Who's An Old Time Fighter, That You Find Overrated?

I agree even though I like Baer a lot. He was slow, clumsy and ponderous.

 

I think Rocky is overated, but he isn't the worst boxer to hold the crown,not by a long chalk.imo

 

You’re brave, lol.

many give it to him to be the best Heavyweight of all time.

 

In my personal opinion those three are simultaneously overrated and underrated by fans.

Normally for pushing a narrative or agenda.

 

The thing that many get lost with in these threads is when someone lists a name, some (including myself at times) will immediately react negatively to it, and see that as the poster claiming that fighter sucks or something. That's not necessarily true. All that might be inferred there is that the poster in question merely thinks the level to which that fighter is generally elevated is somewhat unrealistic in their minds.

To that end, I too think Maciano might be a bit overplayed by some. 49-0 is just a number. Who you fought is more imoportant than the number itself, and he falls short there compared to many. A great fighter, no doubt. I like watching Rocky fight, and think he was terrific, and exhibited many of the qualities of a great fighter. But he has no claim at all to being the best, especially based on the simple fact he retired undefeated. If he'd retired undefeated having faced Ali's opposition, or Lewis's, etc., then you're talking.

But he didn't.

Also, dare I say it, I think Sanchez gets a lot of mileage out of the fact he died so young. I think he was great and I rate him very high on the featherweight list, but Roy Jones for example considers him either the greatest fighter he's ever seen, or the second greatest, depending on the interview you read. I've read and heard him say both. That is patently absurd. He's my favorite fighter, probably always will be, but in no way the greatest ever. He had flaws, he was human. I think Pep beats him, and he'd lose at least one in a trilogy with Pedroza. That kind of thing. A strong argument could be made in fact for him not even being the best featherweight from Mexico, with Saldivar supplanting him there.

 

Nothing valuable to add from me, just wanted to say this thread is a great read.

 

I believe janitor off eastsideboxing before my own eyes, oh yeah.

The game evolved and Fitz wouldn't cut it with that technique even in amateurs these days, that's what it is.

 

Louis had all but punched Schmeling to the floor and Schmeling grabbed the rope in a desperate attempt to stay upright. The reason he ended up with his back to Louis is because he kept holding onto the rope because it was the only thing keeping him up.

 

Holmes of course. Wins very close fights against 35 year old Norton and 12-fight Witherspoon, and somehow this means that he is a top 3 guy and one of the best head-to-head to ever do it.

 

What was wrong with it?

 

Foreman beats Norton and an arguably shot Frazier… top 3 guy and one of the best head-to-head to ever do it. At least Holmes has a boat load of experience.

 

**** post.

No one was saying Frazier was declining before Foreman got to him.

Yeah, Foreman knocked out a PRIME Norton whereas Holmes went life and death with a 35 year old.

You forgot Moorer? How?

Lyle is better than Shavers, arguably Holmes 3rd best win.

Experience? Against who, exactly? Weaver? Bonecrusher? Ghost Ali?

 

70s Foreman specifically (my bad) but it doesn’t matter a whole lot. I don’t know why you’re so fired up about it lol take it easy. Frazier was fighting Daniel’s and Standers… he was declining FOTC was the last of the fire IMO. Frazier was a similar weight for both those guys AND Foreman which tells me he didn’t think much of the fight - he was drinking like a fish, touring around with a band.
Norton? Norton just isn’t that good at all lol beating him doesn’t mean THAT much… unless you’re arguing the greatness of either 70s Foreman or Ali lol.

 

Aging Norton was Holmes best win, so...

 

Which doesn’t mean anything to me or what I’m saying lol.