What does "underrated" really mean when talking about a fighter from the past?

[Juan Acero]

Something in another thread got me wondring...
As the title suggests, what does "underrated" really mean when talking about a fighter from the past?

Because whenever I see people mention a good old timer as underrated I often feel they mean modern fans don't know about them. Because anyone who has heard of them and knows who they are is probably quite knowledgeable on boxin already.

I could turn around and say Nino Benvenuti is underrated...
Younger fans don't know him. But show me one hardcore fan that wouldn't say he was a great fighter.

So is he underrated or isn't he????????????????

[GhostofDempsey]

Really good question. Underrated to me means that he isn't talked about nearly as much as other fighters of his or another era.

Case in point, the other thread where I felt Napoles was underrated. I think in terms of how we talk about fighters of other eras he is. Most fans will look back on boxing history and discuss Pep, Saddler, Dempsey, Tunney, Robinson, Ross, Benny Leonard, Armstrong, Louis, Marciano, then skip over the 60s unless they are discussing Ali, Foster, Giardello. Then it's right into Monzon, Duran, Hagler, Benitez etc.

There are so many great fighters who aren't discussed from the 60s even by fans of boxing history. Don't often hear about Rodriquez, Napoles, Cokes, George Benton, Carlos Ortiz, Laguna, Mims, Pastrano and dozens of others who fought though the 60s.

[Juan Acero]

Really good question. Underrated to me means that he isn't talked about nearly as much as other fighters of his or another era.

Case in point, the other thread where I felt Napoles was underrated. I think in terms of how we talk about fighters of other eras he is. Most fans will look back on boxing history and discuss Pep, Saddler, Dempsey, Tunney, Robinson, Ross, Benny Leonard, Armstrong, Louis, Marciano, then skip over the 60s unless they are discussing Ali, Foster, Giardello. Then it's right into Monzon, Duran, Hagler, Benitez etc.

There are so many great fighters who aren't discussed from the 60s even by fans of boxing history. Don't often hear about Rodriquez, Napoles, Cokes, George Benton, Carlos Ortiz, Laguna, Mims, Pastrano and dozens of others who fought though the 60s.

I have to agree the bolded names don't get talked about as much as the guys you named before that.

But this brings me to something...

How long will it take before those guys stop gettin talked about as much??

And with the current trends in boxing. They will probably be considered bums by modern standards....

After all not everyone is "undefeated"
Mayflower, Clagagzage, Ottke. Monsters....
lol


Not to go of topic but Benny Leonard was a glass chinned weight cheat.

[NChristo]

Could be a number of things, usually it's because a boxer didn't have the limelight and was shadowed by more promoted boxers in his years and his record had become less known.

Could be because someone isn't well informed on a boxers era, look at their record and too them it's not so impressive but if you know the boxer and his opponents / era and what they did was something too be noted then you would hear someone say they're underrated.

Lists are generally the reason for people being underrated as a whole, how do you squeeze over 100 years of great boxers without missing someone at some point, then there's boxers who are given a title / placed high in lists in their respective weightclass without people actually knowing enough about them to rank, they just see the top names that appear on enough lists and re-arrange them in a way that they like to see, which is where boxers go missing and get regarded as underrated. How many people who arrange their top Bantam lists actually know enough about each of their top 5 resume in depth ?, probably why generally when it comes to p4p lists you see names of higher weightclasses and the more well known / recorded boxers then them that appear in the top lists at the lower classes if that makes sense.

The term does get thrown around an awful lot though, saying it gives people an easy way to put another name into a debate or gives themselves a reason to talk about another boxer though

As for Nino being underrated I'd agree, the main reason being that when people bring up Monzon's best wins he doesn't get much mention from people who don't know about that middleweight era, again with my points it's a mixture of all, he's overshadowed by Monzon, people don't know enough about that era and the people that are rating Monzon (Mainly on here) don't know enough about his resume or what Nino achieved, they just see his name on most top lists and rate them as they like too see without knowing about his opponents or how skilled Nino actually was, they just name the opponents who are more well known like Griffith and Napoles.

[Hawkins]

I've always felt it's an out of sight out of mind type thing. Once these guys retire they get largely forgotten by a lot of people. Out with the old in with the new. Plus, I think that some of the older fighters do not have the privilege of having many of their fights on film and that largely plays into as well. Also, as the people who actually watched them fight pass away an important link is gone and that's when they truly start to fade from memory.

There are times I don't think it's so much the older guys are underrated as they are largely unknown.

[Hawkins]

I've always felt it's an out of sight out of mind type thing. Once these guys retire they get largely forgotten by a lot of people. Out with the old in with the new. Plus, I think that some of the older fighters do not have the privilege of having many of their fights on film and that largely plays into as well. Also, as the people who actually watched them fight pass away an important link is gone and that's when they truly start to fade from memory.

There are times I don't think it's so much the older guys are underrated as they are largely unknown.