What fighter do you think gets to much credit and gets overrated in legacy terms?

[them_apples]

saying Tito was a blown up WW is ridiculous, he weighed more than Hopkins on fight night. I guess with this logic it completely discredits Hagler of his biggest win. Same goes for Lamotta.

[Hawkins]

saying Tito was a blown up WW is ridiculous, he weighed more than Hopkins on fight night. I guess with this logic it completely discredits Hagler of his biggest win. Same goes for Lamotta.

It's crazy to dismiss his win over Tito, especially considering Trinidad was the heavy favorite. The most impressive thing is how he thoroughly dominated...

[res]

how? undisputed champion than went near 40-0 and is the youngest HW champ ever vs..what? we have argued about this far to much Res..

"Undisputed?"

the fact that people decide to make a bunch of new Boxing divisions dosen't effect the accomplishment of fighters anywhere except on paper.


The only difference is guys that would have been merely top contenders in another era just get to call themselves champions in this era. It's not like fighters fight more now. They didn't give fighters a cookie for everything back then.

Youngest champ? You remember what I asked before, does Tyson all of a sudden become "not great" if another fighter grabs the title even younger? If he dosen't, then dosen't that mean that Floyd Patterson and all of the other former youngest champions are in the same boat as Tyson?

[cassiusthegreat]

we are all overrated by someone stop creating these threads to spill the trolls out please

[them_apples]

"Undisputed?"

the fact that people decide to make a bunch of new Boxing divisions dosen't effect the accomplishment of fighters anywhere except on paper.


The only difference is guys that would have been merely top contenders in another era just get to call themselves champions in this era. It's not like fighters fight more now. They didn't give fighters a cookie for everything back then.

Youngest champ? You remember what I asked before, does Tyson all of a sudden become "not great" if another fighter grabs the title even younger? If he dosen't, then dosen't that mean that Floyd Patterson and all of the other former youngest champions are in the same boat as Tyson?

It means he had to beat multiple contenders to get the same status as someone who who fought during Dempsey's time. Discrediting him as usual.

Don't even get me started about Dempsey's down falls, I can just as easily pick his record apart and use funny emoticons along with it.

Even if you don't car about the titles, Tyson went 37-0, something Dempsey never came close to doing.

[Thread Stealer]

Jack Dempsey & Jack Johnson by ESPN.com & Bert Sugar.

Aaron Pryor by the Ring Magazine.

You can add Jack Dempsey onto Ring Magazine, as well as Rocky Marciano.

While I think more highly of them than most detractors do, #16 and #12???

Plus there's the fact that it was "the last 80 years", and Dempsey did little of note after 1921.

[TheGreatA]

You can add Jack Dempsey onto Ring Magazine, as well as Rocky Marciano.

While I think more highly of them than most detractors do, #16 and #12???

Plus there's the fact that it was "the last 80 years", and Dempsey did little of note after 1921.

Agreed. Having Dempsey and Johnson in the all time top 10 pound for pound (as Sugar and ESPN did) is quite terrible. Marciano was also rated too highly by ESPN at number 14.

I know that people have different opinions but there is just no case to rate Johnson and especially Dempsey that highly. For Johnson you can atleast name Jeffries, Langford, Ketchel, Fitzsimmons, McVea, Jeannette, Burns as top fighters that he has beaten, ignoring the circumstances of those fights, but Dempsey doesn't have those kind of names on his resume.

[res]

It means he had to beat multiple contenders to get the same status as someone who who fought during Dempsey's time. Discrediting him as usual.

We are not talking about hypotheticals or what "someone in Dempsey's time" might have done, we are talking about actual fighters. Most had to work their way up to the top and earn their place.


I repeat, it is nothing but semantics. The only difference here is that instead of calling Tyson's oppenent's top contenders you call them "champions". Fighters don't fight more often nowadays.


Look I think Tyson's fights are as action packed and exciting as the next guy does but I don't let it confuse me about his place in Boxing history.

[res]

Furthermore given the fact that he failed to successfully take on any of the the greatest heavyweights of his era, if he didn't "unify the title" there would really be nothing to talk about, he would have just been the equivalent of another top contender.

[Grand Champ]

oscar de la hoya has had a good career... he is HOF worthy... but he was way overrated IMO... those who beat him, every single fighter who beat him has done better in terms of legacy...

Co sign.. he lost almost all of his big fights.. He did fight everybody though.. But in my book you gotta beat'em to get the full credit..