Most Overrated

Most Overrated black fighter

  • Jack Johnson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joe Louis

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sugar Ray Robinson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Muhammad Ali

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mike Tyson

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Gary

Mentor
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
1,050
While ESPN sniffs the jock straps of these fighters almost every night, how good were they really? All were good, all had talent but were they as great as the media would have us believe?
Johnson was knocked out by Joe Choynski, who then taught him how to fight while in jail. He lost to Marvin Hart, and suffered 14 defeats including a KO to Jess Willard. Johnson would be lucky to go 3 rounds with Dempsey.
Louis was dropped many times in his career. He was outboxed by 174 pound Billy Conn. He was ko'd in his prime by Max Schmeling. He was given a gift decision against Tommy Farr. His title was frozen during the war, when the best men were dying in the war, and Louis drank coke at the U.S.O. A prime Marciano knocks out a prime Louis in 10 rounds.
Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 fights in his career. He was beaten by men like Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Terry Downes, Joey Giardello. He could have never beaten the true pound for pound best (and best middleweight) Harry Greb.
Muhammad Ali is perhaps the most overrated fighter of all. He was beaten five times, and had five gift decisions. He was knocked down and out by 185 pound Henry Cooper, but was saved by Angelo Dundee's "torn glove". He was knocked down by light punching 191 pound Sonny Banks. He was knocked down by journeyman Chuck Wepner. He lost to Leon Spinks, the worst Heavyweight Champion in history. He wanted to quit in the first Liston fight, but was pushed back into the ring. He came along at the right time (during the civil rights movement) and was therefore the darling of the media. The computer was right in 1967 when Jeffries was picked over Ali in the all-time heavyweight tournament.
Mike Tyson was short at 5'10. He lost 6 fights, and never looked good against a big fighter (Douglas, Lewis or McBride who made him quit). He was lucky to have come along at a weak era where victories over guys like Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, and Pinklon Thomas were considered enough to make him great. He never had to face the top Russians. He would have stood no chance against Vitali Klitschko, who would have stopped him in 5 rounds. Edited by: Gary
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
I say Ali mainly because I believe he was more hyped than anybody before or since. You'd have to be as great in your sport as oh, say... Tiger Woods before you'd deserve that kinda hype.
smiley2.gif
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
330
Location
Missouri
Tyson, no doubt...quitter, rapist, head case, ear biter. At least the other ones on the list at least fought decentlyagainst top notch opponents.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Ali the most overrated by far. Way too much hype for a guy that got knocked down and lost a lot. As WS mentioned it was all about timing for him and that period in history.

Next Tyson. Weak era and he was too small. He was another PR success because he was such a caricture. He also generated so much out of the ring publicity due to the idiotic way he lived his life.

Jack Johnson. Not really much of a fighter in an era when the fight game was just in it's infancy. He is hyped now because he lived much like blacks aspire to live today. Abusing white woman, insulting white people and culture. He's was just a cult figure more then a good boxer.

Louis and Robinson were both decent fighters and seemed to be decent men. They had some success in the last days of segregated America so they are celebrated more for that then anything else.
 

Liverlips

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
4,197
Excellent post, Gary. You sure know your boxing. I voted for Johnson based on his record at boxrec.com. He seems to be mostly a media creation with a career made on a win over a man (Jeffries) who had been retired for 6-7 years and who was way past his prime and out of shape. And, as you say, none of these guys had to face the Eastern Europeans. A big asterisk belongs next to their records as we now see who controls the fighting sports.
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
mrjohnnynofear said:
Do you think they honored Ali more for his politics and him being the grandfather of trash-talking than him being a fighter?


The seeds of our destruction were sown in the sixties. Ali was used to further the agenda. He was a major figureheadand poster-boy. If he had come along in the seventies, eighties, or nineties, he would have generated little attention.
 

nopictures

Guru
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
114
I'd definitely say Ali is the most overrated, most sports casters mention his name with little else but reverence and awe at this mahogany boxing god! Though Mike Tyson being famous for knocking out people that had little business in the ring in the first place is irksome (<-- that is a word, black) he was at least entertaining in and out of the ring, if not a horrible horrible person.

http://www.youtube.com/v/l9vOldinChQ

Edited by: nopictures
 

lumsdenpower

Mentor
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
958
Location
Quebec
Mike Tyson, he just beat bum by KO and that was spectacular, he was good, but not like the media have tried to tell us
 

ironfist

Guru
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
138
Jack Johnson. If Jess Willard could beat him,imagine what Wlad or Vitali would have done to him.
smiley36.gif
 

JD074

Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Kentucky
I voted for Tyson. I would consider Tyson, Johnson, and Ali to be overrated, but not so much Louis and Robinson.

To be fair, half of Johnson's losses were at the end of his career, when he was in his 40's and 50's! His last fight was in 1938, when he was 60 years old! (He was 37 when he fought Willard, I didn't know that.) Robinson also fought way too long, losing 10 fights after the age of 40. If you look at his record from 1940 to about 1957, it's pretty spectacular. But Fullmer and Basilio fought him very well. Louis was 69-3, and after he lost to Schmeling, didn't lose for another 14 years.
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
461
I picked Joe Louis because most of his carrer was during the WWII Korea era when most of the young healthy competition was part of the US Military.
 

Charles Martel

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
8,484
Muhammed Ali was more hype than great boxer. He was given credit for fights he lost (one of his 2 wins over Foreman and one of his 2 wins over Norton should have been losses, and there were at least two more "gifts"). I believe George Foreman, who unlike Ali really was a great boxer, was drugged by Don King's people for his fight with Ali.Edited by: JD1986
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
Ali, there really isn't even a contest here. The very fact that most boxing commentators will put Ali ahead of Joe Louis, much less every White fighter to come down the pipe, is a sign of how mindless the whole thing is.

Ali never really learned to box. I know most people will gasp at that, but it's true. He relied on his extradordinary natural hand speed, long reach, and ability to hop about the ring. He also took more shots than anyone gives credit far, especially later he relied on toughness and his admittedly iron jaw, a thing which no doubt contributed to his brain damage. He never really learned a great deal about defense, never learned to either give or defend body shots. (He thought they didn't matter; Pity no none except Chuck Wepner, Joe Frazier, and perhaps Rocky Marciano ever made him pay the price.) His boxing "style" was equivalent, if I may make the anology, to a fencing match where the other guy has a foil a foot shorter. If you can make your talents work for you, well and good, but he was no boxing genius. And later in his career, as I mentioned, his style often seemed to consist of letting opponents pound him until they tired, then pouncing. He was ALLOWED to use and perfect every single trick of holding, clinching, pulling down the other's guys head, and etc. No questionable means of preventing the opponent from closing and taking him out of his best (only) range was ever denied to the "Greatest".

Joe Louis was a great fighter, but how he is treated in the media is ironic isn't it? Today the media claims that E. European HWs have no opposition because supposedly all the athletic blacks are in the NFL and NBA. But no one dares suggest that Louis's career was in anyway enhanced by the fact that most able-bodied males were attending WWII. He was cleanly beaten by Schmelling, an older, smaller HW. Boxing commentators act as if Schmelling somehow used a dirty trick by throwing an counter-right to Louis' jab, as if it was something Louis had never seen before and the whole thign was a fluke. Lous beat an even older Schmelling convincingly late, of course. I'd say getting off a really good combination early in the fight that breaks the opponent's rib is a good bit of fortune for a guy who had trouble in long fights with more canny opponents, but of course Louis' win is seen as inorexable, manifest destiny.Edited by: White_Savage
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,179
White_Savage said:
Ali, there really isn't even a contest here. The very fact that most boxing commentators will put Ali ahead of Joe Louis, much less every White fighter to come down the pipe, is a sign of how mindless the whole thing is.

Ali never really learned to box. I know most people will gasp at that, but it's true. He relied on his extradordinary natural hand speed, long reach, and ability to hop about the ring. He also took more shots than anyone gives credit far, especially later he relied on toughness and his admittedly iron jaw, a thing which no doubt contributed to his brain damage. He never really learned a great deal about defense, never learned to either give or defend body shots. (He thought they didn't matter; Pity no none except Chuck Wepner, Joe Frazier, and perhaps Rocky Marciano ever made him pay the price.) His boxing "style" was equivalent, if I may make the anology, to a fencing match where the other guy has a foil a foot shorter. If you can make your talents work for you, well and good, but he was no boxing genius. And later in his career, as I mentioned, his style often seemed to consist of letting opponents pound him until they tired, then pouncing. He was ALLOWED to use and perfect every single trick of holding, clinching, pulling down the other's guys head, and etc. No questionable means of preventing the opponent from closing and taking him out of his best (only) range was ever denied to the "Greatest".

Joe Louis was a great fighter, but how he is treated in the media is ironic isn't it? Today the media claims that E. European HWs have no opposition because supposedly all the athletic blacks are in the NFL and NBA. But no one dares suggest that Louis's career was in anyway enhanced by the fact that most able-bodied males were attending WWII. He was cleanly beaten by Schmelling, an older, smaller HW. Boxing commentators act as if Schmelling somehow used a dirty trick by throwing an counter-right to Louis' jab, as if it was something Louis had never seen before and the whole thign was a fluke. Lous beat an even older Schmelling convincingly late, of course. I'd say getting off a really good combination early in the fight that breaks the opponent's rib is a good bit of fortune for a guy who had trouble in long fights with more canny opponents, but of course Louis' win is seen as inorexable, manifest destiny.
Ali's skills are seen in Jones. Jones looked superhuman when he had the flashy reflexes, but once he slowed down he has lost to a mediocre fighter in Tarver and really just a good clubfighter in Johnson. Jones though lacks the toughness of an Ali.
 

Maple Leaf

Mentor
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
883
Location
Ontario
It does not surprise me to see Ali leading this pole. This may be the fairest pole and most accurate results ever done here at Caste.

Ali was so full of himself he had no idea he was a media creation. During the civil rights movement in the U.S. the ruling class needed black heros. Ali was chosen. He took this cake he was given and then went on to eat it all by himself. He really believed he was the greatest of all time, the greatest ever.

He fought mostly men smaller than himself or with limited ability. He had some luck and some physochological advantage over many of his opponents. Many of his opponents also thought he was the greatest. Some of his fights were ridiculously matched. Bugner, for example, was at best a sparring partner. Another clutz, Leon Spinks, was only 7-0 when he beat Ali for the title. Pathetic stuff that.

Ali at his best only had legs for 3-4 rounds. He was no knock out puncher either. Many good boxing big men would work him for the few rounds he had legs, and then back him up with their long reach, and selectively take him appart.
 

JD074

Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Kentucky
White_Savage said:
He was cleanly beaten by Schmelling, an older, smaller HW. Boxing commentators act as if Schmelling somehow used a dirty trick by throwing an counter-right to Louis' jab, as if it was something Louis had never seen before and the whole thign was a fluke. Lous beat an even older Schmelling convincingly late, of course.

Schmeling was only 32 when Louis beat him. If anything, Louis may have been too young in their first fight, only 22.
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,179
Louis was too young and always had that flaw, but fighters after Schmeling couldn't do anything about it. But 32 in the 30's isn't to be confused with 32 now. Guys burnt out much younger then because of too many fights and fighting younger. Also after bad ko losses top fighters were back in the ring quickly and ruined their careers with post concusion syndrome. Also PED usage wasn't thought of so aging athletes aged quickly....
 

JD074

Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Kentucky
Excellent points. Of course, you could say the same thing about Johnson and Robinson, who were even older when they lost most of their fights.

And Ali, 3 of his 5 losses were after the age of 36. Edited by: JD074
 

guest301

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
4,246
Location
Ohio
Ali, hands down. He's a top ten heavyweight at best. I guess if you keep saying "I'm the greatest" long and loud enough, the sheeple will believe it.
 

Hockaday

Guru
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
382
I think it's Tyson. Most of his early victims were stiffs, and he didn't have much of a reign when he was champ. He never really lived up to the invincible aura everyone bought into.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
2,988
I started reading about boxing in 1960, age 10, by following the newspaper accounts of the Patterson-Johansson fights. At that time, NONE of the great champions of the past were called "overrated." There were writers still around who had covered Jack Dempsey. Jack Johnson's talent was highly praised by the old-line writers, as well.

I had a subscription to Sport Magazine and read many articles about boxing past and present. Floyd Patterson was considered a mediocre heavyweight champion, but a nice guy. Rocky Marciano was rated a very good champion, but below Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Johnson, Jeffries. You would read constantly that the "old-timers were better than the fighters today."

There wasn't much about race aside from some prominent black fighters involved with the civil rights movement. When Sonny Liston became the No.1 heavyweight contender, Liston's suitability became an issue. Believe it or not, before the 60's, the heavyweight champion was supposed to be an example of dignified behavior. Jack Johnson was sometimes criticized before the mid-60's for "doing the wrong things."

Ali changed the environment. A lot. He would mock his opponents, something previous champions didn't do. Race became a main subject. His act had worn thin even before he beat Liston. Ali was a bore as much as anything. Ali sensed that there was a mood that he could take advantage of, even if he didn't know what the writers and commentators were talking about. Most of the older writers disliked Ali, but the younger ones worshiped him, which has continued.

Joe Louis beat all the top fighters from 1935-41. He had cleaned out the contenders from 1935 until winning the title in 1937, losing only to Schmeling, whom he KO'd in 1 round in 1938. Jack Dempsey lost 4 fights before hooking up with Doc Kearns. Gene Tunney lost to Harry Greb in 1922.

I don't think "overrated" in the modern sense really applies to men who were considered "great" in their time. Debunking the past is another 60's innovation which became permanent. Just my two cents.
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,383
Location
Minnesota
sport historian said:
I don't think "overrated" in the modern sense really applies to men who were considered "great" in their time. Debunking the past is another 60's innovation which became permanent. Just my two cents.

Well I like to form my own opinions regardless of what "writers" said then or say now. I think Rocky Marciano is a Great champion not just "good." I also think that cases can be made that certain black old time fighters were indeed over-rated. We've dedicated many threads to my vote "Jack Johnson." IMHO there is no reason Johnson should be considered a "great" and Rocky just a "good." It's in the archives. It's healthy to form your opinions and think for yourself. Writers do it - why can't we?
 
Top