Your Top 5 overrated fighters...

First topic message reminder :

Pretty simple, and should be a good way of revealing more on fighters the board may not have been aware of you not rating.

Mine, in order:

01) Roy Jones Jr: Unfortunately didn't stretch himself, looked good against pap opposition, fought bum after bum and almost bought boxing to its knees.

02) Manny Pacquiao: For someone so highly rated i find it a bit random that he has such a huge problem with a counterpuncher style of fighter.

03) Tito Trinidad: Stuffed by Bhop, robbed DLH and is still seen by some to be a great.

04) Mike Tyson: Prime this prime that. 2 years we should judge him on? I don't think so.

05) Barry Mcguigan: Seems to get rated as a great for his out of ring exploits rather than what he did in the ring.

Now it's:


Minimumweight 307
Light Flyweight 504
Flyweight 717
Super Flyweight 655
Bantamweight 931
Super Bantamweight 1066
Featherweight 1285
Super Featherweight 1201
Lightweight 1568
Light Welterweight 1475
Welterweight 1533
Light Middleweight 1255
Middleweight 1260
Super Middleweight 886
Light Heavyweight 809
Cruiserweight 919
Heavyweight 1100

17471

At that rate of increase, I predict that Bob Fitzsimmons and Corbett were the only boxers at that time. His achievements don't look so special now.

wouldn't say roy jones was overrated most people on here would have him in their top 50 p4p so teh ring's ranking 0f number 44 is justified imo

i think hagler at 17 is ludricrous when gene tunney is rated at 30

azania wrote:Tunney was faster, had a better jab, threw more combinations, had better footwork. He was ahead of his times. He was disliked because he was not a brawler but a thinking boxer, plus he beat America's hero. He outpoints JJ with ease. JJ may have been a defensive wizard in his times but he never faced someone like Tunney. Tunney was an excellent defensive fighter and would be able to counter JJ's rushes whilst countering JJ, In many ways Tunney revolutionised boxing. He took on the style of another oldie in Corbett and improved on it. Does this make Corbett useless. Of course not. It simply puts him in the category of an innovator where others came along and inproved on his techniques. Do you think Fitz would get anywhere near Tunney to land his body punches without being countered to pieces?

Tunney was a fantastic boxer, no doubt - but faster, better jab, threw more combinations, better footwork: based upon what exactly?

Watch the johnson highlight - I will give you that Tunney's jab was superior to Johnson's - but not simply because he was born 20 years later. Simply because offensively, JJ tended not to use the jab so much as an offensive weapon - he was, however, an outstanding counterjabber - so there is no way that Tunney's jab just dominates the fight.

JJ was at least 10 pounds bigger than Tunney for most of his career - up to 30 pounds bigger. So yeah - Tunney's quicker but JJ is stronger.

JJ rushes? He didn't tend to "rush" opponents. Are we talking about a different jack johnson.

Johnson's excellent counter jab, combined with fantastic counterpunching and back foot boxing, combined with superior size and strength gives him every chance against Tunney, who was an excellent fighter.

Scottrf wrote:Now it's:


Minimumweight 307
Light Flyweight 504
Flyweight 717
Super Flyweight 655
Bantamweight 931
Super Bantamweight 1066
Featherweight 1285
Super Featherweight 1201
Lightweight 1568
Light Welterweight 1475
Welterweight 1533
Light Middleweight 1255
Middleweight 1260
Super Middleweight 886
Light Heavyweight 809
Cruiserweight 919
Heavyweight 1100

17471

At that rate of increase, I predict that Bob Fitzsimmons and Corbett were the only boxers at that time. His achievements don't look so special now.

Yeh - did worry if it would suffer from noone existed before the internet.

Size isn't everything. I'm sure you've heard that before!!!!

I will give you that Tunney's jab was superior to Johnson's - but not simply because he was born 20 years later.

Once again you are making assumptions based on nothing I've written. In fact you just made it up for the sake of point scoring. Where did I say that Tunney wins because he was born 20 years later? I said he would win because he had the knowledge of the so-called "fancy Dan" boxers ie jab and move which was learned from Corbett and improved on by Tunney. Its a skill thing and Tunney had the talent to apply that knowledge.

Yes JJ was a good counter jabber, but were to have more knowledge to counter the jab and speed of Tunney, he would win. He didn't imo. Tunney was simply too skilled for him. Tunney had better footwork also. In this fight, JJ would be the aggressor. Tunney was a better backfoot boxer that JJ due to his better footwork.

Now the issue is. Is Tunney more talented than JJ? Or does he win because he has developed more technique which would be very new to JJ?

From what I have seen from both guys, I'd say that JJ was the more talented of the 2 but Tunney had the knowledge.

Now, I believe Ruiz would beat Tunney and Tua would decapitate him.

Does that make Ruiz and Tua better in terms of ATG rankings? Pull the other one. They just know what Tunney would bring to the table because Tunney's style was not fully developed yet.

So Johnson never faced a good jabber? Then why did he become such a good counter jabber? Just because?

JJ was an outstanding counter jabber and he had brilliant footwork. Watch footage of him - I can only think of one or 2 occasions where he was ever off balance - and one of those was delivering a KO punch.

Why would JJ be "the aggressor"? He'd catch and counterjab all night and then grapple, hold and wear down Tunney - he was bigger and stronger than Tunney. Speed? JJ was comfortable enough with MWs - was Ketchel slower than Tunney?

Tunney's style wasn't fully developed? When was that "style" fully developed then?

Ruiz beats Tunney? I'm afraid you've jumped the shark there, Az.

superflyweight wrote:Ruiz beats Tunney? I'm afraid you've jumped the shark there, Az.

It really is silly isn't it.

How does he beat him ? With poison on his gloves ?

At least with the Tua prediction I can imagine it, but Ruiz really ?

oxring wrote:So Johnson never faced a good jabber? Then why did he become such a good counter jabber? Just because?

JJ was an outstanding counter jabber and he had brilliant footwork. Watch footage of him - I can only think of one or 2 occasions where he was ever off balance - and one of those was delivering a KO punch.

Why would JJ be "the aggressor"? He'd catch and counterjab all night and then grapple, hold and wear down Tunney - he was bigger and stronger than Tunney. Speed? JJ was comfortable enough with MWs - was Ketchel slower than Tunney?

Tunney's style wasn't fully developed? When was that "style" fully developed then?

Dear Lord, Sweet Jesus.

superflyweight wrote:Ruiz beats Tunney? I'm afraid you've jumped the shark there, Az.

I dont think I have.

fearlessBamber wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Ruiz beats Tunney? I'm afraid you've jumped the shark there, Az.

It really is silly isn't it.

How does he beat him ? With poison on his gloves ?

At least with the Tua prediction I can imagine it, but Ruiz really ?

Back in the day Ruiz would have been referred to as a giant with out of the world skills because he could do what Tunney would do, albeit with not the speed. But Ruiz's size and strength, plus he does know how to counter the jab would win him the fight. I deliberately picked Ruiz because of the RJJ fight. Whilst RJJ won, it was not a shut out. RJJ was far quicker than Tunney so I'd pick Ruiz to score a close UD over 12 rounds.

Ruiz looks awful in every fight. He's so slow has poor work rate and is not a massive puncher, I can only see Tunney boxing rings around him.

If you were talking about Witherspoon or Dokes or some other skillful but not great heavy I might think: yes maybe on their night they could do it, but Ruiz, no. He was very poor contender and talk of him beating yesterdays greats just seems ridiculous. The evidence of his ineptitude is all over youtube.

azania wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Ruiz beats Tunney? I'm afraid you've jumped the shark there, Az.

It really is silly isn't it.

How does he beat him ? With poison on his gloves ?

At least with the Tua prediction I can imagine it, but Ruiz really ?

Back in the day Ruiz would have been referred to as a giant with out of the world skills because he could do what Tunney would do, albeit with not the speed. But Ruiz's size and strength, plus he does know how to counter the jab would win him the fight. I deliberately picked Ruiz because of the RJJ fight. Whilst RJJ won, it was not a shut out. RJJ was far quicker than Tunney so I'd pick Ruiz to score a close UD over 12 rounds.

Are you being serious ?

If Tunney can outbox an albeit ageing but still raging Jack Dempsey what would he do to Ruiz, it would be embarrassing. Ruiz is a poor fighter in any gloved era who wouldn't have won linear championship, not as skilled as a Jess Willard or powerful as a Carnera, I'm all up for a bit debate but you're either being playing silly beggars or wanting to have a little bit in the limelight.

Ruiz beating Gene Tunney, my good god i'd thought i'd heard it all, one of the greatest ring technicians of all time (of any time) gets beaten by a fighter who can't do an ounce of what he could do, that really does take the biscuit. Tua would be a danger to any fighter because of his left hook but the problem as proven would be landing it and Tunney has one of the most under rated chins in heavyweight boxing so even then it may not be enough. Your sole reason for these predicitions seems to be because the modern fighters know more, based upon what does Ruiz have the capability of doing what Tunney could do.

I would give Tunney a very good chance of beating Johnson not because of a profound fountain of knowledge (Johnson was still heavyweight champion when Tunney made his debut) but because he had superior ability and work rate.

I'll ask again how does Sibson beat Greb and from that do we assume Matthew Macklin or even Sergio Martinez have the beating of Carlos Monzon?

azania wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Ruiz beats Tunney? I'm afraid you've jumped the shark there, Az.

I dont think I have.

Sadly you thinking makes you come across a complete muppet in all honesty. I'd suggest quitting before you make yourself look like an even bigger tool, which might be hard basing it on how the board views your opinions at present.

Keep going though, you'll get yourself banned again soon enough with this pathetic wumming.

And to think you were once a mod, whoever put you in charge must've been on some serious crack.

I like Az being on here, he brings the vast, combined weight of boxing knowledge on this board to bear against him. He frequently comes off second best in these debates (in my opinion, and he has the right to his own views of course), but people like me learn a great deal about the old timers.

Cant be much fun for the knowledgeable crowd on here though, must be like getting kicked in the pants every time ruiz is mentioned smacking around the old timers.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Ruiz beats Tunney? I'm afraid you've jumped the shark there, Az.

I dont think I have.

Sadly you thinking makes you come across a complete muppet in all honesty. I'd suggest quitting before you make yourself look like an even bigger tool, which might be hard basing it on how the board views your opinions at present.

Keep going though, you'll get yourself banned again soon enough with this pathetic wumming.

And to think you were once a mod, whoever put you in charge must've been on some serious crack.

Oooooh, coxy you are so witty. That hurt me to the bone. .

When you stop playing the internet comedian and detailing your uber glamourous lifestyle, maybe then we will all be up to your lofty standards. Until then we all bow before you (at least I do).

Forum would be pretty dry if everyone had the same opinion.

fearlessBamber wrote:Forum would be pretty dry if everyone had the same opinion.

It appears that differening and left-field opinions aren't tolerated by some. I have diametrically opposing views to Oxy and Windy, yet they still managed to remain calm (although Oxy was in danger of losing it - should have squeezed some more). Others see it as a personal insult.

I maintain Tunney would lose to Ruiz because Ruiz can do all Tunney can (not as fast) but is bigger and stronger. A giant were he to be fighting in the days of Tunney and probably an ATG. Dempsey would have anhilated him though.

The Ruiz that beat Holy just after Lennox went life and death with him would beat Tunney.

Why did Lewis duck Ruiz

azania wrote: A giant were he to be fighting in the days of Tunney and probably an ATG.

Very few regard Willard as an ATG

fearlessBamber wrote:Forum would be pretty dry if everyone had the same opinion.

Everyone has the same opinion on Coxy.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:Forum would be pretty dry if everyone had the same opinion.

Everyone has the same opinion on Coxy.

Please no, Jeremy Clarkson will become prime minister, 4x4 will get tax breaks and the unemployed will be forced to break rocks for a living.

ON Coxy not AS Coxy Bamber

rowley wrote:ON Coxy not AS Coxy Bamber

ohhhh right phew

Azania, Ruiz cant box on the back foot like Tunneys. Hes not as fast either. Personally I dont think hes as skilled though I assume you would disagree on that. But stylewise they are polar opposites so I dont get how a one trick pony like Ruiz could beat Tunney boxing off the back foot.

Its one thing saying knowledge is better now but you need to have the pupil with the talent to avail of it and saying Ruiz would therefore beat Tunney or Sibson beat Greb on the basis that we know more about boxing isnt accurate in my view. I could go into a boxing gym and be taught by Freddie Roach himself but I wouldnt fancy my chances against Greb even if I supposedly was taught how to punch beter than him.

For the theory of mdern fighters to be at more of an advantage due to increased knowledge you would need to have two similarly talented fighters in my view. But taking a super talented guy like Tunney and a mediocre talent like Ruiz and saying that knowledge or technique bridges that gap is far too much of an extension for me. I can see the argument that Ruiz might be better than his equivalent of the day, or a man of the same natural talent he had back then. But not somebody who possesess far more natural talent.

Its the same reason you think Ali still beats Klitschko. The difference in talent is sufficient.

Another point I wanted to make is that on another thread I queried your reasoning behind having Lewis outside your top 20 heavyweights and you said it was because you think a whole host of fighters would beat him - Dempsey being one of them. Now Tunney as we know beat Dempsey, yet you have Ruiz beating Tunney. Surely this doesnt mean you think Ruiz beats Lewis? Or if Dempsey beats Lewis then the gap cant be as big as you are suggesting given Lewis has both huge size and the benefit of all these modern benefits you believe puts him at a significant advantage to Dempsey?

manos de piedra wrote:Azania, Ruiz cant box on the back foot like Tunneys. Hes not as fast either. Personally I dont think hes as skilled though I assume you would disagree on that. But stylewise they are polar opposites so I dont get how a one trick pony like Ruiz could beat Tunney boxing off the back foot.

Its one thing saying knowledge is better now but you need to have the pupil with the talent to avail of it and saying Ruiz would therefore beat Tunney or Sibson beat Greb on the basis that we know more about boxing isnt accurate in my view. I could go into a boxing gym and be taught by Freddie Roach himself but I wouldnt fancy my chances against Greb even if I supposedly was taught how to punch beter than him.

For the theory of mdern fighters to be at more of an advantage due to increased knowledge you would need to have two similarly talented fighters in my view. But taking a super talented guy like Tunney and a mediocre talent like Ruiz and saying that knowledge or technique bridges that gap is far too much of an extension for me. I can see the argument that Ruiz might be better than his equivalent of the day, or a man of the same natural talent he had back then. But not somebody who possesess far more natural talent.

Its the same reason you think Ali still beats Klitschko. The difference in talent is sufficient.

Another point I wanted to make is that on another thread I queried your reasoning behind having Lewis outside your top 20 heavyweights and you said it was because you think a whole host of fighters would beat him - Dempsey being one of them. Now Tunney as we know beat Dempsey, yet you have Ruiz beating Tunney. Surely this doesnt mean you think Ruiz beats Lewis? Or if Dempsey beats Lewis then the gap cant be as big as you are suggesting given Lewis has both huge size and the benefit of all these modern benefits you believe puts him at a significant advantage to Dempsey?

I picked Ruiz to highlight what I was saying regarding knowledge and learning from past fighters. It could have been anyone but I deliberately chose an average but large HW to beat a small but exceptional HW back in the day. A better choice would have beenWitherspon or Dokes as mentioned above. In hindsight I was wrong.

I have a soft spot for Dempsey and loved his style. I'd still pick him to beat Lewis purely because his style was what Lewis didn't like and I beleive Lewis has a poor jab which Dempsey would slip under and land his hard and fast blows to KO Lewis.

Manos think you have in one past completely shown Azania up, I bow to you.

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Roberto Duran
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Joe Calzaghe
5. Jack Dempsey