Which fighters do you feel are historically overrated

[Caught Square]

Felix Trinidad and Chavez Sr.

Both are great fighters don't get me wrong...

But I think that due to their big fanbases they get overrated, like seriously I seen quite a lot of hardcore fans rate Chavez Sr top 10 ATG and i've seen Trinidad ranked in top 10 all time by people I respect on youtube wtf?

[Caught Square]

Also Jack Dempsey, I don't consider him top 10 HW. It's crazy because most people who exclude Tyson from their top 10 will include Dempsey and I don't understand that.

[juggernaut666]

Also Jack Dempsey, I don't consider him top 10 HW. It's crazy because most people who exclude Tyson from their top 10 will include Dempsey and I don't understand that.

Thats because its the blind leading the blind when it comes to Nostalgic boxing analyst's and so called experts ,in one word BRAINWASHING !:wank:

[billeau2]

Also Jack Dempsey, I don't consider him top 10 HW. It's crazy because most people who exclude Tyson from their top 10 will include Dempsey and I don't understand that.

Make if it what you will. There is some truth to the fact that many people take Dempsey to be a great fighter without examining the claims. But when people say these are just nostralgic musings that is ridiculous. Here is why:

Dempsey fought at a unique time: Many of the best and brightest trainers caught Dempsey's career, then the golden age of Louis, and then the great years of the seventies....these men managed to work with 3 generations of fighters and a few of them were even around to see Tyson start to make an appearance. So, men who had witnessed and worked with the best heavyweight fighters, all of whom had at least 3 generations of the best to look at were asked who the best was.

Now understand that it is easy to say that nostalgia moved a few of these men, or senality, or just to dismiss them as dinosaurs...yet people who know the sport did no such thing. These trainers were not Bert Sugar, they actually sweated and worked with fighters and included in them was Gene Tunney who had fought Dempsey twice. Also keep in mind that as a group boxing trainers are not overly sentimental imaginitive people moved by the moment...these were men of action, men who had to be absolute in their calculations, and these men were taskmasters.

Without hesitation virtually all the trainers who had access to this 3 genrations of fighter rated Dempsey in the top 3, most said he was the best.

Now people have changed and Louis and Ali usually vie for that spot, but again keeping in mind if you has a quorum of experts who had observed al three fighters versus just Louis and Ali....who would you consider more valid? Not saying this is absolute but there is good reason to consider Dempsey as the best, or one of the best, and it is hardly for sentimental reasons.

[IronDanHamza]

IMO;

Ricardo Lopez
Willie Pep
Lennox Lewis
Bob Foster
Nico Locche
Eder Jofre

I'm missing some, that's top of my head.

[NChristo]

Eder Jofre

Explain yourself.

[NChristo]

Gene Tunney as a Heavyweight is massively over rated on a lot of lists.

Also Harold Johnson and **** Tiger.

[Caught Square]

Make if it what you will. There is some truth to the fact that many people take Dempsey to be a great fighter without examining the claims. But when people say these are just nostralgic musings that is ridiculous. Here is why:

Dempsey fought at a unique time: Many of the best and brightest trainers caught Dempsey's career, then the golden age of Louis, and then the great years of the seventies....these men managed to work with 3 generations of fighters and a few of them were even around to see Tyson start to make an appearance. So, men who had witnessed and worked with the best heavyweight fighters, all of whom had at least 3 generations of the best to look at were asked who the best was.

Now understand that it is easy to say that nostalgia moved a few of these men, or senality, or just to dismiss them as dinosaurs...yet people who know the sport did no such thing. These trainers were not Bert Sugar, they actually sweated and worked with fighters and included in them was Gene Tunney who had fought Dempsey twice. Also keep in mind that as a group boxing trainers are not overly sentimental imaginitive people moved by the moment...these were men of action, men who had to be absolute in their calculations, and these men were taskmasters.

Without hesitation virtually all the trainers who had access to this 3 genrations of fighter rated Dempsey in the top 3, most said he was the best.

Now people have changed and Louis and Ali usually vie for that spot, but again keeping in mind if you has a quorum of experts who had observed al three fighters versus just Louis and Ali....who would you consider more valid? Not saying this is absolute but there is good reason to consider Dempsey as the best, or one of the best, and it is hardly for sentimental reasons.

Well as far as the nostalgia thing I will let Juggernaught respond to that.

Imo Dempsey in the top 3 is absurd and that makes me think he is even more overrated than i originally thought. If experts who witnessed him say he is top 3 based on the eye test then fair enough but resume/longevity wise I don't think he is top 10.

[IronDanHamza]

Explain yourself.

Skilled and talented fighter just think he lacks the resume to be rated as high as many tend to rank him.

[IronDanHamza]

Gene Tunney as a Heavyweight is massively over rated on a lot of lists.

Also Harold Johnson and **** Tiger.

Get out of here.