Most Overrated Fighters of All-Time

[VegasMichael]

I think you're right. But it's because their fiendish fans so grossly exaggerate their skills and achievements.

But in time, I think things we'll cool off. And the adults will be able to speak. De La Hoya and Tyson were both very, very good fighters. The former mostly for what he was willing to dare. The latter because of the talent he possessed (then squandered).

Both were good but they each lost to more great fighters than they beat.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I agree that Ali was overrated and I can type an entire page to support that position. But I have to disagree with Charles. Ezzard defeated prime Archie Moore 3x, Jimmy Bivins 3x, Joey Maxim 5x, Lloyd Marshall 2x, Charley Burley 2x, Satterfield, Yarosz, Overlin, Elmer Ray (considered one of the hardest punchers of all time), Walcott, Lesnevich, and a fading Louis.

Let me premise by saying he's a marvelous fighter. But people are exaggerating his skills and achievement. Often they conflate his career. It happens w/ a lot of fighters. They also over-correct. Again, that happens w/ a lot of fighters.

For example: he carried some considerable weight into the bouts w/ Burley. His fights w/ Burley also sandwiched a bout w/ Williams. Burley might've still been at the heighth of his powers, and Charles still relatively raw. But it seems pretty apparent that Burley's focus was more on his archrival, and that size and youth were the deciding factor.

Likewise, Walcott bested him, and Louis was a shell of his former self.

Again, a lot of impressive names on his resume. I don't wanna spend too much time scrutinizing every opponent and every fight, but some of those name are famous for being famous... it's circular logic: why is Joey Maxim/Lesnevich/Bivins great? Because he faced Ezzard Charles great? Because he beat: Maxim/Bivins/Lesnevich.

Do we have film evidence to work with? Johnson was a fabulous fighter, but it definitely looks like Loughran was better. Moore might have been even better, but was he as good as Tunney? Nope. Much more substantial record. Much more gaudy KO record. Much more fanfare. Much more longevity. But the film shows Tunney's better than Moore. Better than Charles, too.

How about Conn? I won't say he was ruined by the War, but his career was essentially over at 24. We never saw a 24 year old Charles dare to fight Louis. Hell, he couldn't put away Maxim in 5 attempts, while Billy stopped the bigger and better Bob Pastor in 13 rounds.

Again, it's about more than H2H match-ups, or film footage. But when we consider criteria, do "precociousness", "over-coming disadvantages", or "advancing the sport' not have their place?

Charles was a classic boxer/puncher. He may not have been the most exciting fighter to watch, but one cannot deny his skill and certainly cannot deny the quality of his resume.

Wemay never know. It actually sounds like he was a complete boxer-pncher, and he liked to tear into an opponent. He was relentless. Maybe one of the best ever offensively. But like many masters, he'd give away early rounds to figure opponents out. Sometimes he went too hard, and paid for it. But usually he was impossible to out-gun, and in the rare instances he was, he out-boxed his opponents.

But again where is the footage? And what does it matter?

Have you seen Canzoneri? McLarnin? Ross? What does Charles have over any of them? At least we can verify their ability on film?

How about Ortiz? He was pretty complete? How come he doesn't wind up in any P4P top 10 lists?

Things to consider about Charles...he started out as a featherweight in the amateurs and was undefeated, he lost a year of his prime serving in the Army during WWII, he killed a man in the ring during his prime and almost quit boxing, and it had a mental impact on him for the rest of his career. He was the only man to go the full 15 round distance with Marciano and many believed he won. If he had fought Marciano today in that rematch he would have won by TKO because no ref or doctor today would have allowed Rocky to continue with that split nose injury.

yup. I know all that. It's pretty common in boxing to have that kinda bio. It's like the Academy Award... every winner is the best ever... until next year's winner is announced.

Charles was great. Top 25 for sure. But people push him into the top 10 - the better half of it, actually. It's great he's getting love for his achievements. But should it come at the expense of those more deserving?

[Rusty Tromboni]

I dont always agree with you, but I respect you as a poster- you will always show your work and provide evidence to support your assertions. So I wonder where you would rank Ali & Charles in a P4P sense list, no need to be specific just where about (you did already with Armstrong and Langford).

Honestly, I rank Charles in or around the top 15. (I don't have a definitive list myself. But I have been reading lists here, and watching a lot of footage lately. The conclusion I come to is that many aren't really raking fighter's but ranking stories. Basically, the propaganda and fads have as much to do w/ a fighter's reputation as the facts do.) But I am not confident in that ranking, and I find it unsettling when many others try to place him definitively in the top 10, or even top 5. For me, there are clearly better fighters.

Ali is top 50, for sure. But almost as definitively not 25, no matter how close I try to get him.

I'll get back to you when I really have a list I can defend.

[QueensburyRules]

- -What Tunney film you talkin of Rusty?

I've only seen the incomplete grainy 20 rds of the Dempsey fight where we can see his style for that fight, but hardly any difference between them. The scorecard(s) are lost like most old fights. The only thing we have is the drunken snippets of the media, which even today are hardly bastions of the truth, Thomas Hauser being a hard exception.

So, it's been you all along hoarding the lost footage of the Greb fights?

Yeah, right!

[them_apples]

Griffight was old and out of prime when Monzón defeated him

Thats a reality

And thats my point, Rodríguez, Griffith, Briscoe, all fought in different division

Monzon never took the risk when he was a giant in 160 .


Briscoe and Griffith were too short and smalls to 160 pounds

The best african is Nelson and


About Hagler and Monzón, I read an interview in spanish years ago

and his fight with monzon was very very close and competitive

[them_apples]

Let me premise by saying he's a marvelous fighter. But people are exaggerating his skills and achievement. Often they conflate his career. It happens w/ a lot of fighters. They also over-correct. Again, that happens w/ a lot of fighters.

For example: he carried some considerable weight into the bouts w/ Burley. His fights w/ Burley also sandwiched a bout w/ Williams. Burley might've still been at the heighth of his powers, and Charles still relatively raw. But it seems pretty apparent that Burley's focus was more on his archrival, and that size and youth were the deciding factor.

Likewise, Walcott bested him, and Louis was a shell of his former self.

Again, a lot of impressive names on his resume. I don't wanna spend too much time scrutinizing every opponent and every fight, but some of those name are famous for being famous... it's circular logic: why is Joey Maxim/Lesnevich/Bivins great? Because he faced Ezzard Charles great? Because he beat: Maxim/Bivins/Lesnevich.

Do we have film evidence to work with? Johnson was a fabulous fighter, but it definitely looks like Loughran was better. Moore might have been even better, but was he as good as Tunney? Nope. Much more substantial record. Much more gaudy KO record. Much more fanfare. Much more longevity. But the film shows Tunney's better than Moore. Better than Charles, too.

How about Conn? I won't say he was ruined by the War, but his career was essentially over at 24. We never saw a 24 year old Charles dare to fight Louis. Hell, he couldn't put away Maxim in 5 attempts, while Billy stopped the bigger and better Bob Pastor in 13 rounds.

Again, it's about more than H2H match-ups, or film footage. But when we consider criteria, do "precociousness", "over-coming disadvantages", or "advancing the sport' not have their place?



Wemay never know. It actually sounds like he was a complete boxer-pncher, and he liked to tear into an opponent. He was relentless. Maybe one of the best ever offensively. But like many masters, he'd give away early rounds to figure opponents out. Sometimes he went too hard, and paid for it. But usually he was impossible to out-gun, and in the rare instances he was, he out-boxed his opponents.

But again where is the footage? And what does it matter?

Have you seen Canzoneri? McLarnin? Ross? What does Charles have over any of them? At least we can verify their ability on film?

How about Ortiz? He was pretty complete? How come he doesn't wind up in any P4P top 10 lists?



yup. I know all that. It's pretty common in boxing to have that kinda bio. It's like the Academy Award... every winner is the best ever... until next year's winner is announced.

Charles was great. Top 25 for sure. But people push him into the top 10 - the better half of it, actually. It's great he's getting love for his achievements. But should it come at the expense of those more deserving?

he beat Archie Moore 3 times. His resume at lhw is stacked, but 3 wins over Archie Moore in his prime is a write off on his LHW greatness? how is Ezzard Overrated. the second best LHW in my book is Michael spinks.

I've watched pretty much every bit of footage on Ezzard I while agree he wasn't always exciting he is the epitome of a tactical and high ring IQ fighter.

Alexis Arguello is another fighter than sort of played the same rythm as charles, he lulled his oponents to sleep and into timing a different speed, then when the opportunity presented itself the fast hard shot was fired off when the oponent least expected it. Charles did this so much some of his knockouts looked like a day job to him, like he could do it on 2 hours sleep with his eyes closed.

on the other hand you have a low IQ fighter like Khan, throws every shot as fast as he can, his oponents know this so they prepare for it and his speed becomes pretty much ineffective vs anyone good.

[Rusty Tromboni]

he beat Archie Moore 3 times. His resume at lhw is stacked, but 3 wins over Archie Moore in his prime is a write off on his LHW greatness? how is Ezzard Overrated. the second best LHW in my book is Michael spinks.

I've watched pretty much every bit of footage on Ezzard I while agree he wasn't always exciting he is the epitome of a tactical and high ring IQ fighter.

Alexis Arguello is another fighter than sort of played the same rythm as charles, he lulled his oponents to sleep and into timing a different speed, then when the opportunity presented itself the fast hard shot was fired off when the oponent least expected it. Charles did this so much some of his knockouts looked like a day job to him, like he could do it on 2 hours sleep with his eyes closed.

on the other hand you have a low IQ fighter like Khan, throws every shot as fast as he can, his oponents know this so they prepare for it and his speed becomes pretty much ineffective vs anyone good.

And what about beating Archie Moore (was Moore even in his prime?) makes him top 10 P4P?

How about fighting Harada? The dude was a 3 divisions CHAMPION in the three lowest weight divisions. Yeah, yeah, he didn't get the nod he deserved against Famechon. But everyone knows should have held three of the original 8 belts. And he beats the likes of Kingpetch, Jofre and Famechon to do it. There's a caveat to each of those victories. But the achievement is tremendous. Charles can't claim a scalp like Jofre (even a dried-out one), and there's no footage showing he's as good as Harada.

So why isn't Harada in anyone's top 10?

I could make arguments for Jimmy McLarnin (a much more dangerous puncher than Moore, Ray, or even Marciano ever were) and Carlos Ortiz (a true example of a boxer-puncher and ring general), too.

Charles was very good, but the evidence supporting the high rankings don't match what contemporaries were saying. It certainly isn't stronger than what many less celebrated fighters have to support their cause.

[The Old LefHook]

he beat Archie Moore 3 times. His resume at lhw is stacked, but 3 wins over Archie Moore in his prime is a write off on his LHW greatness? how is Ezzard Overrated. the second best LHW in my book is Michael spinks.

I've watched pretty much every bit of footage on Ezzard I while agree he wasn't always exciting he is the epitome of a tactical and high ring IQ fighter.
Examples of Charles doing this work better than promises that he did.
Alexis Arguello is another fighter than sort of played the same rythm as charles, he lulled his oponents to sleep and into timing a different speed, then when the opportunity presented itself the fast hard shot was fired off when the oponent least expected it. Charles did this so much some of his knockouts looked like a day job to him, like he could do it on 2 hours sleep with his eyes closed.

on the other hand you have a low IQ fighter like Khan, throws every shot as fast as he can, his oponents know this so they prepare for it and his speed becomes pretty much ineffective vs anyone good.

Examples of Charles doing this are preferred over promises he did.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Examples of Charles doing this are preferred over promises he did.

Beautifully said.

[them_apples]

Examples of Charles doing this are preferred over promises he did.

what part are you referring to? beating Moore or his style?