Overrated ATG’s

Marciano's fight against Walcott was fixed

He beat nothing but washed up greats and would've literally died in the ring if he stuck around for Liston
Marciano sure put himself through some hell if the first fight was fixed .... but I’m assuming you’re referring to the rematch
 
Am I though? Fought holyfield just a tiny bit before he was completely shot. Fought a completely shot tyson. Lost to lesser fighters, don't care if he won the rematches, he should've never lost to them.

Refused to fight ruiz and byrd, and finally got the gift from god of a lifetime in the form of Vitalis cut before he retired from boxing as he wanted none of the Byrd/Klitchko/ruiz/Brewster championship separation that Lennox created himself by vacating his belts in the first place.

Everyone makes fun of bowe for dropping his belt instead of fighting Lewis but Lewis did the same shit and if he rematched Vitali Vitali would have beaten him into a coma and bowe would probably chin him too
So much bullshit in one post ...hoping you don’t really believe this shit lol
 
How?
Golota didn't beat anyone?

You right.my bad.


But beating a washed up Great like Ali doesn't be u become a AtG. Norton beat Ali one time but Meh. He didn't go on a run and prove it wasn't just a fluke or Ali getting Old overnight. Like saying Ruiz is a Goat cause he beat AJ and AJ had 3 belts at the time
 
@President will back me Up.


@Mofonzy
 
Curious what Camacho wins impressed you ?
Ramirez and Rosario were signature wins probably his best wins, Bramble, Pazienza, Mancini and Haugen were just names by the time he fought them, the Ramirez win to me is the best one for Macho, and speaking of Ramirez, there’s underrated one, before there was JCC there was Ramirez, similar styles, similar upbringing anyway, Ramirez gave everyone hell
 
Ramirez and Rosario were signature wins probably his best wins, Bramble, Pazienza, Mancini and Haugen were just names by the time he fought them, the Ramirez win to me is the best one for Macho, and speaking of Ramirez, there’s underrated one, before there was JCC there was Ramirez, similar styles, similar upbringing anyway, Ramirez gave everyone hell
In that case .... I’ll put Camacho as a overrated Fighter ....Ramirez was extremely underrated , but besides the Whitaker gift he lost to top guys most often
 
You right.my bad.


But beating a washed up Great like Ali doesn't be u become a AtG. Norton beat Ali one time but Meh. He didn't go on a run and prove it wasn't just a fluke or Ali getting Old overnight. Like saying Ruiz is a Goat cause he beat AJ and AJ had 3 belts at the time
Norton beat Ali at least twice ..., don’t care what biased shitty judges say
 
I'm surprised Sugar Ray Robinson hasn't been brought up yet. While certainly a historical boxer, I personally don't get why he's at no. 1 on so many lists... People are flexible with 2-20, but the no 1 spot often seems to be reserved for Robinson. I guess many people just see his big numerical record and don't look any deeper to see which opposition was behind it.

He was beatable, and he arguably ducked the Murderers Row,... and while being a great offensive boxer, he wasn't anywhere close to the great defensive boxers in history ... I'd say Duran was a more complete boxer in the sense that he combined offense and defense better... Floyd was slicker than Robinson... And I recall Emanuel Steward saying in an interview that they wouldn't let Robinson fight anyone taller than 5'9.
Robinson's defensive weapons were mostly his feet, comparable to Pacquaio. But Pac boxed a lot of opponents that were on eye-level or taller.

Robinson vs Leonard at 147, Robinson vs Hearns at 154, Robinson vs Hagler / Jones / Hopkins at 160... I wouldn't feel confident picking Robinson in any of those fights.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised Sugar Ray Robinson hasn't been brought up yet. While certainly a historical boxer, I personally don't get why he's at no. 1 on so many lists... People are flexible with 2-20, but the no 1 spot often seems to be reserved for Robinson. I guess many people just see his big numerical record and don't look any deeper to see which opposition was behind it.

He was beatable, and he arguably ducked the Murderers Row,... and while being a great offensive boxer, he wasn't anywhere close to the great defensive boxers in history ... I'd say Duran was a more complete boxer in the sense that he combined offense and defense better... Floyd was slicker than Robinson... And I recall Emanuel Steward saying in an interview that they wouldn't let Robinson fight anyone taller than 5'9.
Robinson's defensive weapons were mostly his feet, comparable to Pacquaio. But Pac boxed a lot of opponents that were on eye-level or taller.

Robinson vs Leonard at 147, Robinson vs Hearns at 154, Robinson vs Jones / Hopkins at 160... I wouldn't feel confident picking Robinson in any of those fights.
Now your just taking the piss.
 
A case can be made against pretty much any boxer in history. Weak era, physical or technical question marks, shot opponents, cherry picking, questionable decisions, etc. That’s one of the beauties of this sport. At the end of the day those who consistently keep getting mentioned as ATGs deserve it, I guess. A guy like Whitaker is one of the very few in History who can hardly get « overrated » in any way.
 
It's been discussed severel times on this forum. I also doubt that you heard about the Murderers Row before.
No idea at all. Your not referring to Burley and co by any chance. Rumor has it, that he said they would have to pay him a lot of money, to face Dave sands.
 
I'm surprised Sugar Ray Robinson hasn't been brought up yet. While certainly a historical boxer, I personally don't get why he's at no. 1 on so many lists... People are flexible with 2-20, but the no 1 spot often seems to be reserved for Robinson. I guess many people just see his big numerical record and don't look any deeper to see which opposition was behind it.

He was beatable, and he arguably ducked the Murderers Row,... and while being a great offensive boxer, he wasn't anywhere close to the great defensive boxers in history ... I'd say Duran was a more complete boxer in the sense that he combined offense and defense better... Floyd was slicker than Robinson... And I recall Emanuel Steward saying in an interview that they wouldn't let Robinson fight anyone taller than 5'9.
Robinson's defensive weapons were mostly his feet, comparable to Pacquaio. But Pac boxed a lot of opponents that were on eye-level or taller.

Robinson vs Leonard at 147, Robinson vs Hearns at 154, Robinson vs Hagler / Jones / Hopkins at 160... I wouldn't feel confident picking Robinson in any of those fights.

Don't agree. Go watch hanzagod's defensive highlights of Robinson.
You will see many instances of Robinson being defensively slick. He wasn't as consistent using these moves as Floyd or Pernell were, but he did have them and used them.
And most of those highlights are from his later years.
You can't judge him when you watch him not being that slick in a match that he is 38 years old and out of his prime.

See how Golovkin fights now that he hit the same age. After so many wars he's not the same guy.
In the same age and after a lot more wars than GGG he beat Basilio on a rematch and regained his belt, something nobody was expecting him to do.

I think in his prime was like Pep but with power in both hands.
He had the unbeaten record that made Floyd (hundreds of fights before his first loss) and the Ali against all odds performance. What else can you ask?
 
Don't agree. Go watch hanzagod's defensive highlights of Robinson.
You will see many instances of Robinson being defensively slick. He wasn't as consistent using these moves as Floyd or Pernell were, but he did have them and used them.
And most of those highlights are from his later years.
You can't judge him when you watch him not being that slick in a match that he is 38 years old and out of his prime.

See how Golovkin fights now that he hit the same age. After so many wars he's not the same guy.
In the same age and after a lot more wars than GGG he beat Basilio on a rematch and regained his belt, something nobody was expecting him to do.

I think in his prime was like Pep but with power in both hands.
He had the unbeaten record that made Floyd (hundreds of fights before his first loss) and the Ali against all odds performance. What else can you ask?

I'm familiar with the footage. Robinsons defense was his offense. It's got nothing to do with consistency - he simply was no Whitaker or Mayweather or Toney. He had a great chin and power, that's what he relied on.

And Golovkin started to neglect his defense a long time ago... It has nothing to do with age.
 
Jack Johnson? I mean he was great for what he was but, he probably deserves a mention. I’ve seen him called the greatest defensive fighter of all time. That’s a a gross overstatement if I’ve ever heard one.
 
It's been discussed severel times on this forum. I also doubt that you heard about the Murderers Row before.
Who in particular are locking in Over sugar?
Burley?
At the level of skills of all those guys it’s hard to say anybody beats anybody clearly every time hence their records as they all fought and won and lost against each other a shit ton of times.

Maybe you could argue Sugar drawing against the great Gavilan as a sign of him not being as far ahead of the pack as he is sometimes advertised as.. but I don’t think that negates his greatness it was just a great era full of fantastic fighters that unfortunately had some barriers to seeing all the best compete against each other.
 
Armstrong might actually torch him honestly
That would be an amazing fight.
Smothering and staying in Pryor face might be able to shut down his offensive machine. And it’s not like he never got touched
 
Back
Top