A FUN THREAD......Overated/Underated heavyweight contenders of EACH decade...who/why?

[SuzieQ49]

So say you pick the 1950s and 1990s .....pick a few contenders from the 1950s and 1990s u thought were underated, state your reasons why......then switch and pick a few 1950s and 90s contenders you think are overated.....and why?


you can pick ANY decade in heavyweight history, you can also pick more than one decade to do and as many fighters per decade as u want.....enjoy this!




Example:


1980s:


Underated:


Tony Tubbs- Very talented boxer with goodhandspeed, who never got exposed by anyone other than tyson. At his best, I think he was one of the better 1980s alpha champions...but unfortuntley because of his excess weight, people tend to vastly underate him.

Pinklon Thomas- People always talk about spoon, what about thomas? thomas whupped spoon cleanly in there fight.....and was undefeated WBC champion and # 1 RATED heavyweight 2 years running(some had him rated over holmes!)....part of what hurts thomas legacy is a his lack of a legacy defining unification fight with holmes, but thats not thomas fault since holmes legite ducked thomas....plus his drug problem, but the thomas at his best is a top 5 heavyweight of the decade with one of the best jabs i have ever seen.....I think he takes holmes in 1984.




Overated:

Frank Bruno- Never beat anyone of note in the 1980s lost all of his big fights in the 1980s....He had major stamina flaws in the 1980s.

Evander Holyfield- I dont think his wins over far past there prime versions of dokes, thomas, and tillis and struggle with alex stewart shows me he was capable of taking mike tyson in 1988-1990.


thats just an example

[Russell]

Tubb's is very underrated in some circles. His loss against Butler is a certified dive, and he was handily beating Brian Nielson until he retired on his stool out of nowhere citing a "rib injury".

And Nielson is another fighter who was actually investigated for being involved in fixed fights.

[SuzieQ49]

Aww Russell I want to hear your own list and opinions of a decade(or two or three)......come on man! lets hear em!

[Russell]

I'll think on it and post them when I do. :)

[OLD FOGEY]

1920's---Underrated-Jack Renault-----overrated-Bill Brennan (Brennan gets pumped up a great deal due to his good performance in the second Dempsey fight but his resume is unimpressive. Renault was blackballed by Jack Kearns after giving Dempsey a tough time in a sparring session. Renault did not get a shot despite stopping George Godfrey, Fred Fulton, and Floyd Johnson back to back. Dempsey himself went from Dec, 1920 to Sept 1926 defending against only one real heavyweight, Firpo, who knocked him out of the ring, and two lightheavies, Carpentier and Gibbons.)

1940's---underrated-Lee Savold-----overrated-Buddy Baer (Savold has 17 victories against ever Ring rated fighters and made the ratings 7 times, rising to #2 contender. He was actually recognized as champion by the BBBC. Baer had only three victories over ever Ring rated fighters, Abe Simon, Nathan Mann, and Tony Galento. In fairness, he gave Louis a good fight in his first effort and did get an 8 round newspaper decision over Savold. Baer, though, despite an impressive percentage record against a great deal of second rate competition was rated only twice, at #6 in 1940 & #7 in 1941. Buddy is considered formidable mainly because of his size, not his accomplishments.)

[zadfrak]

60's underrated
Ernie Terrell. Not a style to look good against & hardly an eay guy to get out of there & more like a guy to avoid.

overrated

Zora Folley. He was slipping and on the other side of the mountain by the mid 60's.

70's underrated

Jimmy Young. When he was on that run from say 75-77, nobody was in for an easy night's work. And not exactly feather fisted since he could get an opponents respect with that nice sneaky right hand he threw. And just how many other guys ever feinted Ali the way this guy did?

Knoetze. Big big hitter and brawler of the first order. He certainly wasn't the type to go undefeated for very long ,but if a guy lost to him it was going to be by brutal ko & the heavyweights don't come back from brutal ko's too well. Very dangerous guy.

Overrated

Norton. A very good solid fighter, but there were some matchups that weren't made & that's probably to his benefit. I don't think fares too well ever in a Foreman rematch/Lyle/Frazier/Shavers had wanted the guy for years/ both Knoetze and Coetzee/Mercado/and the up and comers like Tate and Dokes and Page would've been a lot tougher than the Ledoux and Cobb matchups.

[SuzieQ49]

Great stuff so far i hope this catches on

[PowerPuncher]

40s Underated

Elmer Ray - went 57-1 from 1943-1947, including a win and a close MD loss to Walcott, and a win over Ezzard Charles. 1 of the greatest fighters to never get his shot

Bivins - went 27-0 before losing to Walcott, beating Walcott, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, Lee Q Murray, Lee Savold, Maxim. 1 of the greatest LHWs and another great black HW who didn't get his shot

Overrated

Jersey Joe Walcott - got Ray, Bivins and Charles on the decline, highlight of his career was was a lucky punch win during a series of 4 fights he got outboxed in by Charles (including the gift in the 4th). Some horrible KO losses, inconsistencies, bad losses and lack of a long consistent winning run hurts him

[Loewe]

2000s:
underrated:
Chris Byrd and John Ruiz. Mostly due to their fan un-friendly styles but their body of work is quite impressive. I also think they would be able to hold their own in nearly any era - especially Ruiz.

overrated:
V. Klitschko. His body of work lacks about everything and his claim to fame is a loss. Great comeback though and would give many fighters in the history of the sport fits due to his style and awkwardness.

[PowerPuncher]

2000s:
underrated:
Chris Byrd and John Ruiz. Mostly due to their fan un-friendly styles but their body of work is quite impressive. I also think they would be able to hold their own in nearly any era - especially Ruiz.

overrated:
V. Klitschko. His body of work lacks about everything and his claim to fame is a loss. Great comeback though and would give many fighters in the history of the sport fits due to his style and awkwardness.

Agreed that Byrd and Ruiz have better resumes but Vitali beats them both.

Vitali is overrated because hes never been in with many other top contenders and hence his dominance is expected. I don't think Peter is better than the Mercer 43yo Holmes schooled, I'd say worse

[janitor]

Jersey Joe Walcott - got Ray, Bivins and Charles on the decline, highlight of his career was was a lucky punch win during a series of 4 fights he got outboxed in by Charles (including the gift in the 4th). Some horrible KO losses, inconsistencies, bad losses and lack of a long consistent winning run hurts him

You are selling poor Jersey Joe short a bit here.

If you look at the rankings he basicaly cleaned out the division to get his shot at Louis.

I would dispute that he got Ray Bivins and Charles on the decline.

Lucky punch?

Walcott made his own luck in that fight and he was ahead when he knocked Charles out anyway.

[My dinner with Conteh]

80s. I'll lay off Tucker for a while and say the lummox Tyrell Biggs, a poor man's Mark Breland (yeah, that bad). Totally hyped by the Yanks into being something he never was. Boring style, that never improved since his amateur days. As soon as he stepped up was easily beaten by just about everybody.

[My dinner with Conteh]

"A lucky punch". Clearly one of the most perfectly executed KO's in boxing history.

[SuzieQ49]

Overrated

Jersey Joe Walcott - got Ray, Bivins and Charles on the decline, highlight of his career was was a lucky punch win during a series of 4 fights he got outboxed in by Charles (including the gift in the 4th). Some horrible KO losses, inconsistencies, bad losses and lack of a long consistent winning run hurts him


If you dont mind me chiming in....


1. would u consider bivins to be on the decline despite being 26 years old, # 1 rated, and on a 27-0 run leading up to the walcott fight?

2. would u consider ray to be on the decline despite being # 1 rated, and on a 57-1 run leading up to the walcott fight?

3. Would u consider charles to be on the decline despite being 29 year old heavyweight champion on a 24-0 4 year unbeaten streak?


too me at least, it seems quite the opposite. that these guys were at there absolute peaks on the best winning streaks of there careers when walcott beat them.

highlight of his career was was a lucky punch win during a series of 4 fights he got outboxed in by Charles (including the gift in the 4th).

Please what is your definition of a lucky punch vs a beautifully timed artistic punch?? Charles got no gift in the 4th fight, he stopped fighting after the 11th and let walcott close strong winning him the fight.

I would also question your stance of walcotts "one highlight" of his career(despite that being a famous and all time classic one that deserves a ton of credit defiying adversity)...I would like to say another one of his highlights was going 10-1 against ring magazine opposition from 1945-1947 including a 2 knockdown boxing lesson he gave to long time unbeaten heavyweight champion joe louis that should have won him the crown.


Some horrible KO losses, inconsistencies, bad losses and lack of a long consistent winning run hurts him

what horrible knockouts did he suffer near his prime?

what bad losses did he suffer near his prime?

you claim his lack of long consistent winning, but from 1945-1947 walcott went 10-1 against Ring Magazine rated fighters.

Elmer Ray - went 57-1 from 1943-1947, including a win and a close MD loss to Walcott, and a win over Ezzard Charles. 1 of the greatest fighters to never get his shot

Bivins - went 27-0 before losing to Walcott, beating Walcott, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, Lee Q Murray, Lee Savold, Maxim. 1 of the greatest LHWs and another great black HW who didn't get his shot


just like u said Bivins was 26 years old on the best winning streak of his career before walcott knocked him down, and "walcott outboxed him the whole way"(new york times)...so it seems ur agreeing with me that the one to stop bivins on his absolute tear through the division WAS WALCOTT.


just like u said ray went 57-1 in a 5 year span...but who the guy who ended this streak to slow down the red hott ray? jersey joe walcott



Just find it ironic that 2 guys whom you claim are underated had there career best winning streaks ended by the man who is your most "overated"!!!!

[OLD FOGEY]

40s Underated

Elmer Ray - went 57-1 from 1943-1947, including a win and a close MD loss to Walcott, and a win over Ezzard Charles. 1 of the greatest fighters to never get his shot

Bivins - went 27-0 before losing to Walcott, beating Walcott, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, Lee Q Murray, Lee Savold, Maxim. 1 of the greatest LHWs and another great black HW who didn't get his shot

Overrated

Jersey Joe Walcott - got Ray, Bivins and Charles on the decline, highlight of his career was was a lucky punch win during a series of 4 fights he got outboxed in by Charles (including the gift in the 4th). Some horrible KO losses, inconsistencies, bad losses and lack of a long consistent winning run hurts him


You imply Bivins defeated Walcott at least once. I don't think he did.

[PowerPuncher]

If you dont mind me chiming in....


1. would u consider bivins to be on the decline despite being 26 years old, # 1 rated, and on a 27-0 run leading up to the walcott fight?

2. would u consider ray to be on the decline despite being # 1 rated, and on a 57-1 run leading up to the walcott fight?

3. Would u consider charles to be on the decline despite being 29 year old heavyweight champion on a 24-0 4 year unbeaten streak?

4. too me at least, it seems quite the opposite. that these guys were at there absolute peaks on the best winning streaks of there careers when walcott beat them.

5. Please what is your definition of a lucky punch vs a beautifully timed artistic punch?? Charles got no gift in the 4th fight, he stopped fighting after the 11th and let walcott close strong winning him the fight.

6. I would also question your stance of walcotts "one highlight" of his career(despite that being a famous and all time classic one that deserves a ton of credit defiying adversity)...I would like to say another one of his highlights was going 10-1 against ring magazine opposition from 1945-1947 including a 2 knockdown boxing lesson he gave to long time unbeaten heavyweight champion joe louis that should have won him the crown.

7. what horrible knockouts did he suffer near his prime?

8. what bad losses did he suffer near his prime?

9. you claim his lack of long consistent winning, but from 1945-1947 walcott went 10-1 against Ring Magazine rated fighters.

10. just like u said Bivins was 26 years old on the best winning streak of his career before walcott knocked him down, and "walcott outboxed him the whole way"(new york times)...so it seems ur agreeing with me that the one to stop bivins on his absolute tear through the division WAS WALCOTT.

11. just like u said ray went 57-1 in a 5 year span...but who the guy who ended this streak to slow down the red hott ray? jersey joe walcott

12. Just find it ironic that 2 guys whom you claim are underated had there career best winning streaks ended by the man who is your most "overated"!!!!

:lol: Hook line and sinker :yep Yes I wasn't going to do an overrated but couldnt resist bating Suzie :lol: Walcott isnt overrated although some of the points still stand:

1/10. Yes Bivins declined because in 1946 the year he lost to Walcott he started losing to fighters he clearly beating and in some case dominating in the past such as Charles, Maxim, Lee Q Murray and Moore

2/11. Ray only fought for 2 more years after the disputed Walcott loss, if truth be told both fights are exceedingly close

3. Charles relied on physical gifts which drop off in the mid 20s, I'd say he was partly past prime, but Charles got the better of the series anyway

4. Great wins, maybe all were a little jaded though

5. That was a wind up, but my point is Charles clearly won the first 2 and arguably won the last, outside of that KO punch Walcott isnt looking that good

6/9. Actually Walcott found it hard going a year without a loss and your wrong from 1945-1947 Walcott had 4 losses not 1, illustrating my point

7. Abe Simon, Louis, Marciano - the last 2 arent too harmful because they're greats the first is

8. Maxim/Simon

12. As mentioned I don't really see Walcott as overrated (by anyone except yourself :yep )

[zadfrak]

Biggs is definately an overrated guy. He was just fortunate to be part of that great Duva stable from that timeframe. But anybody that bothered to watch that David Bey fight knew had zero chance against a Tyson, based on that earlier form.

[ChrisPontius]

Underrated: another vote for Jimmy Young. He has a boring style, but when he hit his prime, he'd give hell to anyone. Although he lost officially, most (myself included) thought he beat Ali, he decisively beat Foreman with a knockdown in the final round, had a close one with Norton that could've gone both ways (again, didn't get the verdict), and should've gotten the win against Shavers in the rematch. He also did quite well against Cooney until he suffered a horrendous cut. His prime was very short however, which is remarkable because boxers his style usually age slow. I guess those Philly gym wars took a lot out of him.

Overrated: Ken Norton. He matched up great with pure boxers, but chocked against pressure fighters. He could beat the greatest boxer one night, and lose to a journeyman pressure fighter the next.

[red cobra]

So say you pick the 1950s and 1990s .....pick a few contenders from the 1950s and 1990s u thought were underated, state your reasons why......then switch and pick a few 1950s and 90s contenders you think are overated.....and why?


you can pick ANY decade in heavyweight history, you can also pick more than one decade to do and as many fighters per decade as u want.....enjoy this!




Example:


1980s:


Underated:


Tony Tubbs- Very talented boxer with goodhandspeed, who never got exposed by anyone other than tyson. At his best, I think he was one of the better 1980s alpha champions...but unfortuntley because of his excess weight, people tend to vastly underate him.

Pinklon Thomas- People always talk about spoon, what about thomas? thomas whupped spoon cleanly in there fight.....and was undefeated WBC champion and # 1 RATED heavyweight 2 years running(some had him rated over holmes!)....part of what hurts thomas legacy is a his lack of a legacy defining unification fight with holmes, but thats not thomas fault since holmes legite ducked thomas....plus his drug problem, but the thomas at his best is a top 5 heavyweight of the decade with one of the best jabs i have ever seen.....I think he takes holmes in 1984.




Overated:

Frank Bruno- Never beat anyone of note in the 1980s lost all of his big fights in the 1980s....He had major stamina flaws in the 1980s.

Evander Holyfield- I dont think his wins over far past there prime versions of dokes, thomas, and tillis and struggle with alex stewart shows me he was capable of taking mike tyson in 1988-1990.


thats just an example
Something was wrong upstairs with Thomas, IMO, as his form against Witherspoon, especially that world quality left jab was so impressive to me. If he could have gotten his head on straight, for whatever reason, to replicate that fight every time out, he would have been truly great.

[Marciano Frazier]

40s Underated

Elmer Ray - went 57-1 from 1943-1947, including a win and a close MD loss to Walcott, and a win over Ezzard Charles. 1 of the greatest fighters to never get his shot

Bivins - went 27-0 before losing to Walcott, beating Walcott, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, Lee Q Murray, Lee Savold, Maxim. 1 of the greatest LHWs and another great black HW who didn't get his shot
For the note, Bivins never beat Walcott.

[Marciano Frazier]

1/10. Yes Bivins declined because in 1946 the year he lost to Walcott he started losing to fighters he clearly beating and in some case dominating in the past such as Charles, Maxim, Lee Q Murray and Moore
He did start losing to Charles and Moore (his results against Murray didn't really change much- prior to this he'd had a disputed win followed by a clear win, and he did later beat Murray again), but this is more due to the fact that they were maturing and peaking than that Bivins was declining.

2/11. Ray only fought for 2 more years after the disputed Walcott loss, if truth be told both fights are exceedingly close
I haven't seen any newspaper account that disputed the decision in Walcott's 1947 win over Ray. Note also that Walcott had Ray down in the first, third and fourth rounds.

3. Charles relied on physical gifts which drop off in the mid 20s, I'd say he was partly past prime, but Charles got the better of the series anyway

4. Great wins, maybe all were a little jaded though

5. That was a wind up, but my point is Charles clearly won the first 2 and arguably won the last, outside of that KO punch Walcott isnt looking that good
Note that Walcott was winning the third fight even before he landed that knockout punch. It was an all-around great performance in my book.

7. Abe Simon, Louis, Marciano - the last 2 arent too harmful because they're greats the first is

8. Maxim/Simon
1. The Abe Simon fight was a short-notice match in 1940, when Walcott was an obscure manual laborer who boxed on the side to keep putting food on the table, not even close to so much as being in consideration for the top 10, and he was actually winning until he ran out of gas- not even CLOSE to "prime" Walcott. Walcott can't be reasonably considered to have been in his prime before about 1945-46.
2. Let it be pointed out that the Maxim loss was a disputed decision, and the AP scorecard had the match 6-3-1 for Walcott.

[sitiyzal]

Tubb's is very underrated in some circles. His loss against Butler is a certified dive, and he was handily beating Brian Nielson until he retired on his stool out of nowhere citing a "rib injury".

If Tubbs-Butler was a certified dive, both deserved numerous oscars, especially in best directing & cinematography.

[SuzieQ49]

1/10. Yes Bivins declined because in 1946 the year he lost to Walcott he started losing to fighters he clearly beating and in some case dominating in the past such as Charles, Maxim, Lee Q Murray and Moore


honestly ur dead wrong here


Bivins was 26 years old in 1946 and on a 28-0 run, how does that lessen walcotts victory?


The only reason bivins dominated charles and moore were because charles and mooore were NOWHERE near there peaks and MUCH smaller when bivins fought them. once moore and charles matured physically they easily dominated bivins because THEY WERE MUCH BETTER FIGHTERS



bivins DID NOT dominate lee q murray, in fact the 2nd fight was considered such an outrageous decision that there was an investigation. lee q murray beat bivins according to reports in the 2nd fight.



face it, bivins in 1946 at 26 years old is nowhere near past his prime. On film, he did not look past his prime in 1947 in the bits I have of him.




7. Abe Simon, Louis, Marciano - the last 2 arent too harmful because they're greats the first is



Exactley how was walcott in his prime vs simon in 1940? he took the fight on 24 hr notice with little to no food in his stomach, had not yet met up with felix bocchicio, and had not got to train for the fight.

2nd have u read a fight report? walcott DOMINATED simon winning the first 5 rounds before walcotts lack of condition/health gave out on him and he collasped and was counted out.

[SuzieQ49]

8. Maxim/Simon


walcott near his prime in 1940? since when?


ps how was the maxim loss a bad loss considering The new york times and AP report scored the fight for walcott and declared "The Clevelander Maxim won a VERY unpopular decision here last night".