Which fighter do you rate MUCH lower than the general consensus?

cuchulain · Feb 3, 2014

cross_trainer said: ↑

Also, a few fighters off the top of my head who meet this thread's criteria --

Dempsey -- For the reasons stated.

Tommy Hearns -- Lost his biggest challenges at 147 (against an opponent whose record has its own issues) and 160. Was even less dominant above those weights.

Jersey Joe Walcott -- It took him a lot of shots to win that heavyweight crown. Give another contender blessed with punching power five chances against two different champions and you might see a similar outcome.

Bob Fitzsimmons -- The talent pool just wasn't large enough at this point to know how good Bob was. And fantasy fights usually treat him as if he fights like a modern counterpuncher, which he didn't.

The Entire Mid-To-Late-Seventies Heavyweight Division -- Yes, all of it. Young, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner, and the rest of 'em. This era was probably worse than the late 80's when Tyson took over. Worse than the modern division, too. Probably as bad as the immediate period after Lennox Lewis's retirement, if not worse than that as well. A near-prime Ali couldn't impose himself on the early 1970s. A fat, old, and increasingly punch-worn Ali (whose tactics involved frequent clinches and letting people hit him) dominated the bunch from the mid/late 70's.

Jack Johnson -- Not for his record, but the fact that everybody seems to think he's some sort of modern slickster. Johnson's a squared-up boxer-wrestler with his feet positioned like he's fencing, whose "jab" was a wound-up punch that involved skipping. Great fighter, but yeah...

Corbett -- For the love of boxing history, Corbett, Corbett, Corbett. The man did not invent the jab. He was not an 1890s Gene Tunney. He did not usher in the gloved era. He was not the first to come up with lateral movement. Or the hook. Or boxing. In almost every respect, Corbett was the last orthodox London Prize Ring style fighter. Full stop. He was a great technician within those constraints, and he had amazing speed and reflexes. But John L. Sullivan he wasn't. Title bouts against either Jackson or Slavin might have unseated him long before Fitz did the trick.

Riddick Bowe -- For reasons I think others have stated. The man had a suspiciously short "prime" that basically involved standout fights against one opponent with a stylistic disadvantage.

Vitali Klitschko -- Okay, he's the #2 man of the post-Lennox era, but most of his record comes from either lower top-10 guys, or fights that deserve an asterisk (e.g., a ballooned-up Kirk Johnson, Solis getting injured). He's a long way behind Wlad. I don't see why so many rank them close together.

James Toney -- For reasons similar to Hearns.
Click to expand...

You peed in a lot of folks' cornflakes there, CT. :yep

redrooster · Feb 3, 2014

cross_trainer said: ↑

Well, this is the thread for it. Some of our newer posters haven't seen you make your case against Leonard yet...
Click to expand...

Ray didnt have enough fights to qualify for fighter of the 80s

a couple more against Pryor in 83, Curry in late 84, a rematch with Hearns, 85 and as long as he's still fighting in 89, a fight with Nunn

I dont think that's too much to ask for

cross_trainer · Feb 3, 2014

cuchulain said: ↑

You peed in a lot of folks' cornflakes there, CT. :yep
Click to expand...

Including my own. Poor Fitz got a pasting along with everybody else. And Corbett's my second favorite fighter, stylistically speaking. :yep

Seamus · Feb 3, 2014

TheSouthpaw said: ↑

If Dempsey doesnt deserve to be in a top 5(which I agree he doesnt)..Then Jack Johnson CERTAINLY doesnt belong there. Your not putting him there for his boxing skills!!!
Click to expand...

At least Johnson faced everyone at some point and at some time. I rank him above Dempsey.

WhyYouLittle · Feb 3, 2014

Seamus said: ↑

At least Johnson faced everyone at some point and at some time. I rank him above Dempsey.
Click to expand...

True. How the hell the HW that broke through the color line (and with a foot to the door for that matter) would get near the title if he hadn't face everyone around? He's definitely above Dempsey.

Shake · Feb 3, 2014

I like Cross Trainers list.

WhyYouLittle · Feb 4, 2014

Shake said: ↑

I like Cross Trainers list.
Click to expand...

True. Pretty good post. Missed it. But in Walcott's defense, he might have won the title in his very first shot. But then again, the way leading to said fight was paved with a little too many lucky nights and some badly off ones. In fact if it wasn't for his performance in Louis-Walcott I and his victories against Ezz... Not sure where I'd have him.

OvidsExile · Feb 4, 2014

I rate Marciano, Johnson, and Langford lower than a lot of the fellas on classic. But then I rate Mayweather lower than a lot of fellas in the general forum.

hdog · Feb 4, 2014

Kind of with Surf-bat especially on Foreman. Drives me nuts to watch him. Got away with so many mistakes. Even before the Ali fight, the flaws were obvious.

hdog · Feb 4, 2014

looking over some threads I would have to say Tyson as well. dangerous and talented but mentally fragile with no plan b.

assasin · Feb 4, 2014

Frazier!

classed as some sort of ATG with no arguments to be had against it.

the man beat Ali, Quarry and Ellis. that's it. nothing to shout about.

he even had a real up and downer with a total pancake in Bonavena.

he's not a HOF. he certainly isn't an ATG.

janitor · Feb 4, 2014

Seamus said: ↑

Yes, but I am not going to believe that all of their records are skewed to one direction by this historical erosion.
Click to expand...

Of course the historical erosion is skewed in one direction, its not like fights can get added to a fighters record.

The odd embarasing loss might get lost, but in a contender or a fringe contender,most of the lost fights will be wins.

At some point they are representative both in terms of relative accomplishment and experience.

Click to expand...

Thats just my point, we cannot assume that they are representative!

Nor am I going to believe that the better "names" he fought like Morris, Flynn, Pelkey... have a bulk of unrecorded fights coming into their meetings with Dempsey.
Click to expand...

I think there is very little doubt that these fighters would have had somefights that have not made it onto Boxrec. If Dempsey's record is incomplete, then its a fairly safe bet that theirs are.
Click to expand...

McGrain · Feb 4, 2014

I agree with you completely Janitor, but we've been hearing it for some time now.

If there is a sincere argument to be made for Dempsey having beaten experienced contenders rather than a mix of losers and inexperienced tenderfeet, surely the time is long past for Dempsey's apologists to start nailing down some specifics? I'm not talking about adding one or two fights from early in Fred Fulton's career, but in fleshing out the details of he fighters that they are concerned over, specifically?

I for one think it is more sensible to take an approach closer to Seamus's rather than put Dempsey at the head of a virtual resume vastly superior to his Boxrec one.

janitor · Feb 4, 2014

McGrain said: ↑

I agree with you completely Janitor, but we've been hearing it for some time now.

If there is a sincere argument to be made for Dempsey having beaten experienced contenders rather than a mix of losers and inexperienced tenderfeet, surely the time is long past for Dempsey's apologists to start nailing down some specifics? I'm not talking about adding one or two fights from early in Fred Fulton's career, but in fleshing out the details of he fighters that they are concerned over, specifically?

I for one think it is more sensible to take an approach closer to Seamus's rather than put Dempsey at the head of a virtual resume vastly superior to his Boxrec one.
Click to expand...

I make my assesment of Dempsey based entirely on the surviving portion of his record, but I would avoid the type of detailed analysis of his pre title career that Seamus has undertaken.

Sometimes the best policy is just to admit that you don't know.

smallsteps · Feb 4, 2014

A lot of these fighters are not fit to carry our jockstraps:huh

Log in or Sign up

Which fighter do you rate MUCH lower than the general consensus?

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member

Shake Boxing Addict Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member

OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

hdog Member Full Member

hdog Member Full Member

assasin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

smallsteps Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Which fighter do you rate MUCH lower than the general consensus?

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

redrooster Boxing Junkie Full Member

cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member

Shake Boxing Addict Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member

OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

hdog Member Full Member

hdog Member Full Member

assasin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

smallsteps Member Full Member