They don't have to be either or but are they closer to underrated or overrated. Give your own examples too. Ali is closer to overrated. The whole I'm the greatest schtick make people he beats anyone and everyone easily. Definitely closer to overrated than underrated. Tyson. Same thing. This ferocious monster who in his prime ko's a pride of lions blah blah. Definitely not overrated but definitely closer to overrated than underrated.
David Tua. Closer to underrated than overrated. Nowadays people think of Tua they think of a fat slob who a child could outbox. Young Tua was a tank that would run through a lot of bums that are contenders these days. Young Tua ko's Wilder quickly and viciously. Wilder is not ko'ing Tua nor is he keeping him at bay with his pathetic boxing skills. Vicious ko in 2.
Tyson is overrated by a lot of the general public, because a lot of idiots in the general public think he's the greatest fighter ever, and I ALWAYS check them on that shit. But Tyson is also underrated by a lot of uppity "historians" who write off his accomplishments. You know the type, the fuckin idiots who claim "Mike lost everytime somebody stood up to him." ... Ummn, no he didnt. THAT's underrating him.
I try to avoid discussion on terms like overrated or underrated because the definition of those terms are so vague. Overrated/underrated by who exactly? Sports fans, critics, the media, the comments section on the internet? Some combination of each? The same question can be asked whether it's an athlete, a band, a movie or a restaurant.
Agreed on both, especially Ali, cause Tyson, as X said , is underrated by a lot of so called ''historians''
I'd say RJ is now closer to underrated than overrated. There was so many pathetic performances, for so long, that we tend to think (me included) that anybody that could punch would ko him.
Definitely agree on Ali. Since he is the obvious n.1 hw of all time, it has a lot of people confusing this with unbeatable. I remeber a thread a long time ago where some posters were laughing at those who picked fellow atg Tyson (who would be the underdog but defnitively a live one) to beat him, which was just silly imo. A bit on the overrated side, I would probably also pick the Klitschko. It's not really their fault but the fact is they basically only ruled one half each of a very weak division (while it's understandable not to be willing to fight your own brother, you cannot give them the same accolade ). What you can hold against them though, is that they only fought 1 of the other 3 ''dominant'' (yeah they weren't elite but that's the best that was available at the moment), who on top of it, was the easiest one to beat for such huge behemoths (Byrd, who in fact bested Vitatly, the other 2 being Ruiz and Valuev). Add Wlad tendancy fo falter when under pressure and Vitaly super scrubby resume to the mix, I'm not sure if either one of them is really better than Fury, AJ or Wilder nor than the 1990's B-siders On the underrated spectrum, probably Hearns. He was not just a skilled boxer/puncher with a glass jaw, but one of the very best to ever laced them up.
Underrated, I would also pick Ruddock. It seems he never totatally recovered (or at least took his career as seriously) from the 2 extremely brutal Tyson fights, but when I see the skilless lugs we have now in the hw divison, who are praised yet whose only features is to be big and to carry a punch, I can't help but think Ruddock would at the very least be 50-50 with them.
I think Leonard is rated correctly. He truly is one of the greatest fighters to have ever laced up a pair of gloves.
I'm not saying he's not great. I'm just saying, if he has to be one or the other (overrated or underrated), he is overrated. A lot of people act like he's unbeatable.
I tend to agree. Many remember Leonard as a huge puncher, which he wasn't, and he also got hit way more than memory would tell. That said, he is among the greatest ever, obviously
