Which fighter in history has the greatest positive discrepancy between their resume and how good they actually were?

[DeeMoney]

The Fury ATG thread got me thinking: which fighter in history has the greatest positive discrepancy between their resume and how good they actually were? In other words who was actually a lot better than what their resume indicates?

For this, does not matter why there resume was lacking compared to their ability. Whether it be from tragedy (Sanchez), lack of available competition, being ducked, or even if they were the ducker (Bowe). Which fighter in history was actually a lot better than their resume indicates?

[Flickergrab98]

I’m tempted to say Emmanuel Augustus. His record suffered for a lot of reasons. Having to take fights on mere few days’ notice, unfair judging, etc.
He gave Floyd Jr. a surprisingly tough time.

[QueensburyRules]

The Fury ATG thread got me thinking: which fighter in history has the greatest positive discrepancy between their resume and how good they actually were? In other words who was actually a lot better than what their resume indicates?

For this, does not matter why there resume was lacking compared to their ability. Whether it be from tragedy (Sanchez), lack of available competition, being ducked, or even if they were the ducker (Bowe). Which fighter in history was actually a lot better than their resume indicates?

- - I'd say Joe Louis in spite of the accolades, is much better than touted. His was an impossible time that he mastered.

[billeau2]

The most obvious would be Vitalie Klitsko. Better than his brother, more of a killer instinct. Just never fought anyone worth a shiat until he fought Lewis and Lewis was better.

[Nash out]

Kell Brook. Nash out - boxing expert.

[Ivich]

The Fury ATG thread got me thinking: which fighter in history has the greatest positive discrepancy between their resume and how good they actually were? In other words who was actually a lot better than what their resume indicates?

For this, does not matter why there resume was lacking compared to their ability. Whether it be from tragedy (Sanchez), lack of available competition, being ducked, or even if they were the ducker (Bowe). Which fighter in history was actually a lot better than their resume indicates?

Lloyd Marshall 81-24-12 Beat
Mills
Bolden
Fitzpatrick
Chase
Wiliams
Lamotta
Sheppard
Charles
Nate Bolden 60-35-5 Beat
Zale
Lamotta
Reeves
Sheppard
Woods
Muscato
Any of the Murderers Row really Wade,Chase,Burley,Lyttell etc.
All much better than their records suggest when you are facing that kind of opposition on a regular basis you are going to pick up some losses.

[Willow The Wisp]

Off the cuff, my vote goes to Hayes Edward "Big Ed" Sanders.

[Willow The Wisp]

All of these will tend towards a "What could have been" story, given how the question directs us.

[Tatabanya]

I've always thought that John Mugabi was a great fighter overall, not only a puncher. He also had excellent skills. He should have won more titles than he did, and is often overlooked in the considerations of historians and experts.

[BattlingNelson]

Pauline Malinaggi
Lennox Lewis