Who Are The Fighters Perceived To Be Better Than They Actually Are?

I think Cotto fits the description in your first post of the thread. He got my vote. Many thought he was way better than he really is. Still, he is an excellent fighter.

My question is why does Dawson have more votes than Kessler? :think

 

I might have an explanation, but I wouldn't want to irritate our good old Calzaghe fans.

 

Most of the limitations of the fighters on the list are pretty well known. I am a very big Kessler fan and it is sad to say but recently it seems now that Calzaghe is about to retire, people have all jumped on his bandwagon. Many people seem to think there is zero chance of Taylor beating him, which is a bit of a slap in the face of Taylor, even if you think he shouldn't have gotten the nod over Winky and Hopkins.

I wouldn't be surprised if Cotto got stopped by another underdog in the future, his durability issues will always limit his ability in the ring.

 

Your list includes nothing but quality fighters. The only guy who I believe qualifies based on my interpretation of what the general perception is would be Hatton. He also is a quality fighter and has a signature win over Tszyu but for people who don't closely follow boxing, Hatton's tremendous following leaves a false impression of what his talent is. In order for him the live up to his following I think he would have had to koed Collazo, fought and koed Witter, and moved up to 147 and beaten some quality names.

imho