Overrated by Casuals/Underrated by Hardcores

List some guys who are overrated by casual fans, but get a bit too much flack from the hardcores.

I would think the best example is Tyson. Let me be the first to say, Mike Tyson is without a doubt THE MOST overrated fighter among casuals, and I say that as his biggest fan. If you asked 100 Joe Blows on the street who's the greatest fighter of all time, I'm pretty sure 85 of them would say Tyson. The other 15 would say Floyd.

Because Tyson is seen as the GOAT to mainstreamers, he's overrated in the general public.

HOWEVER, a lot of hardcores go to the other extreme, and underrate Tyson. I've heard some historians try to argue that Tyson doesn't even belong in the top 10 of heavyweights, and is barely top 15, which is when you start getting into ridiculousness in the other direction.

I would also list Trinidad and Mosley. In their primes, they were overrated by the mainstream, but they're so hated and bashed by hardcores, that both have become underrated among serious boxing fans.

Others?

 

Depends on how you define casual and hardcore. I don’t consider the mainstream to be casual boxing fans. I don’t even give the average talking head on ESPN that distinction. That’d be like calling me a casual fan of Formula One because I watched the movie Rush and know who Nicki Lauda and James Hunt are. You have to be interested enough to at least look into the sport yourself.

 

Yeah, while I hate Oscar, I do see some pretty ridiculous statements about him sometimes.

Saw someone say that bum ass Shawn Porter would beat Oscar. Yeah, that's a bit too much.

 

I agree on the Tyson thing
boxing fans real boxing fans have come to underrate him and I think it is in part due to the casuals overrating him.

 

The Klitschkos?

 

Wilder definitely overrated by casuals. Big bad tattoed undefeated black guy with a lot of ko's... must be the next tyson

 

Casual/Hardcore

Over/Under:

ODH
GGG

 

He talked his way into having people believe he was the next Tyson.

 

And in the same vein, Canelo - it's silly at this point to deny that he's anything other than a 1st ballot HoFer.

Also, Andre Ward.

 

I think everyone knows that Canelo is headed to the HOF.

 

Not everyone goes in on their 1st ballot, though.

 

That's just on popularity though, and you know it. OF COURSE Canelo is gonna be a first ballot HOFmer, but it's more based on the fact that he's a superstar, rather than an ATG.

How many guys are STILL waiting on the Hall who were better/greater than Canelo? There's quite a few.

 

I find almost every name in this thread overrated, which may or may not prove some of your points.

My pick would be Sugar Ray Robinson.

So many of the people who argue him as the GOAT, don't even know why he's great. They've heard the names Kid Gavilan and Jake LaMotta. That's it. For most, everything with Ray is a given. That it takes a hipster to even question him, and that he's absolutely resolute in his place as the GOAT, the most takent, the best etc. But in reality, it's not a given, its really close if true at all. His achievements stand up to any scrutiny, make no mistake, but if you compare them side by side with someone like Greb, or Charles, or Armstrong, you'd be able to feasibly rank him below them.

A lot of people bring up Robinson to disparage Mayweather. Almost in a "Floyd can't be the GOAT coz I know this guy!" kinda way. I've had a long, drawn out debate with someone who was embarrassingly trying to tell me that Mayweather wasn't the GOAT (and obviously, he isn't) by saying that the GOAT can't be a diva, or cherry pick. He then went on to site both Ray Leonard and Ray Robinson as two of the ten guys or so who should be above Mayweather. Like Robinson wasn't the biggest diva of his day. For me though, it's the way most people dismiss any attempt to have someone above Robinson, like that's fucking impossible.

Someone else could fully qualify, is actually Floyd. People shit on him coz they don't like him, but he was an ATG among ATGs. One of the very best between 130 and 140.

 

Using the HOF to prove a fighter's greatness is the biggest load of bollocks in all of boxing.

 

There isn't a an all time great that can't be picked apart. All of them can. No matter who your GOAT is, someone can tear them down if they wanted with valdity.

Floyd is only considered the GOAT by idiots because of his shiny record. That's the only reason.

It doesn't really stack up against Ray, considering Robinson was 129-1 at one point.

That kinda blows Floyd's precious record away.

 

It means something to the fighters, which is why it's a crime when they get snubbed.

 

Oh of course it does, I'm not saying anything otherwise there. They definitely deserve it, and it's why I don't mind somebody like Gatti getting in. He gave a lot to the sport and he's getting something back from it.

I mean when someone like Mendoza tries to use it do disparage somebody like Chang. Like it matters.

 

Not arguing that PBF is the Goat or that he's better/greater thant SRR, but the sport has changed so much since then. With the commission and medical suspension, it would be impossible for a boxer to fight as much

 

The sport changing is all the more reason why Robinson's record was more impressive.

How many guys back then had records so astounding? It was significantly harder to do.

How many nowadays go undefeated over a long period?

 

Actually, that quite comfortably leads me onto another point I meant to make in reply to X saying that modern greats are as great as their older counterparts.

IMO, they're not. The sport has gotten easier, that's not even remotely up for debate. The way the sport was governed and set up back before the 70s, was brutal. If you reached the top back then, it was because you were damn good. Nowadays, there's way too many fighters claiming to be elite and getting by solely on the amount of divisions, titles and political loopholes. Sure, there were a few mafia constructs and hype jobs then as well, but nowhere near as many. Plus, every division today is piss weak compared to the golden eras.

The only thing I absolutely have to stress, as it's quite a common theme for people who think older generations are greater, is that I have absolutely not come to the illogical conclusion that today's fighters aren't great at all. Mayweather is an ATG, top 40. Same with Pacquiao, and Jones.

And Olivares

 

Then maybe I should make a clearer distinction between greater and better.

Much as I hate Floyd, I cant say there's 40 fighters in history BETTER than him, I really can't.

I fully realize that casuals overrate the Hell outta him, but in all my years of watching boxing, both in the present and past, I cant say I've seen as much as 40 fighters better than Floyd.

 

Mayweather Jr is definitely among the top 25 fighters I've seen. The pre 1940s fighters may have fought more often and accomplished more but they would get humiliated going against a peak 130-135 pound Mayweather jr

 

My point exactly, and I think a lot of people would be disappointed to see that.

Just like they would be disappointed to see Roy wipe Greb off the face of the Earth in a few rounds.

 

I broadly agree, but there is a distinct difference between Greatest and Best IMO. I don't think I've seen ten better PBF, let alone 40. But that doesn't automatically translate to him being a top ten ATG.

 

We're in agreement here, as I dont have him top 10 either. Top 15-25, yes.

There are some lightweights I pick him over him H2H or could see beating him H2H; they include Duran, Williams, Whitaker, Ortiz, maybe Chavez.

But someone on Eastside once tried to argue with me that Benny Leonard would shut Floyd out.

Ummmm yeeeeaaaaahhhhh that's a pipe dream.

 

I don’t see how that’s any more of a pipe dream than Ike Williams beating him, to be honest.

You’re too rigid with your time frame on who’s modern and who isn’t. You think Harry Greb was a primitive caveman who would be destroyed by any modern great but you listed both Joe Louis and Henry Armstrong among your 8 greatest “modern” fighters in another thread.

Greb retired 5 years before Armstrong turned pro. Maxie Rosenbloom, one of Greb’s conquests when he was already half blind, was world champion when both Armstrong and Louis were still climbing the ranks in the mid 30s. Tommy Loughran was a top Heavyweight contender at the same time despite being an aging, bloated Lt. Heavy. Mickey Walker was still holding his own with some of the top Lt. Heavies and Heavies despite being smaller and older yet.

So when was the great divide?

 

I really think Floyd has become underrated.
I think haters of him hate more on his annoying "money" persona.. but for those that have watched him come up, since being a young man turning pro.. he was/is very impressive. People forget how dominate he was coming out of amateurs, he was knocking people OUT and looked very impressive very early

 

I generally think that in the 40s is when you really begin to see the emergence of the skills and techniques we've come to see today, but I never stated there weren't exceptions before that, and Louis and Armstrong were certainly exceptions.

Am I being too harsh on Greb? Possibly. But I find it hard to handicap him in matchups given the virtual non-existent film we have of him in action.

That's why I tend to shy away from matchups in general of guys who theres no footage of.

 

That’s what I always think about in regards to boxing “evolution”. In other sports like basketball and football, I think there’s more evolution in the past few decades. The O-line and D-lines of the NFL teams of the past would have to get bigger or else get dominated by the LOS by newer teams. NBA has gone so global the bigger guys are so versatile now.

When I hear people (usually on places like ESB or boxing Reddit) talk about “evolution in boxing”, I think, what exactly are they watching?

There was a noticeable evolution in styles in the 30s and 40s. The styles of the fighters before then are often tough to watch and assess. But since the changes in the 30s and 40s, what major changes have been made in styles? Toney and Floyd recently finished up long great careers by using old school styles. The 40s and 50s had guys such as Charles, Walcott, Benton, Moore, etc...whose styles influences others decades later. It just looks like peaks and valleys in boxing as opposed to the overall ability going up as in other sports. It’s not like styles have changed that much.

I can see the case of modern big HWs with skills being too much for some of HWs of the past, like Marciano. But Marciano would be a beast at cruiserweight today.