortunate timing wise - whilst he might have just got Eubank Snr at the tail end, he missed the meat of Eubank/Benn/Collins - and then he missed Ward/Froch and the Super Six on the other side as well, and given Ottke was never going to go to the UK, and Frank was never taking Joe to Germany there is that big blot on things as well.

But there's not many that have been as good at adapting on the fly as Zags, or had his insane stamina and volume, regardless of how slappy/pitty patty they are ("those pitty patty damn hurt" - Roy Jones Jr), and I can see why many will see him as a top fighter, based on H2H and Eye-test, in spite of resume

 

Lightwweights only started beating welters in the last 15 years or so and there aren`t that many lightweight champs that have gone on to become welterweight champ and it depends on who the weltweight champ is too.

 

Something that is oftentimes overlooked is most dominant, long-reigning champs are accused of having weak resumes:
Joe Louis
Larry Holmes
Vladimir Klitschko
Joe Calzaghe
Roy Jones (at 168 and 175)
Bernard Hopkins
Carlos Monzon
Rocky Marciano
Bob Foster
Gennady Golovkin
About the only two I can think of that did fight everyone in their divisions and clearly established themselves as the best without controversy are Duran and Michael Spinks.

 

Ya I agree Floyd ducked Margs but we been through this before. The state athletic commission DID find sulfur and calcium content in Margs wrap before Mosley fight. Really believed in Antonio too and he lied to all of us

 

Clearly established himself as the best with controversy.

 

Duran was clearly on top v Buchanan anyway, landing far harder shots quite often, beating DeJesus really added to his lightweight resume too.

 

Marvin Hagler. Best win is Hearns who's not really a great fighter above 154 (still a great win), struggled with Duran, Monroe and Vito Antuofermo, most of his title wins were vs B and even C level opponents. Clearly got out boxed by Leonard.

Easily the worst of the Fab 4 on a pound for pound basis

 

there's no way someone with as rudimentary skills of Benn would've beaten Ward. The UK delusion in these threads are ridiculous