The Most Overrated Fighters - By Weightclass

It's way too easy to take down most any fighter tho with a 100% negative view. I could do it to almost anyone in history - with ease. Let us dig a whole lot deeper.

So he lost to Taylor, twice. Some points

Both fights were RAZOR thin, and are still debated heartily today.

Taylor was in fine form, had never lost a professional bout and WAS considered Hopkins heir apparent.

Hopkins was 40 odd years old, had held the 160 title for a decade and had made 20 odd defenses among unifications as well. Do you really think it wasn't time for him to be knocked off the pedestal? I mean, what sort of standard is he being held to here? :blood

I can give you 100 greats that fell far harder and uglier than Hopkins did, jesus. Take a look at Jones, got KTFO and hammered by a guy Hopkins flogged the **** out of just after. He also got POLEAXED by a guy Hopkins absolutely brutalised years earlier. How come that stays in the closet? If Jones is excused as being past it surely Hopkins is too? AND he lost far less ugly, no?

The Jones fight is the critics fave but it really doesn't mean THAT much. Lets look at it.

Anyone saying Hopkins didn't improve dramatically over a long period afterward needs to find a croquet forum. Jones was FAR closer to full development than Hopkins. Christ, Hopkins was a hard hitting stalker at the time as much as anything. He had a reputation for big hitting aggression. Later he totally dedicated to boxing and became a brilliant technician. Jones by contrast stayed mostly with the unorthodox brilliance that was his trademark. He flogged Toney the very next year whilst Hopkins took a much longer time to find his footing.

Hopkins himself nominates the Mercado draw as the big turning point of his career. He said after that result he completely dedicated to boxing and it's easy to see he's not bullshitting. His form, consistency and incredible dedication to weight and training make it impossible for even the most diehard of critics to deny.

Did Basilio lose to SRR when he was at his absolute best? Hopkins sure didn't fight Jones anywhere near his 100% latter best, and anyone debating this is in denial. He's not even the same stylist. Granted Jones may well have beaten him at any point, but we will never know as he was miles from peak. Jones may well have beaten almost any 160 ever even at that time anyway, considering his incredible god given talents. I routinely pick him over Hagler and Monzon. His freakish attributes allow him to be a great chance of beating much more developed and experienced greats.

I could tear Jones (especially compared to Hopkins) to pieces via the Tarver and Johnson route. You will always see me go the other way tho, defending Jones as being well past his best at that time. Just like Hopkins was well past his best vs Taylor. Just like Hopkins was way short of peak vs Jones. The thing is Hopkins didn't rely so much on freakish speed and reflexes like Roy did, and is much more durable, certainly at the latter times. Once Jones lost his physical edge he was cactus it seems. He didn't have the great technical base and durability to still not only survive, but wreak havok as Hopkins has done.

I'll slowly drive some Hopkins appreciation into you, even if it takes me 10 years!!!

:yep

 

Ross is one of the bgreatest WW ever. Everything else is lunatic imo. Better than PBF for sure.

 

He was still nailing some of his best wins around that time

 

Ross was a lightweight anyway, he isn't in Mayweather's league in skill or physical ability and only has 22 stopages in 81 fights

Name 1 thing he does better than Mayweather, there isn't 1

 

Beat better fighters.

 

1. I asked what he did better skill wise, I see you agree and couldnt find anything
2. And he didnt beat better fighters, Delahoya, Hatton, Castillo, Corrales, Judah (yes Judah bitches), would have made a mess of him and make him run into retirement again. Hes probably 50-50 with Baldomir/Gatti :yep

 

Ross had a better left jab, and had imo better defense. speed is about even.

 

It's like JT said, it's not that he's better now but it's a case of not realising what a good fighter he was. I realise now that I've underappreciated him for most of his career and that forces me to rethink his standing accordingly, both at 160 and overall.

I haven't thought about where I'd put him exactly at 160 on an all-time basis, but he's certainly one of the greats.

 

Ross's defense isn't in Mayweather's strasphere, put it this way Armstrong isn't getting anything significant off on Mayweather. Mayweather's jab is faster, he didn't need to use it often because hes more versatile and can lead with a Right or Hook and land it

@ speed been even, Mayweather's twice as fast

 

So Jimmy McLarin, Tony Canzi, Battalino, Petrolle, Carcia, Fuller, were lesser fighters in your option, even though a guy like Petrole compete in more fights about than DLH, Hatton and Judah combin?

 

Cheers for the confirmation. It was just a theory, but i had a feeling it might ring true.

 

We only saw Mayweather against maybe one or 2 great fighters, and no a past prime DLH does not count.

Ross prove it time and again against most of the greats in his era outside of Armstrong who was a super fighter. The likes of McLarin and Canzi, who were amazing fighters in there own right, hardly landed on Ross in the film fights thats around today.

 

I see it differently.

For me you have to take the era they fought in, into account. It's only fair.
I'm not denying Fitz was more primitive back then, but you take Fitz and put him into the modern era, let him benefit from 100 years of evolution and you'd still have a great fighter there. :good

 

You raise a good point, I think Jack Johnson and Sam Langford would be great in any era as long as they improve their technical and physical game.

However the talent pool and level of competition back in the early 1900s just wasnt as high. It was a new sport, Jeffries won the world title after a handful of bouts

1 thing that ticks me off about Fitz, yes he went to 160-HW, back then that was like going from 160-Cruser, which today wouldnt be seen as that big a deal.

And in those days they didn't have to fight the top black fighters. Hell Monzon might have been a HW champ in the 70s if he didnt have to fight the top black fighters to do it

 

How can it be a new sport?? When it was going on 300 years before??? Figg was hardly new by the time Fitz was bombing evey one out.