When looking at these guys, let me know who achievered more than they should have. I would have to say Ali, Holyfield, and Rocky M. these guys where all small HW's (Ali wasn't that small) who continued to take out bigger stronger fighters day in and day out. there heart toook them futher than ever imagined. please give me your top 5.

1.Hopkins
2.Byrd
3.Hagler
4.Holyfield
5.Gatti

1.Hopkins
2.Byrd
3.Hagler
4.Holyfield
5.Gatti

i'm going to have to disagree with gatti, it seems that whenever he steps up in comp he looses.

holyfield, Hopkins are big overachivers oh yeah james toney.

holy

gatti ( i will sya he deserves it for that heart and being a big part of the reason why boxing started to get popular again-triology)

hopkins

Kosta T:came back and beat a man no one thought he could, in 3 rounds

if tito can beat hop which i doubt..then he will be on here also

no one has any comments on this topic?

JCC was an overachiever, didn't do anything great....but did alot of things well.

Holyfield.....small heavyweight that did great things in the division and for the sport.

John Ruiz.......god awful fighter yet still holds the belt (yeah I know he shouldn't).

A.Gatti....you can argue all you want, but the guy is as easy to hit as my little sister. He didn't fight intelligently for the first 3/4 of his career, yet he still is one of the most beloved and popular fighters right now......all this with many blemishes on his record. That's overachieving to me.

Well, Lamon Brewter's holding a belt.

That's WAY over what his talent should allow.

Of course, the fact that he kept it after the Meehan fight suggests something else is going on...

Greg Haugen was a serious overachiever...he managed to win a couple of world titles all the while he was not very good in any one category.

You guys are naming fighters who are world-class athletes (with the exception of Johnny Louise of course), if we're going to think of overacheivers, let's think of guys who had no amateur background who have succeeded (Rahman, McCline) or guys with very little god-given athletic ability who have risen to the top (Antifuermo, Ward, and of course Louise). HOlyfield, Hagler, JCC, etc., those guys are gifted, world-class athletes who made the most with what they had, but that doesn't make them overacheivers, it just makes them great fighters. - SacTown1

You guys are naming fighters who are world-class athletes (with the exception of Johnny Louise of course), if we're going to think of overacheivers, let's think of guys who had no amateur background who have succeeded (Rahman, McCline) or guys with very little god-given athletic ability who have risen to the top (Antifuermo, Ward, and of course Louise). HOlyfield, Hagler, JCC, etc., those guys are gifted, world-class athletes who made the most with what they had, but that doesn't make them overacheivers, it just makes them great fighters. - SacTown1

Greg Haugen does not fit your criteria?

Sorry brotha, yes Haugen somewhat fits the description, but what exactly did he acheive? An American fighter winning the American title belt (IBF) doesn't mean squat (just like Mexicans winning WBC belts, South Americans winning WBA belts, and Brits carrying around WBO straps). I think Haugen did good with what he had, but he didn't relly acheive much. The belt doesn't make the man, it's the other way around. Haugen carried the belt, but Sweet Pea made the belt and gave it worth.

Sweet Pea is one of the most talented fighters to come through the sport in the last couple decades. Haugen defines an overachiever, we can yak about what the belts mean all day long(they are all bull**** except for the RING)but the fact is that Haugen took minimal or average talent and become a world champion...there are a zillion fighters out there that have more talent then a Greg Haugen and never reach the level that he did...I pretty much think we agree abou that.

You're right Scap, he made the most with whad he had, and he reached a pretty lofty level in the sport for about 2-3 years, but the IBF title doesn't make you world champion. Haugen, at his best, was still about the 6th best fighter in the lightweight division.

No real argument there, I may be able to make a case for a sport or two higher, but your right.

I think Spinks is an over-achiever. He is a good boxer, but not a great one, but someone he keeps beating top ranked opponents

I would go with Holyfield. He has achieved a lot more than I thought he would.

Holyfeild is an amazing overachiever, he a crusierweight who made himself one of the top heavyweights of all time

and even though he is clearly done at this point, just based on his rep and heart, I think he would have a great shot against that loser Lamon Brewster.

You guys are naming fighters who are world-class athletes (with the exception of Johnny Louise of course), if we're going to think of overacheivers, let's think of guys who had no amateur background who have succeeded (Rahman, McCline) or guys with very little god-given athletic ability who have risen to the top (Antifuermo, Ward, and of course Louise). HOlyfield, Hagler, JCC, etc., those guys are gifted, world-class athletes who made the most with what they had, but that doesn't make them overacheivers, it just makes them great fighters. - SacTown1

Good point. Holyfield and those other guys previously mentioned always had the talent to get where they were/at during their peaks. Overachievers are guys who are consistent underdogs, yet overcome that. John Ruiz is definitely an overachiever.

Ruiz, may be the biggest overachiever. He just won't loose

John Ruiz and Roy Jones Jr