People instantly see "overrated" as a negative term. It doesn't have to be. All it means is someone being rated higher than they should be. Floyd is a great example because as great as he was (he was, an incredible boxer) a lot of his accolades come from avoiding the biggest risks. Making sure he always had the advantage in the fight, protecting his "0" shit like that...
He would never do what Bud is doing or what Canelo did or what Pacman did. Floyd had to make sure everything fit his perfect plan before even throwing a punch. If I recall the only two times where it felt he didn't have a say was vs Oscar. Everything else never seemed like a risk. And after the Oscar fight, he waited out the contract obligation for a rematch by "retiring" then coming back when he wouldn't have to fight Oscar anymore. He was never going to give him a rematch and many people saw that fight as a draw.
A lot of his fights vs great champions came at a moment when those fights weren't that interesting anymore. Bigger financially for him? Maybe, but not as interesting to fans as the result was going to be obvious. Yes, he fought Cotto and Pacman and Mosley and Canelo but then you look at the point of their careers when they fought and the result was always going to be obvious.
Floyd was a master at taking the biggest possible reward for the least possible risk. That's how he operated inside and outside the ring and that's why he is who he is. Rich as shit and with his health intact.
Also, being fair, he isn't undefeated. Anyone who isn't a clear-cut Floyd fan knows he lost the first Castillo fight. Down to Compubox he lost that fight.
I am not planning on arguing this point btw. If you don't agree with my statement, good for you. I still think Floyd is an amazing defensive boxer but in the great scheme of things, when I see people saying shit like he is the greatest ever because he never lost. Here I am thinking. "God damn Tom Brady must suck then because he almost lost as many finals as he won" and Novak Djokovic better retire if every time he loses to Alcaras means he sucks.
Boxers need to stop fearing losing. Hopefully, Bud's risk changes this a little bit.
But we know what's going to happen. He'll lose and 80% of sherdog will go "HAHAHA BUD SUCKS"
But Floyd's ability as a boxer is so incredible that even when you don't overrate him he is still one of the best boxers I've ever seen.
If we go by actually overrating someone who simply isn't that good. Well shit, we have a lot of them. Haney and Teofimo, Joshua, Wilder. Older ones as said before, Prince Naz was a great example. I love Loma but I believe he is overrated. Although he is still great. Mike Tyson was a beast but obviously overrated, he lost his most important fights on top of some fights he never should have lost. An ultimate can crusher with some really good wins as well.
Ok, let's end my rant with an ever-bigger controversial one. Do you know who I ALWAYS thought was overrated as shit? Riddick Bowe. Yes, he was good but he is famous for three things overall. Having a great trilogy against a former cruiserweight. (as good as Evander was, if Riddick was as great as he was supposed to be, those fights should have been easy for him)
2. Getting pummeled to the nuts by Golota, who he should have beaten with ease. People forget how good Golota was doing in these fights and Golota SUCKED. He had the talent and the power but he had an IQ of 5.
3. Chickening the shit ouf ot fighting Lennox Lewis. (as was the norm back in the day, they all avoided him like the plague)
I just never liked Bowe.
