Most Overrated Fighters of All-Time

[Rusty Tromboni]

Rocky Marciano without a doubt.

The boxing experts in his day ranked him appropriately. They had seen the greats who came before and knew that Rocky was lower on the list.

But as time has gone on the undefeated record, ignorance of the past, and his skin color have led modern fans to rush to elevate him to a position he doesn't deserve.

Charles' loss to Marciano is part of why I made this thread. Mostly it was watching Ali-Foreman. But considering Charles' film footage, he proved worth mentioning.

Some people massively overrate Marciano. But others go to ridiculous lengths to make excuses for his victims.

I don't think he's a top 10 heavyweight. But P4P he's mint.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Without a doubt Floyd Mayweather jr.
From at least the dela Hoya fight onwards, it was all about calculated low risk with highest reward options.

And he had to have every advantage possible to ensure he would secure a victory. Even if it wasn’t necessary.

The Maidana gloves controversy, the catchweight with canelo (even though he bagged Pacquiao for years with his catchweight fights)

He’s right up there as one of the best showmen, but to claim he’s TBE or even close to the best is simply not true.
And that ultimately doesn’t come down to his skills, but instead it was his matchmaking and avoidance of stiff fights.

And you hear his fans say, oh but he fought so many champions.
Pfft, like that matters, there’s like 4 champions a weight class now, and you can pick and chose the easy ones if you are in Floyd’s position.

The fact that he fought Pacquiao in 2015 and not in 2009/10 says it all, and when they fought he fought so minimally and you gotta laugh at fans making it out like it was a white wash.
It was nip and tuck, Floyd’s own dad was screaming at him during the fight to not fight scared and let his hands go.

All you have to do is look at how he manages tank and you can see it’s obvious how he managed himself.
I watched an interview where they said they can wait it out for lomachenko to get older before they take him on, and the fans can’t preasure them and they don’t care about what fans say.

That screams overrated.
He’s a great fighter, but to make it out like he’s top 10 is laughable.
His undefeated record is only for casual fans. Anyone can be beaten, and it only shows you took on everyone and put it all on the line.

Well said. I rank him top 50, but the closer to the top the move him, the more uncomfortable I get.

If we had a time machine where we could make fantasy fights happen, I think Floyd does really, really well. On film, he looks good. But he was so ****ing coddled, it's hard to believe him ever enjoying similar success and longevity in earlier eras.

People here are complaining about Marciano, but look at the conditions he succeeded against, and how fast he succeeded. Sure, he doesn't have the same gaudy record, and he doesn't look as good on film. But can anyone really say Floyd was greater, all things considered?

[Rusty Tromboni]

I know.he was very good but his opposition was poor, he fought with guys like Briscoe, Benvenutti, Griffith, most of them clearly out of prime and olds, and smaller than him, Nápoles too, it was a crime, what Nápoles did, Monzón never wanted to do, that fight was a joke, i know Nápoles challenged him but it does not matter. Only fought in a division, took little risks.

Yeah, I feel that he probably was one of the better guys at taking advantage of weight-cutting before it became the norm.

He was probably about the same size as the Billy Conn that met Louis. He definitely didn't do what guys like Conn, or Napoles did. That all counts against him, but HOW he beat his opponents is as good as we've seen.

But I think a lot of people dismiss him because he didn't bounce around like Ali or Roy Jones. They can't appreciate his subtlety and ring generalship.

For me, his wins over Briscoe, Griffith and Valdez were as good as any the Middleweight division has seen. And it's hard to imagine any fellow Middleweight ever beating him.

[Rusty Tromboni]

This is false

You can't Say this, the bones of lighter weights are the reason why they are much more technical, skillfuls , fasters, dinamycs.

You can't Say "add 60 pounds to the body of Arguello".

It's what it's , period.

Heavyweight are overrated and are sh.it talking about boxing skills.

I mean, you hear "this heavyweight was a máster, and incredible technical fighter" and then you see his movements and are.pretty mediocre and normal.

Boxing is art, and the art is in the lightweights like Loma, Estrada, Pacquiao, Crawford,

Watch a College Wrestling event. You'll see how wrong this is. Same sport, same team, same recruiting, same training, same coaching... you'll see the human body's reaction to gravity and oxygen deprivation at play.

I actually think that as humans have gotten bigger, the Heavyweight have gotten more technically sound and conditioned. Dempsey was a BEAST, but look at Holyfield and the Klitchkos. Jack was smaller, and much, much more naturally talented. But besides power-punching and head-movement, what does he do better?

[Mexican_Puppet]

Yeah, I feel that he probably was one of the better guys at taking advantage of weight-cutting before it became the norm.

He was probably about the same size as the Billy Conn that met Louis. He definitely didn't do what guys like Conn, or Napoles did. That all counts against him, but HOW he beat his opponents is as good as we've seen.

But I think a lot of people dismiss him because he didn't bounce around like Ali or Roy Jones. They can't appreciate his subtlety and ring generalship.

For me, his wins over Briscoe, Griffith and Valdez were as good as any the Middleweight division has seen. And it's hard to imagine any fellow Middleweight ever beating him.

Griffith and Briscoe were too small to the 160 pounds and their prime was in 147 pounds.

Benvenutti was too old and he lost before his first meeting with Monzón.

His best win was Valdez, that was a solid win but you can't compare than win with the better win of other Legends, for example the best win of Márquez is Pacquiao, the best win of Durán is Leonard, you can't do this. Thats another point that i have

[Rusty Tromboni]

Griffith and Briscoe were too small to the 160 pounds and their prime was in 147 pounds.

Benvenutti was too old and he lost before his first meeting with Monzón.

His best win was Valdez, that was a solid win but you can't compare than win with the better win of other Legends, for example the best win of Márquez is Pacquiao, the best win of Durán is Leonard, you can't do this. Thats another point that i have

No, Briscoe was DEFINITELY a Middleweight. I've never seen anyone argue he was undersized. Never.

Griffith had well out-grown the Ww division. If you want to argue he was best at 154, OK. But he was doing perfectly fine against every other full-sized Middlewight he met. Sure, weight-cutting could have helped Monzon, but he beat Griffith w/ his reach, precision and ring control. It was a close, close fight. But Like Loma-Rigo and Fury-Wilder, Monzon didn't win by being bigger, he won by being better.

Benvenutti was at the tail end of his carer, but that's hardly a performance that deflates Carlos' career. It's not an ATG victory. But I really don't see how that fight exposes Carlos. Nino was still the best Mw in the world, and still a damn good one. Carlos did better than **** Tiger did... twice.


Pacquiao and Marquez are not on Monzon's level. Starting with steroids.

[billeau2]

The efficient market theory and overrated fighters

I believe that the natural property of an activity, with a market, with degrees of ability, etc will create a certain efficiency of understanding. So, over time...when we let history age out some of the perceptions, we generally get a good analysis of who was great, good, not so good, etc.

In theory there should be very few overrated fighters. As proof of this idea, if one were to bet on boxing matches and go by member's stats on who would win the fight, one would get the winning fighter by a very decent margin. Most times members on this board, and on others...predict the winner of the fight ESPECIALLY considering when the judges do something ******... If we considered such, it would be a very efficient ratio of picking the winners.

We can see this understanding applied in another context: On "Who wants to be a millionaire" a game show where they had the man with the highest IQ recorded in modern times, on the show... this man, and most guests took advantage of being allowed, a certain amount of times when they could poll the audience on what the right answer to the question was...and again, members, collectively of average intellect (presumably...being an average sample of individuals) get the answer correct.

So if we go through a thread like this, what we generally see is personal issues, a focus on taking apart fights in great detail that stand out to an individual, etc. According to this thread right now, many great fighters are "overrated." To me this is what is known as the ****** money....

I would not hesitate to ask, in a poll certain questions of members here, but a thread like this is the opposite. There simply cannot be a majority of "overrated" fighters, predictably, if the activity of selecting fighters, analyzing fighters, analyzing fights, and PEOPLE CAN PREDICTING Winners then, it follows most fighters are categorized where they belong.

There might be a few soft spots to exploite... But when great fighters like Armstrong, Louis, Ali, etc are examined, there is no great info that comes out to bare, jumping any of these fighters down... The structure is too knowleagable for that to be. Some of you will "get this" others will not...

Its the same principle that says, when looking at stocks, the value of any stock is more or less what it should be... Within a certain range of values, but is consistent.

Just something to consider before going off the rails.

[GhostofDempsey]

Ali

Mayweather

Hopkins

Jack Johnson

Graziano

In recent years

Tyson Fury

GGG

Canelo

Kovalev

Ward

[Mexican_Puppet]

No, Briscoe was DEFINITELY a Middleweight. I've never seen anyone argue he was undersized. Never.

Griffith had well out-grown the Ww division. If you want to argue he was best at 154, OK. But he was doing perfectly fine against every other full-sized Middlewight he met. Sure, weight-cutting could have helped Monzon, but he beat Griffith w/ his reach, precision and ring control. It was a close, close fight. But Like Loma-Rigo and Fury-Wilder, Monzon didn't win by being bigger, he won by being better.

Benvenutti was at the tail end of his carer, but that's hardly a performance that deflates Carlos' career. It's not an ATG victory. But I really don't see how that fight exposes Carlos. Nino was still the best Mw in the world, and still a damn good one. Carlos did better than **** Tiger did... twice.


Pacquiao and Marquez are not on Monzon's level. Starting with steroids.

They are better, easily.

Griffith was too sh.ort, he was a very strong dude but he was not a natural 160 and his best weight it was 147 pounds.

Against, Griffith took risks, Monzón never.

Nope, Benvenutti was too old and he lost before the first fight against Monzón, if a guy like that, too old and shot is the best in your division the division probably is sh.it.

My balls, it's easy beat a smaller guy with a lot of advantage in reach, strenght, power,

Those are garbage wins

[Rusty Tromboni]

They are better, easily.

Griffith was too sh.ort, he was a very strong dude but he was not a natural 160 and his best weight it was 147 pounds.

Against, Griffith took risks, Monzón never.

Nope, Benvenutti was too old and he lost before the first fight against Monzón, if a guy like that, too old and shot is the best in your division the division probably is sh.it.

My balls, it's easy beat a smaller guy with a lot of advantage in reach, strenght, power,

Those are garbage wins

The scalps Griffith took at Mw are better than the ones at Ww. He out-grew 147, and lost fights by draining excessive weight to continue in that division when he should have moved up instead.

Nino was the best at the time, and probaby no worse than anyone Hagler or Hopkins ever defended against. Again, **** Tiger couldn't stop him, but a few years later, Monzon did.

On grounds, I don't like ranking him above fighters who competed in multiple weight divisions. But H2H the guy is awesome. Pacquiao met plenty of fighters along his career who could beat him. And we know he was the beneficiary of an era much more favorable than Monzon's.