Which fighters do you feel are historically overrated

[McGoorty]

Well....is he a runner, a coward, or a dancer? You can say that you don't like an evasive dancer and that RR was a mover, and this is a little different characterization than a "runner." There is a difference here.

You have to realize that basilio and Fulmer were two highly succesful infighters...Even Ray Robinson was not going to be more expert at this range than these two so it is no slight on him to not be as succesful at this range...I mean Robinson also had great punch stats but he wasn't going to thow more per a round than Hank Armstrong.

Actually one of my favorite boxing scribes, Joe reine, a man whom I would even enjoy reading his grocery list lol, said that Ray Robinson famously said he didn't enjoy fighting. There is a famous short story written by Oscar Wilde of a very talented boxer who also happens to be a violin virtuosa... talk about a conflict!

Not everyone puts Ray Robinson at the top. There are many who see Hank Armstrong as fighting ugly but superior, among others. I do think that when evaluating the boxer punchers the reason Robinson was lauded had to do with his ability to punch hard moving in all directions, to set up his punches with feints and angles and....and this is a big one, ko power in both hands. Robinson just had...everything.

So for example if we took Roy Jones, we have another extraordinary talent who could do many things, but alas Roy had weaknesses, even if one believes he was past it with Tarver.

I don't think its easy to appreciate the view that a fighter's feelings about what they do should influence how his achievements are viewed, but its a way to look at things I suppose. So its all good.

The problem with the concept of GOAT is that by definition whoever you put there is overrated. I have SRR as GOAT only because I can't see anyone who tops him but I admit I do feel that some equal him in many ways and as you say great fighters who specialised in one aspect would naturally be better at that than Robbo... Armstrong ?? well Ray beat him head to head so it's hard to put Hank above him.. tbh I don't know where to put Hank, he had a great run for a few years but not for as long as SRR. I actually don't like the idea of a p4p GOAT but the term was coined for one man,, SRR, I have stated recently I cannot rate him as no1 MW but think he walks it in at WW. I think fighters should be rated at weights only and at a weight they fought at at least a few occasions, one or two fights disqualify them,,... otherwise we would get hardcore Floyd or Pacman fanatics saying stuff like "Oh Paquiauo is the GOAT at flyweight, the GOAT at Bantam... Feather.. LW... jrWW etc. or even worst they say that about Floyd who I have no time for anymore... I cannot rate a guy who picks and chooses who he fights... I wish we could go back to mandatory defences, oh a guy holds four belts at a weight... get rid of multiple belts, there can only be ONE world champ.

[Anthony342]

Mayweather will be ranked much higher than 50.

Top 30 bare minimum I would imagine.

Obviously well above 75 but that doesn't even need explaining.

And that wouldn't be overrating him either. Top 5-10 p4p would probably be in the overrating territory.

[IronDanHamza]

And that wouldn't be overrating him either. Top 5-10 p4p would probably be in the overrating territory.

Unfortunately I think that is where he will be ranked in the years to come.

Mayweather has a great resume but on paper his resume is a lot better than it actually is. Add in the fact that skill wise he's one of the best ever.

That's a recipe for a fighter to become overrated.

[McGoorty]

And that wouldn't be overrating him either. Top 5-10 p4p would probably be in the overrating territory.

LOL if anyone puts that schmuck in the top ten P4P list I am gonna get a cricket bat and paddle whack them.......... I only rate those who fight the best available... sure you can have some warm ups but don't tell me you are having one last fight and claim you are the greatest fighter of all time then pick for your last fight a guy ranked like 14th or something, many fighters have better resume's.... very rare that a fighter is undefeated that doesn't raise some eyebrows.. usually means they dodged a lot of guys.. in this case most of the names he beat were washed up.... ODLH is a prime example.... funny thing is I think Floyd at his best is better than Oscar but why does he fight the guy after he has had his ass whooped a few times ??? the guys ego is the problem for me.. all he cares about is having no defeats even if he has to fight bums or near bums... plus he is as boring as watching paint dry... what about giving the fans some excitement ??? nah.. his attitude is fook the fans.... hell they only pay him

[McGoorty]

LOL if anyone puts that schmuck in the top ten P4P list I am gonna get a cricket bat and paddle whack them.......... I only rate those who fight the best available... sure you can have some warm ups but don't tell me you are having one last fight and claim you are the greatest fighter of all time then pick for your last fight a guy ranked like 14th or something, many fighters have better resume's.... very rare that a fighter is undefeated that doesn't raise some eyebrows.. usually means they dodged a lot of guys.. in this case most of the names he beat were washed up.... ODLH is a prime example.... funny thing is I think Floyd at his best is better than Oscar but why does he fight the guy after he has had his ass whooped a few times ??? the guys ego is the problem for me.. all he cares about is having no defeats even if he has to fight bums or near bums... plus he is as boring as watching paint dry... what about giving the fans some excitement ??? nah.. his attitude is fook the fans.... hell they only pay him

And don't tell me he is great cos he beat Pacquiao, has anyone even noticed that Floyd is like twice the guys size ???? nahhh, Floyd fans ignore things like that... plus of course he waits years after Pacman was in his prime... that fight should have been over 20 rounds.. I doubt things would have turned out quite the same.

[McGoorty]

Well....is he a runner, a coward, or a dancer? You can say that you don't like an evasive dancer and that RR was a mover, and this is a little different characterization than a "runner." There is a difference here.

You have to realize that basilio and Fulmer were two highly succesful infighters...Even Ray Robinson was not going to be more expert at this range than these two so it is no slight on him to not be as succesful at this range...I mean Robinson also had great punch stats but he wasn't going to thow more per a round than Hank Armstrong.

Actually one of my favorite boxing scribes, Joe reine, a man whom I would even enjoy reading his grocery list lol, said that Ray Robinson famously said he didn't enjoy fighting. There is a famous short story written by Oscar Wilde of a very talented boxer who also happens to be a violin virtuosa... talk about a conflict!

Not everyone puts Ray Robinson at the top. There are many who see Hank Armstrong as fighting ugly but superior, among others. I do think that when evaluating the boxer punchers the reason Robinson was lauded had to do with his ability to punch hard moving in all directions, to set up his punches with feints and angles and....and this is a big one, ko power in both hands. Robinson just had...everything.

So for example if we took Roy Jones, we have another extraordinary talent who could do many things, but alas Roy had weaknesses, even if one believes he was past it with Tarver.

I don't think its easy to appreciate the view that a fighter's feelings about what they do should influence how his achievements are viewed, but its a way to look at things I suppose. So its all good.

Go to my new thread on McLarnin and Benny Leonard, in Leonard you will see a guy who could effortlessly move away from danger, you will see that Robinson was by no means the first or even unique in using good footwork to avoid punches, but Leonard is always able to attack, he just uses brilliant defensive feet to turn danger into an attacking advantage, but was he a runner, not in my opinion, if that's all he did then yes but of course he did a lot more.. I have added a great video analysis of his fighting style on that thread, I could paste the video here but I won't.

[billeau2]

The problem with the concept of GOAT is that by definition whoever you put there is overrated. I have SRR as GOAT only because I can't see anyone who tops him but I admit I do feel that some equal him in many ways and as you say great fighters who specialised in one aspect would naturally be better at that than Robbo... Armstrong ?? well Ray beat him head to head so it's hard to put Hank above him.. tbh I don't know where to put Hank, he had a great run for a few years but not for as long as SRR. I actually don't like the idea of a p4p GOAT but the term was coined for one man,, SRR, I have stated recently I cannot rate him as no1 MW but think he walks it in at WW. I think fighters should be rated at weights only and at a weight they fought at at least a few occasions, one or two fights disqualify them,,... otherwise we would get hardcore Floyd or Pacman fanatics saying stuff like "Oh Paquiauo is the GOAT at flyweight, the GOAT at Bantam... Feather.. LW... jrWW etc. or even worst they say that about Floyd who I have no time for anymore... I cannot rate a guy who picks and chooses who he fights... I wish we could go back to mandatory defences, oh a guy holds four belts at a weight... get rid of multiple belts, there can only be ONE world champ.

I mention Armstrong purely as a matter of record. My own feelings are that listing fighters can be like many Greek philosophy scholars feel about Aristotle..."he took the gigantic universal world of Plato's forms and boxed them in a shoebox", in the process trivializing and overcategorizing Truth with a big T and making it truth with a small T and an S (truths).

At the end of the day we live in a world that is organized hierarchically so we have the best, second best, but if we didn't we would certainly recognize a plethora of great fighters that have existed through the ages.

[billeau2]

Go to my new thread on McLarnin and Benny Leonard, in Leonard you will see a guy who could effortlessly move away from danger, you will see that Robinson was by no means the first or even unique in using good footwork to avoid punches, but Leonard is always able to attack, he just uses brilliant defensive feet to turn danger into an attacking advantage, but was he a runner, not in my opinion, if that's all he did then yes but of course he did a lot more.. I have added a great video analysis of his fighting style on that thread, I could paste the video here but I won't.

of course... But I don't think Robinson was unique in that regard. Actually I think if one learned to box in most of the past eras, one would see footwork. Initially the footwork was characteristic of fencing, and it developed from there. It is only some of today's fighters who square up and just hang out there. As the Gans vid says boxing has lost its real fighting skills and become entertainment. We might as well go roman! Tie two guys together at one arm and give them a nice heavy glove (no spikes necessary) to smack the living shizzle out of each other....and then in a seperate contest, have each guy in a corner...when the bell rings they throw as many punches as they can as punch stat numbers are recorded, these punches being thrown in the air. Thats pretty much what boxing is becoming.

[ironalex]

of course... But I don't think Robinson was unique in that regard. Actually I think if one learned to box in most of the past eras, one would see footwork. Initially the footwork was characteristic of fencing, and it developed from there. It is only some of today's fighters who square up and just hang out there. As the Gans vid says boxing has lost its real fighting skills and become entertainment. We might as well go roman! Tie two guys together at one arm and give them a nice heavy glove (no spikes necessary) to smack the living shizzle out of each other....and then in a seperate contest, have each guy in a corner...when the bell rings they throw as many punches as they can as punch stat numbers are recorded, these punches being thrown in the air. Thats pretty much what boxing is becoming.

I think the biggest lost art is in fighting - few properly do it these days. Anyway for me sugar Ray Robinson isnt overrated because he should be and deserves to be where many hold him including myself - best ever. I think fighters that are overrated - Jack Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, and of course Floyd may weather.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

The problem with all of this is that it is all opinion. There are no clear ways to define who was better for whatever reason. I believe Duran was the best because in his heyday at lightweight, I don't think anyone would have beaten him. he also accomplished plenty, but the main reason is that he impressed me to the point that I believe he was the best without question. I could be wrong but we will never know and I could be right and we will never know. So I see no reason to knock anyone's opinion. After all, that is all it is.

I suppose it might be easier to rate specific categories. On best in-fighting, I think Duran wins hands down.