Top 10 Most OVERRATED Fighters

[gibo]

I think this is reliant upon who is doing the rating, under or over. Oscar De La Hoya, for example, is simultaniously overrated and underrated. The so-called casual boxing fan usually vastly, cosmically overrates him. At the same time, it's been my perception that the so-called hardcore boxing fans tend to underrate him. I was booted off an unnamed boxing message board for daring to state to the meathead haters that DLH fought a lot of good fighters and beat most of them. He's far, far from SRR, but he qualifies as a great, I think.
A similar but opposite phenominon is Mike McCallum. Utterly ignored by the casuals, but overrated by the hardcores, I think. I rate by accomplishment more than skill set. Who ducks who has to be tossed as well. How can we really know? That said, his opposition at 154 was mainly mediocre with a sprinkling of Julian Jackson and the lost Donald Curry (A fight that I think he was losing at the time of the KO, if memory serves). I don't consider Ayub Kalule to be a great win for SRL (who does?), so it's not special for McCallum either. He moved up, and lost to every elite level fighter he fought. How anyone can rate him as the greatest 154er of all time over Terry Norris is beyond me. And speaking of Norris, can we start talking about Paul Vaden and Vincent Pettway, just to name a couple, instead of SRL and Meldrick Taylor? He beat good fighters in their prime, actually, not just washed up former greats.

if you claimed dlh to be anything above underated, you deserved to have been booted off! true boxing fans have realized that joya was a circus act. and non-boxing fans haven't figured out how they got taken into the ponzi scheme!

[blacklodge]

You see, I'm glad you responded like that in order to provide an example of the mentality I was talking about. I didn't say everyone has to adore or even like him. I don't. But I'm not a hater either. A true boxing fan should realize that at the center of the circus was beating Quartey, Vargas, getting a perhaps undesereved decision over Whitaker, getting deservedly robbed of a Trinidad win, robbed of a Mosely win in their 2nd fight, beating Oba Carr, John John Molina (I scored it a draw), Genero Hernandez, Rafael Ruelas, Miguel Angel Gonzalez, and so forth. He fought some high quality opposition. More importantly, he took risks. He fought Hopkins. He lost badly, but he took the fight. If you want to talk about ponzi schemes, look no further than Floyd Mayweather or a post-Toney Roy Jones. Pernell Whitaker had a little pocket of unimpressive opposition (other than McGirt II) post-Chavez and pre-DLH as well.
Y'know, I understand. Girls screaming, that goofy record he cut, the commercials, the spectacles, the smiley yes man. But really, do you honestly think his whole career was a sham? Or do you just personally dislike him?

[sonnyboyx2]

some unbelievable comments on this topic..
we should just close the forum and agree that every guy who ever laced a pair of gloves on was ****

[blacklodge]

some unbelievable comments on this topic..
we should just close the forum and agree that every guy who ever laced a pair of gloves on was ****

Best post ever.

[0Rooster4Life0]

This Thread Was good to see where Some Of You Guys Stand, it isvery Interesting and many Views i didnt see coming.

[TheGreatA]

I think this is reliant upon who is doing the rating, under or over. Oscar De La Hoya, for example, is simultaniously overrated and underrated. The so-called casual boxing fan usually vastly, cosmically overrates him. At the same time, it's been my perception that the so-called hardcore boxing fans tend to underrate him. I was booted off an unnamed boxing message board for daring to state to the meathead haters that DLH fought a lot of good fighters and beat most of them. He's far, far from SRR, but he qualifies as a great, I think.
A similar but opposite phenominon is Mike McCallum. Utterly ignored by the casuals, but overrated by the hardcores, I think. I rate by accomplishment more than skill set. Who ducks who has to be tossed as well. How can we really know? That said, his opposition at 154 was mainly mediocre with a sprinkling of Julian Jackson and the lost Donald Curry (A fight that I think he was losing at the time of the KO, if memory serves). I don't consider Ayub Kalule to be a great win for SRL (who does?), so it's not special for McCallum either. He moved up, and lost to every elite level fighter he fought. How anyone can rate him as the greatest 154er of all time over Terry Norris is beyond me. And speaking of Norris, can we start talking about Paul Vaden and Vincent Pettway, just to name a couple, instead of SRL and Meldrick Taylor? He beat good fighters in their prime, actually, not just washed up former greats.

You mention Paul Vaden and Vincent Pettway for Norris, but not David Braxton, Milton McCrory, Luigi Minchillo, Sean Mannion for McCallum? Along with wins over Julian Jackson, Donald Curry and Ayub Kalule that's a better resume than Norris's at 154. At the end of his 154 run McCallum's record was 32 wins, 29 by KO, no losses.

Here's what happened to Norris against the best, prime light middleweight he ever fought:



Here's what McCallum did to him:



And no, he did not lose to every elite fighter he faced after moving up. He went 1-1 with Kalambay, 0-1-1 with Toney in two controversial bouts (I don't even count the third fight) and lost to Roy Jones when he was absolutely ancient. He also scored wins over Michael Watson, Herol Graham, Steve Collins and Jeff Harding.

I'd like to know what Norris ever did after moving up. Actually he never did.

[Dynamite Kid]

You can make a case for Norris having a better record than McCallum at 154, although its debatable, but its quite clear who was the better fighter imo. McCallum.

Norris probably would of been the better fighter if he had better chin.

[blacklodge]

You mention Paul Vaden and Vincent Pettway for Norris, but not David Braxton, Milton McCrory, Luigi Minchillo, Sean Mannion for McCallum? Along with wins over Julian Jackson, Donald Curry and Ayub Kalule that's a better resume than Norris's at 154. At the end of his 154 run McCallum's record was 32 wins, 29 by KO, no losses.
And no, he did not lose to every elite fighter he faced after moving up. He went 1-1 with Kalambay, 0-1-1 with Toney in two controversial bouts (I don't even count the third fight) and lost to Roy Jones when he was absolutely ancient. He also scored wins over Michael Watson, Herol Graham, Steve Collins and Jeff Harding.

I'd like to know what Norris ever did after moving up. Actually he never did.

I was pointing out that Terry Norris did more than just beat washed up vets like SRL, Curry, Taylor and Mugabi (was Mugabi that washed up anyway?), which seems to be the common manner he gets knocked down a peg. But since you pointed it out, I rank Vaden and Pettway as higher opposition than Braxton, Mannion, Minchillo and McCroy. Toss in Jorge Castro, Carl Daniels, Jorge Vaca, Gilbert Baptist (twice), Simon Brown (KO'd bad, but dominated the rematch, after which did we need a rubber match?), Maurice Blocker, Quincy Taylor, etc., and coupled with the amount of time he was champion and his defenses the body of work adds up to a better resume than McCallum at 154.
I don't have to counter that he lost to every elite fighter he faced after moving up, because you pointed it out yourself. Lost to Kalambay, and if I recall their rematch was years later. Lost to Toney in their rematch. Lost to Jones. Do you consider Collins, Harding, Watson and Graham to be elite fighters? I don't. I also don't find fault in staying in a division and dominating for the majority of a career, as Norris did (I'm more impressed with Hopkins' defenses at 160 than beating Tarver, Wright and Pavlik). I grant that McCallum's win over Jackson is more impressive than any one Norris win (In retrospect, mind you. Retrospect should also alter the quality of the Curry win), but it's about a body of work as opposed to a single fight.

[TheGreatA]

I was pointing out that Terry Norris did more than just beat washed up vets like SRL, Curry, Taylor and Mugabi (was Mugabi that washed up anyway?), which seems to be the common manner he gets knocked down a peg. But since you pointed it out, I rank Vaden and Pettway as higher opposition than Braxton, Mannion, Minchillo and McCroy. Toss in Jorge Castro, Carl Daniels, Jorge Vaca, Gilbert Baptist (twice), Simon Brown (KO'd bad, but dominated the rematch, after which did we need a rubber match?), Maurice Blocker, Quincy Taylor, etc., and coupled with the amount of time he was champion and his defenses the body of work adds up to a better resume than McCallum at 154.
I don't have to counter that he lost to every elite fighter he faced after moving up, because you pointed it out yourself. Lost to Kalambay, and if I recall their rematch was years later. Lost to Toney in their rematch. Lost to Jones. Do you consider Collins, Harding, Watson and Graham to be elite fighters? I don't. I also don't find fault in staying in a division and dominating for the majority of a career, as Norris did (I'm more impressed with Hopkins' defenses at 160 than beating Tarver, Wright and Pavlik). I grant that McCallum's win over Jackson is more impressive than any one Norris win (In retrospect, mind you. Retrospect should also alter the quality of the Curry win), but it's about a body of work as opposed to a single fight.

What makes Pettway and Vaden better than the names I brought up? Because they held an IBF belt? Saying Norris didn't just beat washed up vets and bringing up those two names as proof works against your argument. They are not recognized by anyone as elite fighters.

Gilbert Baptist? Jorge Vaca? Carl Daniels? Quincy Taylor? The latter three may have held some type of title belts but none of them were impressive fighters. Baptist was a journeyman.

Can you imagine how Terry Norris would have done against Toney, Jones, Kalambay, Watson, Harding, etc.? I can't see him standing much of a chance. The McCallum-Toney fights are debated to this day, neither man had a clear advantage, and bringing up the loss against Jones is just silly. He was 40, Norris was done at 29. I'm not here to bring up his losses against Mullings, Rosenblatt and Boudouani though.

Now I agree that Norris might have had a more extensive resume at 154 but his top wins aren't all too impressive, not to mention that he was blown out in two (by Jackson) and four rounds (by Brown) close to his prime. McCallum never lost at the weight.

Unlike you I don't rate Hopkins's 160 reign as too impressive. To me it's about fighting the best, not about fighting mediocrities and belt holders.

[blacklodge]

What makes Pettway and Vaden better than the names I brought up? Because they held an IBF belt? Saying Norris didn't just beat washed up vets and bringing up those two names as proof works against your argument. They are not recognized by anyone as elite fighters.

Gilbert Baptist? Jorge Vaca? Carl Daniels? Quincy Taylor? The latter three may have held some type of title belts but none of them were impressive fighters. Baptist was a journeyman.

Can you imagine how Terry Norris would have done against Toney, Jones, Kalambay, Watson, Harding, etc.? I can't see him standing much of a chance. The McCallum-Toney fights are debated to this day, neither man had a clear advantage, and bringing up the loss against Jones is just silly. He was 40, Norris was done at 29. I'm not here to bring up his losses against Mullings, Rosenblatt and Boudouani though.

Now I agree that Norris might have had a more extensive resume at 154 but his top wins aren't all too impressive, not to mention that he was blown out in two (by Jackson) and four rounds (by Brown) close to his prime. McCallum never lost at the weight.

Unlike you I don't rate Hopkins's 160 reign as too impressive. To me it's about fighting the best, not about fighting mediocrities and belt holders.

Vaden and Pettway aren't elite fighters historically,and I don't want to imply that. But they were very good, elite for the mid-90s 154ers, and Norris dominated them. Again, I think fighters like them are more relevant to his resume than SRL, etc. The other guys like Castro and Daniels are just as good opposition as Mannion and McCroy, I think. I can't think of a quality fighter at 154 that passed through that Norris didn't fight, for better or for worse, between Jackson moving up and the arrival of David Reid and Fernando Vargas. McCallum hung around at 154 for less than 3 years, and when he did move up it's not like he took on the likes of Hearns, Barkley, Nunn, Benn, Eubanks, or even Olajide. If fighting the best of the best is what you're banking greatness on, then McCallum is not your man.
Don't get me wrong, head-to-head, McCallum beats Norris. Bringing up the fighters McCallum lost to was in no way a comparison or in context with Norris. I was referring to how he tends to be overrated as a ATG. I was referring to Kalambay and Toney (I think they split those fights), and you brought up Jones.
I find sitting champions to be very impressive, and it shouldn't deflate their legacy if they don't move up. Also, saying Norris is the best 154er isn't exactly a huge compliment. Kind of a weak division. Just a notch above declaring Holyfield to be the greatest cruiserweight of all time.