Biggest underachiever in boxing?

[Redd Foxx]

If I viewed them as gods, how would that be me thinking that they've underachieved?

Rigo clowned the best fighter in his division, who was the fighter of the year at that current time, was P4P one of the best in the world, was a guy who was atleast 1-2 divisions bigger then him and all this in like his 12th fight. He hit the celiling really fast and now there's no one for him to fight that's willing to fight him. He's unbeatable in his division where he's outsized, is that not an accomplishment?

Because, these men were two of the most successful in their fields. They came from humble backgrounds and achieved FAR more then most. You would have to think they are gods to assume they should have done more. How about the millions that never made it as far as them? I'm guessing they are the overachievers? When a guy does everything Ali does and you say he's an underachiever, it's clear you're misunderstanding the word. He went higher than any boxer, ever.

Rigo has a wealth of talent and only fought one decent guy. That means he didn't achieve his potential. Doesn't matter who is at fault. We don't say, "We'll pretend you beat these guys." That's a child-like way of viewing things.

[kilojay505]

Tyson Fury, Micheal Spinks. Fury couldnt even defend his strap one time and Spinks let Mike Tyson destroy him mentally,physically and emotionally in 91 seconds

[jmrf4435]

Tyson Fury, Micheal Spinks. Fury couldnt even defend his strap one time and Spinks let Mike Tyson destroy him mentally,physically and emotionally in 91 seconds

Furys career is not over. And he was able to take down someone that nodoby else could for 10 years in Wlad Klit.

Fury is a tough one

[yngwie]

I once made a thread with this same subject, but it went down the drain because all the people made it a Floyd Mayweather thread.
But this is an interesting topic and it depends on the level of talent and the proportion with succes.
Despite being in the Hall of Fame you can argue that Tyson and Bowe never reached the potential they had.
Despite being a world champion, Michael Nunn prime was too short.
For reasons that were out of the ring, we never saw the full talent of Gerald McClellan and that accumulation of punching also hurt the likes of Meldrick Taylor and Davey Moore.
But the most important cases are the ones of talented guys that never touched the boxing glory, Francisco Bojado had an incredible talent, he was a perfect boxer and i've read about a guy called Bernard Mays that used to beat Tommy Hearns so easily in sparring that Hearns almost quit boxing.

[Last Roman]

Naseem Hamed should probably have retired undefeated.

[kiDynamite92]

Because, these men were two of the most successful in their fields. They came from humble backgrounds and achieved FAR more then most. You would have to think they are gods to assume they should have done more. How about the millions that never made it as far as them? I'm guessing they are the overachievers? When a guy does everything Ali does and you say he's an underachiever, it's clear you're misunderstanding the word. He went higher than any boxer, ever.

Rigo has a wealth of talent and only fought one decent guy. That means he didn't achieve his potential. Doesn't matter who is at fault. We don't say, "We'll pretend you beat these guys." That's a child-like way of viewing things.

Not trying to make fun of you but you seem to misunderstand the underachiever/overachiever thing. Ali achieved more than anyone. Tyson achieved more than a short HW with mental issues would typically would.

Rigo has all the potential in the world and had achieved so little as a pro. That's the very definition of underachieving. You're taking like it's slander, like you need to defend him. That's not what this is about. It's a measurement of accomplishments in proportion to potential.

I honestly don't get you, you defined what underachiever is in the bold and when I shot down that argument you decided to talk about something else. You clearly stated that you would define and underachiever by a measurement of accomplishments in proportion to potential. I totally agreed with this and if you stich to this definition, Ali could have done so much more with his potential. He wouldn't have lost to Frazier or Norton, he probably would have retired earlier and undefeated. That's how good he could have been had he not been robbed of his prime by the scum government. Almost the same thing could have been said for Tyson had he not lost Cus and got done over by King. Yes their upbringing was bad, but that's not their potential is it?

Rigondeaux is the lineal champ in his weight class, he is considered THE MAN. It's not up to him to go out and fight challenges, it up to the challengers to get into a position of challenging him and those that have done that have so far fallen. It's silly to expect the champ to chase after his challengers. He's the champion and reigning very succesfully and undefeated, if he fullfulling his potential? Yes he is.