Sugah jay is the same **** who has been posting here under a variety of alts, Always the same agenda Is Tommo/Glover and all those other shitty alts hes used
Compared what they actually achieved they are definitely overrated by some, but their abilities are probably not that overrated. Tyson wasn't quite as invincible in his prime as his fans like to make out (hardly any fighter was, though), but he had some amazing ability and skill. The same is probably true of Dempsey, even though he of course seems a bit crude by today's standards. But he quite likely revolutionized the sport as much as, say, Ali with his dynamic style. Tyson surely was indebted to him.
From what I've seen on here? Probably Liston. Still a fine, HOF caliber heavyweight, but it seems like the same wave that got him such a fearsome reputation before the Ali debacles is back en vogue again.
the skills and technique has changed drastically since the early 1900s... strength is strength, strength has nothing to do with the evolution of a sport, u didn't copy and paste the links i posted. look at jack dempsey vs gene tunney(pressure fighter vs boxer), then look at evander holyfield vs mike tyson, or lenox lewis vs mike tyson, the tyson fights look coordinated, better balanced, and just better in general. then look at benny leonard vs lew tendler, then look at floyd mayweather vs anybody. what fighters look better in terms of coordination, cleaner punching, and better footwork? the proof is in the pudding, u guys can argue semantics with me all day, it wont make argument any less valid, i won. :happy
You haven't won anything! You pick Floyd as an example of evolution? He's outstanding in THIS era; if boxers in general have evolved, why is he so dominant? Floyd could compete in any era, but I doubt he would've dominated in them like he does now. He'd run into Gavilan, Napoles, Robinson or Pryor and at least one of them would beat him. I don't think skills have evolved. I don't see better jabs, hooks and crosses than before. There were great technicians then as there are now. There are greats in every era, too. I think you are trying to either wind people up, or trying to stand up for the modern boxers. If its the latter, I understand the motivation; it's absurd to suggest all modern fighters are rubbish. But I think you go too far the opposite way!
i used mayweather because he's a pure boxer just like benny leonard, and i was comparing the coordination, footwork, cleaner punches, better defense, and sht like that. it has evolved, just watch past fights and look at how sloppy their footwork was, look at how wide their punches were and this was everyone, it wasn't just a portion of fighters. past fighters aren't what people make them out to be. like i said before i saw a thread saying that greb would have beaten robinson when greb doesn't even have any footage to even make that a valid speculation. :verysad
Usually the ones who get overrated are indeed great. Muhammad Ali is my #1 HW of all-time but even he can be overrated by some people. People take it too far sometimes... athletes are just people, not super heroes. With Ali it's much in the way that Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris get talked about... we've all have heard and by know gotten sick of hearing the Chuck Norris jokes. Some guys who get "talked up" were not so great though. Fan favorites who people give every possible break imaginable to, especially in a fantasy match-up. Guys like Jerry Quarry, Cleveland Williams, Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, and others. Sometimes it's a guy that all of a sudden somebody gets interested in thru research. Maybe there isn't even much film on the guy.
Quarry is overrated not that he was a bad fighter he was quite good, but I often here how he would've been champion in any other era and I find that to be untrue. He lost to too many diffrent styles. Norton also is overrated, he was competitive against good boxers but got destroyed by the three biggest punchers he faced never seeing the third round and his record up till his first Ali fight is very very soft.