For each of the lineal haevyweight champion, say whether you think they were an underachiever or an overachiever? This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Overall, I think they all achieved what they were meant to achieve. No more, no less. They were all lucky to get a shot, to variant degrees.
Well the weak guys were overachievers. Leon got a a shot at a shot champion rather than the best heavyweight in the world. Moorer never beat bowe and he barely beat a heart attack suffering holy. Carnera was lucky to get a shot at Sharkey as opposed to schmelling. Briggs probably has the weakest claim ever and is only recognised by internet people. Real world never saw him as a champion. He was a journey man and a good one at that, never anything more. Vitali was an underachiever due to injuries I believe. Tyson was an underachiever but redeemed himself by regaining his crown ten years after first winning it. Johnson was an underachiever. Had he stayed in shape he'd have been a huge favourite over the 4 guys he was busy ducking. Probably solidifying a status as the goat. Jeffries retired when he could have probably beat Johnson hence missing a potentially career defining victory. Holmes would also have been a huge favourite in any unification fight but he shied away for some reason. Rahman overachieved with one of the best right hands in heavyweight history.
I've got a feeling some will pick Baer and Douglas as underachievers, given the short nature of their reign versus how good they sometimes looked. Walcott and Sharkey are guys I see on film and think they could have perhaps achieved more, but it's not as if they under-achieved.
Leon Spinks could go either way, without the distractions, he could have made a couple of easy defenses before losing, and even then would have been a force in the division for around five years.Michael Spinks was an overachiever, for basically beating an old Holmes.
