Most Overrated Fighters of All-Time

[Anthony342]

Yep.

How can you be protected when you fight the best who are around? He even wanted to fight Golovkin but GGG didn't want that smoke.

The only reason why anyone would call Ward protected would be because of the controversy surrounding the two Kovalev fights, with some saying they felt the close decision should have gone to Kovalev and the second because of the TKO after the low blows or what many felt were low blows.

[The Old LefHook]

Ward's strong ledger is one of the main factors keeping him in the AT discussion. He beat big names when they were considered their most dangerous. That is what we ask of a boxer, isn't it, by Chinaman?

[QueensburyRules]

- -Son of Gollum the only fighter in the Super Six International tourney who never had to fight outside his country that led to losses for the other 5.

His reward for his promoter who kept him swaddled like a newborn babe to the finish line was a ham handed attempt to strong arm his way out of his contract with Goosen.

He was so weak at the tourney start that he was 2-3 places removed from the favorite in spite of 5-6 yrs as a pro.

I don't make this **** up boys.

It Happens!!!

[The Old LefHook]

- -Son of Gollum the only fighter in the Super Six International tourney who never had to fight outside his country that led to losses for the other 5.

His reward for his promoter who kept him swaddled like a newborn babe to the finish line was a ham handed attempt to strong arm his way out of his contract with Goosen.

He was so weak at the tourney start that he was 2-3 places removed from the favorite in spite of 5-6 yrs as a pro.

I don't make this **** up boys.

It Happens!!!

By honky, just as I suspected, you can find nothing negative to say about SOG'S ability to manhandle ring bullies like tow-headed stepchildren.

[The Old LefHook]

Sog was like Campbell's soup--a Manhandler, by greaser.

[Rusty Tromboni]

That odd moment you don't want to post because you find yourself agreeing with Queenie. The old gal can still pull off the tricks.

I could never agree with you. I give him a lot of credit for his Ring IQ, chin, determination and footwork, but for me he was nothing more than a very good & effective, well rounded, extremely dirty and protected (in many different ways) fighter. Nothing more than that. People are saying Golovkin and Kovalev are HBO's creations, but on the contrary, it suits Ward a lot better. The American media tried to portray him as a p4p no1, a living legend, who's run trough Super 6 was anything close to Pacquiao's run. I'm thinking about making a breakdown video on Ward somewhere in the future, when I do so, I'll send you the link.

Great post.


I don't think he's particularly overrated because not enough people bought into him. I think he was a very good fighter, but to ignore how that was achieved is, I guess, a way of over-rating him. His record is glaring for the absence of two things: 1) not a single fight abroad during the Super Six; 2) two losses (UD, DQ) to Kovalev. Anyone can see that.

A fight w/ Hopkins would have been nice, too, but apparently it was Hopkins who didn't want that?

[The Old LefHook]

The two draws with Kovalev do not hurt Ward's legacy too badly, by gravy.

[#1Assassin]

I am sure this has been done before. But I haven't seen any recent threads on the topic.

I'll start with some of mine:

Muhammad Ali: I'm actually pretty compassionate of the Heavyweights. You can't expect a Lineman to perform ballet or gymnastics. Same, Heavyweights will have challenges fighters in lower divisions don't fact. Still, I feel Ali is greatly overrated. Both as a Heavyweight, and P4P.

Sam Langford: On film I don't see the much to be impressed by. Yes, he's one of the best to ever do it, but he's not P4P top 10. Probably his space in the top 25 isn't guaranteed. Very good for his era, but even then it looks like Packey McFarland and Gibbons were truly the best P4P. Sam Langford's KO power made him the best finisher, and his story make him the most memorable. But many fans might over-rank him in compensation for how his was mistreated during his career and largely forgotten until the internet resurrected his legacy.

Henry Armstrong: People rank this guy #1 P4P because he won the belt in 3 weight divisions, but he probably never was the best Featherweight or Welterweight. That might be going too far, but really he should be seen as a Lightweight. Many of his Ww title fights were fought closer to the Lw limit, and much of his championship competition was forgettable (to say the least). He did have a great record - but others had better. He does look good on film - but other Lightweights arguably look better. He's definitely top 10. But people get carried away w/ the 3 Championships at once.

Ezzard Charles: I have always heard great things about Charles. His record looks solid. And probably the best of him is not on film. But what we do have on film, I wouldn't pick him to beat other Light heavyweights... not definitively. Tunney definitely looks better. Patterson, Conn and Spinks are as good, or slight favorites. People hate on Dempsey, but he was fairly close to Charles in size, and he looks more naturally gifted.

1. why don't you give a reason as to why Ali is overrated? at the end of the day anyone who reaches the legendary status ali has, they are going to become overrated by some as a result. placed on a pedestal nobody could have reached. but besides that kind of idolizing i dont think you can call Ali overrated. yes, you can find flaws in his style. but you can't argue with the results. his accomplishments are the greatest in HW history, and some of the greatest ever p4p. so he should be rated accordingly.

2. langford was head and heels above gibbons and mcfarland. he was just blacker than they were.

langford fought from lightweight to heavyweight. he fought men way bigger than himself back when boxing was more fighting than boxing and barely had rules. to fight men that much bigger than himself in those times, win titles and accumulate a record like that.

how in the world can you sit there and say gibbons and mcfarland are better? that they are the real p4p when they are the same size as him except he is fighting heavyweights AND taking on any comers regardless of not only size but race. it is perplexing. lets keep in mind the difference in money across weight classes was huge back then. if they thought they were as good as langford why didnt they move up?

3. okey i dont have time for this. you knw jack **** about boxing..

[ShoulderRoll]

Anthony Joshua has to make the list now.

[Rusty Tromboni]

1. why don't you give a reason as to why Ali is overrated? at the end of the day anyone who reaches the legendary status ali has, they are going to become overrated by some as a result. placed on a pedestal nobody could have reached. but besides that kind of idolizing i dont think you can call Ali overrated. yes, you can find flaws in his style. but you can't argue with the results. his accomplishments are the greatest in HW history, and some of the greatest ever p4p. so he should be rated accordingly.

2. langford was head and heels above gibbons and mcfarland. he was just blacker than they were.

langford fought from lightweight to heavyweight. he fought men way bigger than himself back when boxing was more fighting than boxing and barely had rules. to fight men that much bigger than himself in those times, win titles and accumulate a record like that.

how in the world can you sit there and say gibbons and mcfarland are better? that they are the real p4p when they are the same size as him except he is fighting heavyweights AND taking on any comers regardless of not only size but race. it is perplexing. lets keep in mind the difference in money across weight classes was huge back then. if they thought they were as good as langford why didnt they move up?

3. okey i dont have time for this. you knw jack **** about boxing..

What more could I expect from a dude w/ Rigo as his avatar?

Even a casual can see Ali lost to Frazier and Norton in his prime. For anyone who actually calls himself a Boxing fan, the footage of Ali is damning: He's not atrocious (like Jack Johnson) but he's far from a perfect fighter. He's more of a Heavyweight Camacho (albeit w/ Mickey Walker toughness), than a Heavyweight Duran, Whitaker, Canzoneri, Leonard, Armstrong or Williams - none of whom are called "The Greatest". He wasn't always the best of his division, and probably never the best of his era. You really don't have to know much about Boxing to know that.

Ali is one of the most iconic athletes. He's up there with Babe Ruth, Lionel Messi, Tom Brady, Michael Jordan. He's a globally recognized name. But show me the fight where he looks better than Wilfredo Gomez. I wonder if even in Puerto Rico that's a recognized name.

2) Show me where Langford was better than McFarland or Gibbons. You can't. He's got a gaudier recordthan them; they have the better ones. He was a better puncher. But are you gonna tell me that Hearns was a better fighter than Leonard because he was a bigger puncher? Was Valdez better than Monzon? Were Moore, Ray and Sheppard better than Charles? If it's his Boxing you like, was Toney better than Whitaker? Was Hopkins better than Benitez?

The film evidence of Langford is damming enough. But if you wanna throw him a bone, and say he was the best of his era/fighting under different rules and conditions/more tested than modern fighters, etc., then there is still plenty to criticize.

Langford fought across many divisions, but his actual relevance in many of those divisions is often grossly over-stated. He seems to have simply caught Gans and Walcott off-guard. Not unlike how Langford himself would lose to Joe Jeanette. Boxing then was more like K-1 or Muay Thai today. Schedules were hectic, and sometimes unfavorable. It wasn't uncommon for spoilers... particularly if they fight wasn't of high importance.

Fighters who have long careers tend to fight across multiple divisions. That, like 100+ fight records, has grown increasingly less common: amateur ranks and early retirements have become the norm, and "cost" many fighters several weight divisions. RJJ debuted at 154, and fought as high as 195 pounds (against a 125 pound Ruiz). He looked as good at Cw/Hw, as he ever had. He likely would have had a longer, more relevant career if he were able to remain there. This tends to be much easier for bigger men (like Langford), but it's not exclusive to them. Pacquiao didn't have Jones' coddled amateur career, and has been a force from Flyweight to Welterweight. This is an age of fighters like Marquez and Mayweather, not the Kimbo Slices that Langford fought. Hell, Thurman would look like Willie Pep if you sent him back 120 years.


Langford was probably one of the best punchers we've ever seen. But that's also a bit overstated. Was he really better than Kovalev or Lloyd MArshall? Those guys will never make a top 100 P4P list, let alone top 5. When you are fighting bar-room brawlers, sandwiched between the same 5 other fighters you'll have a massive KO record. THe best name on his record is probably O'brien: who was 10 pounds smaller, and whose career was over. He couldn't put away Ketchel, who again was smaller and already off-the rails.

Not a terrible fighter. But clearly one whose story has clouded accurate assessment of his skill and ability. It's not that he wasn't great, but clearly greater fighters has suffered at his expense.