PDA

View Full Version : Most undeserving for heavyweight title fighters



OMG65
05-12-2006, 01:59 PM
OK.
First of all I admire the courage of anyone getting into the ring.I don't want to run anyone down because I do respect these guys but......
A few that come to mind for me were:

Jean Pierre Coopman and Richard Dunn against Ali.
Scott Frank(Who?Maybe because I'd never heard of him) and Marvis Frazier against Larry Holmes.
King Roman against George Foreman.

I've only been watching boxing since the early 70's so please excuse my ignorance of earlier undeservings.I know there were many before my timeline so fire away.I'm looking forward to seeing the responses.

Sharkey
05-12-2006, 02:27 PM
Post War examples should include:

Jesse Ferguson.

Tom McNeely
Pete Rademacher
Zeljko Mavrovic
Vaugh Bean

Lucien Rodriguez/Lorenzo Zanon

Ron Stander
Terry Daniels
Manuel Ramos



off the top o my head

PeteLeo
05-12-2006, 08:53 PM
Dave Zyglewicz. Look it up. PeteLeo.

HE Grant
05-12-2006, 09:17 PM
Pete R. is in a class by himself since he was in his pro debut...

Roberto Aqui
05-13-2006, 09:28 AM
Battling Johnson, Tony Ross, any middleweight types if you catch where I'm drifting to!

hagler04
05-13-2006, 11:33 AM
With the alphabet soup titles, this gets pretty easy.

Lamon Brewster
Owen Beck
Kali Meehan
John Ruiz

kenmore
05-14-2006, 10:33 PM
I think Marvis Frazier deserved a title fight, as he was legitimately ranked within the top 10 at the time. Frazier wasn't as deserving as certain other contenders, but he was eligible in my book.

palma
05-17-2006, 12:49 AM
Ossie Occasio was awful against Holmes. In fact he was awful against a lot of guys. He got ko'd by jabs.

PeteLeo
05-17-2006, 01:48 AM
Now, don't go hatin' on Ossie. I watched his valiant effort to wrest the title from Holmes, and he put up a hell of a fight before being KO'd by a terrifying right to his forearm. Me and my Dad just about laughed our asses off at that one. PeteLeo.

HE Grant
05-17-2006, 09:05 PM
The joke is one of the guys won it, Leon !!!

Sharkey
05-17-2006, 09:34 PM
Joe. Hipp.

KOJOE90
05-18-2006, 12:47 PM
Now, don't go hatin' on Ossie. I watched his valiant effort to wrest the title from Holmes, and he put up a hell of a fight before being KO'd by a terrifying right to his forearm. Me and my Dad just about laughed our asses off at that one. PeteLeo.

His stoppage loss to British Champion John L Gardner was also very strange to say the least.

hawk5ins
05-18-2006, 01:12 PM
By beating Jimmy Young twice. He just didn't do a whole lot with that opportunity.

Ultimately, he was grossly out classed.

Marvis DID beat James Broad and Joe Bugner to "earn" his shot. Which compared to today, I guess merits a shot. But clearly he was over his head with Holmes.

Rademacher CLEARLY was the most unqualified challnger to the crown. Basically becuase he had no professional qualifications.

Hawk

kenmore
05-18-2006, 11:05 PM
Jean-Pierre Coopman was possibly the least deserving. He was selected to challenge Ali in a "gimme" title defense early in 1976. The venue was Puerto Rico.

I remember the bout was broadcast live on national television. It was a big deal, with it's own big write-up in "TV Guide."

Coopman was nowhere near world-level in ability. He wasn't even the best heavyweight in Europe. His only meaningful wins were over the fast fading Terry Daniels, bloated light-heavyweight clubber Charlie "Devil" Green, and a decision over fellow European non-entity Rudi Lubbers.

The word in Puerto Rico on the eve of the title fight was that Coopman was being manhandled by his middleweight sparring partners.

Ali toyed with Jean-Pierre en route to an easy fifth round kayo.

Coopman's $100,000 paycheck must have been nice consolation though.

palma
05-18-2006, 11:21 PM
When Cleveland Williams fought Ali it was a mismatch. Williams was a good contender several years before Ali fight. He had cotten a bit old, but worse part was he had been shot and almost paralyzed, with bullet near spine. He came back, but was a contender by name and rep. only. He was barley able to move around in ring anymore.

hawk5ins
05-19-2006, 08:18 AM
The Clevelan Williams stuff has gotten a bit silly if you ask me.

Was he ever the same fighter after getting shot by a cop (Not news here. We all know the story)? Absolutely not. Did he EARN a shot at Ali after his comeback? No he did not. Should he have gotten a shot at Ali's title when he did? No.

That said, Williams did manage to step into the ring 4 times before he faced Ali. Impressive? No. But was he this cripple that could barely move as I hear described? No agian.

Williams at his best would probably have bene overmatched by Ali. A far less than his prime got waxed with ease. But he was not a corpse, wheeled out on a dolly and propped up in Ring center, for Ali to take swings at with a fungo bat.

Williams DID manage to fight 19 more times after the Ali bout. Granted he WAS a .500 fighter for the remainder of his career. But I'm not arguing that he wasn't well past his best. But there wasn't also this hysterical medical concern about him being able to walk and chew gum at the same time either.

He was NOT the same fighter he was before getting shot. The extra hyperbole is unecessary.

Sheesh.

Hawk

OMG65
05-19-2006, 01:34 PM
This is going back wayyyyy before our time but I was looking at Joe Louis carreer record and he had a title defense 4-17-39 against a Jack Roper.Seeing as I had never heard of this guy,I looked at Roper's career record and noticed he had 40 (yes that's right) losses before he faced Louis.Louis knocked him out in the 1st round.Do you think this guy qualifies?:D

hawk5ins
05-19-2006, 01:43 PM
IMO, was the worst challenger PERIOD, for the heavyweight championship of the world.

The 0-0-0 Rademacher who faced (AND DROPPED) Patterson, would have beaten Roper. IMO.

Hawk

kikibalt
05-19-2006, 01:55 PM
This is going back wayyyyy before our time but I was looking at Joe Louis carreer record and he had a title defense 4-17-39 against a Jack Roper.Seeing as I had never heard of this guy,I looked at Roper's career record and noticed he had 40 (yes that's right) losses before he faced Louis.Louis knocked him out in the 1st round.Do you think this guy qualifies?:D

Ever heard of " The Bum Of The Month Campaign"

Frank B.

OMG65
05-19-2006, 02:18 PM
Ever heard of " The Bum Of The Month Campaign"

Frank B.

Yes.
I remembered hearing that term but 40 losses before a heavyweight title shot?My goodness!! Bum of the Month is appropriate.The heavyweight division was that bad at the time?I know Louis cleaned out the division but Jack Roper?I'm wondering if Roper even had a winning record before he fought Louis.How in the world could that pass for a heavyweight title defense?That one should have a double asterisk next to it.

GorDoom
05-19-2006, 02:22 PM
You guys are forgetting, Roy "Cut 'N Shoot" Harris who fought Patterson for the title. He was a real nebish of a heavyweight.

GorDoom

OMG65
05-19-2006, 02:31 PM
Just doing a little Googling.
Getting back to the Roper Louis fight look at this description that says Louis was close to defeat.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/1008/hwb2.html

April 17, 1939 in Los Angeles: Louis KOed Jack Roper in the 1st
round of a very short and exciting match. The fight had hardly
started when the challenger landed a very hard left hook flush on
the nose and mouth of the champion. Louis was momentarily
staggered and stunned. Roper in his haste to end the fight
narrowly missed Louis with another left hook aimed at the head.
By this time Louis had at least partially recovered and launched
a barrage of body punches that sent Roper spinning toward the
ropes. Then Louis landed a hard left-right combination to the
jaw that floored Roper. As the count was reaching ten, the
challenger was on his hands and knees trying to stand but then
fell on his face. The fight lasted 2:20 seconds.

The champion came close to losing his title. After the fight
Louis said that this was as hard as he had been hit since
fighting Schmeling.

kikibalt
05-19-2006, 02:46 PM
Joe Louis was fighting a bum once a month to make some spenting money
nothing's wrong with that.

Frank B.

OMG65
05-19-2006, 03:07 PM
Joe Louis was fighting a bum once a month to make some spenting money
nothing's wrong with that.

Frank B.

Mr Baltazar.
I agree and respectfully disagree.
Joe was a good guy who I understood who gave alot to this country and I am glad he made some spending money as he deserved it, but for his people at the time to pass off some of the guys he fought as legitimate heavyweight title contenders is a reach at best.Every champion deserves a breather but it appears as Louis had several breathers.I guess that comes with having as many title defenses as he did.Not questioning Joe's greatness but does anyone think the Bum of The Month hurt the prestige of the heavyweight title?

kikibalt
05-19-2006, 03:43 PM
Mr Baltazar.
I agree and respectfully disagree.
Joe was a good guy who I understood who gave alot to this country and I am glad he made some spending money as he deserved it, but for his people at the time to pass off some of the guys he fought as legitimate heavyweight title contenders is a reach at best.Every champion deserves a breather but it appears as Louis had several breathers.I guess that comes with having as many title defenses as he did.Not questioning Joe's greatness but does anyone think the Bum of The Month hurt the prestige of the heavyweight title?

I don't think it does, I agree with you that every champion deserves a breather. He gave every body good or bad a chance which is more then we can say about some of today champions.

Frank B.

Roberto Aqui
05-19-2006, 03:48 PM
Not questioning Joe's greatness but does anyone think the Bum of The Month hurt the prestige of the heavyweight title?

Nope, it gave him the material for a classic comeback when Ali was ragging Joe on his bum of the month club.

Joe: "If you had fought back then, I would've made you a bum too!"

GorDoom
05-19-2006, 03:56 PM
No I don't. Because if nothing else in those pre-TV days the only way to see THE heavyweight champion was live. Joe gave the fans the opportunity to see him by fighting all the time. Unlike say Dempsey who at one point in his reign went I believe 3 years without a fight.

Ali did pretty much the same thing in the 60's defending every 6-8 weeks for a time.

My feeling is that as long as you fight the #1 contender at least once a year if you fight a couple of gimmes in between it's fine with me.

One other thing to remember is that heavyweight champs CAN'T fight non-title bouts. So the only way to keep active is what Joe & Ali did with those defenses against so many mediocre opponents.

But here's the bottom line: You want your heavyweight champ to fight once a year (if your lucky) or would you rather have an active champ?

Me?

I like an active champ because he will be a better fighter & not gather rust like today's heavyweight champs do.

Of course we will never see a "Bum Of The Month" tour again. The money today is too big & the taxes would be a killer.

GorDoom

OMG65
05-19-2006, 04:03 PM
GorDoom
Good points.
This is a great board that really makes you think.

Thanks.

Chuck1052
05-19-2006, 04:05 PM
To be fair to Jack Roper, he had a number of wins over capable
heavyweights by the time he fought Joe Louis. By the way,
the quality of the footage of Louis-Roper bout was incrediably
good if the clip shown on an ESPN2 boxing telecast a few
years ago is any indication.

- Chuck Johnston

kikibalt
05-19-2006, 04:19 PM
http://i4.tinypic.com/104njfn.jpg

hawk5ins
05-19-2006, 04:42 PM
I agree with Gordoom that it IS better to see an active champ and if you are as active as Joe was, you can't face the top dog everytime out.

Soft touches are one thing. But Roper was BEYOND a soft touch.

Chuck, I read your comment in defense of Roper stating that he had a number of wins over capable heavyweights before for he faced Louis. I have to disagree here.

He had a number of FIGHTS agianst "capable" heavyweights, but no wins. He was 35, an OLD 35, with over hundred fights under his belt. He was KO'd 15 times, 4 times in the first round going into the Louis bout.

Roper's biggest win would be agianst I guess Junior Munsell, who he himself, lost to every Name Heavy he ever faced. Ironically, Munsell, KO'd Roper in thier return.

Roper was abysmally awful.

You can not defend this guy. He was baaaaaaad.

Hawk

GorDoom
05-19-2006, 04:44 PM
Thanks for the compliment OMG65. Much Appreciated! & Btw: I know you joined the board last month & I don't believe I ever gave you a proper welcome ... So, welcome to the board OMG65!

You've been an excellent addition to the board.

I like that.

A lot.

GorDoom

GorDoom
05-19-2006, 05:11 PM
Hawk:

While I agree that Roper was hardly a genuine top ten guy was he really any worse than the old, coked out Michael Dokes that Bowe fought? Or the decrepit version of Jesse Ferguson that Bowe also defended against?

Or the version of Don Cockell that Marciano fought? Or the Radamacher, Roy Harris & Tom McNeely that Patterson defended against? Or the Adilson Rodriguez & Vaughn Bean that Holyfield defended against?

I think it's all a matter of degree. Every heavyweight champ has defended against a few "bums". Admittedly, Roper was under qualified but the fight was the only time Louis fought in L.A. or on the West Coast except for some exhibitions at the end of his career.

Maybe Roper was the only guy they could come up with on short notice. Who knows? But considering the Bomber's career I find it impossible to hold the Roper fight against him.

Like I said, EVERY heavyweight champ fought a few defences against low grade opposition. They had to because they can't fight non-title bouts.

GorDoom

dongee
05-19-2006, 05:16 PM
Gordoom:

To expand on your dead on post about heavyweight champs not being allowed to appear in non-title bouts:

When we had Joe Louis box a four round exhibition at Hollywood Legion Stadium circa 1950 we had a terrible time convincing the California Commission to allow the bout to take place.

The solons had insisted that Louis could be dethroned by his opponent that night, Willie Bean, should the champ be kayoed technically or otherwise. Louis, of course, threatened to pull out of the comitment. It was only after some serious pleading, cajoling and fawning that the Commissioners relented and the bout took place.
------------------------------------------------------------

As for Frank B. and OMG65 posts on Jack Roper let me say that those in the know marveled at Dick Donald's persuasive salesmanship. Donald, a real old timer in southland boxing, fell back on his early repute as a fight man to convince thousands that his new protege, Jack Roper had a chance to beat Louis.

Without Donald in the picture no way does that title fight get an approval. Jack had retired a couple of times before that and it was Donald who lured him back. The two men split after the loss to Louis. In fact, Roper was playing bit parts in Hollywood western films six months later, never to lace on the gloves again.

To explain the surprising gate of some $87,000, outdoors at L.A.'s Wrigley Field, that can be attributed in part to Roper's power punching. Jack had a monstrous left hook that had dropped many of his past opponents, if only for a few seconds. Ninety percent of the fans in the "house" that night came to see Joe Louis----ten percent gave Roper a puncher's chance.



hap navarro

thumper3852
05-19-2006, 05:18 PM
I also agree that an active champion is preferrable and that every fight needn't be against a top 5 contender. They should, however, at least be ranked in the top ten.

I always thought it was unfair that Buster Douglas, as an example, was required to fight #1 ranked Holyfield as a mandatory defense in his first defense. He should have been afforded a "European" tour or a defense against a lesser contender if he chose. A few months off to recover from his tough bout with Tyson and then train to face the #1 shows the nonsense of the ABC's in my opinion.

That Buster chose to do battle with every buffet and smorgasboard he encountered is another matter.

Ali's trip through the UK and Germany against Cooper, London (aaagh) and Mildenberger was good for boxing, and Ali was kept from fighting in the U.S. because the draft issue, anyway; a bout with Terrell was supposed to come off in Chicago but the Illinois commission nixed it because of the VFW's outcry. It's funny that it was Texas that finally gave him approval for a U.S. defense(perhaps because it would be against Williams, who was a Houston resident ?).

hawk5ins
05-19-2006, 05:39 PM
I see your point about Buster to a degree.

But here's the thing. Tyson's mandatory was Holyfield. He was due to make that mandatory and the bout was scheduled. Tyson took a voluntary defense in the mean time aginast DOuglas. DOuglas wins. Now does Holyfield who was waiting for his mandatory shot NOW have to wait becuase there is a new titleist?

While it may not be fair for Douglas to have to take on Tyson and then Evander back to back, it certainly would not have been fair to push Evander to the sidelines to wait any longer. What if Douglas took on Foreman as an optional defense and then lost that bout? Would Foreman then be allowed to take an optional defense before having to take on Evander, thus pushing Holy's title shot back further?

It's a tough situation, but I feel if a manadatory is due a shot and a voluntary contender wins the title, he needs to assume the challenge of the mandatory chellnge.

Gordoom, I certainly don't argue that every era has their bad challengers to the belt. If I had to make a call, I would say Roper was the worst. I don't hold it agianst Louis for fighting him. But at the same time Idon't exscuse it either.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Hawk

GorDoom
05-19-2006, 05:46 PM
Hawk:

You're absolutely correct that Roper was one of the worst challengers ever for the heavyweight title. No argument from me ... But even so I can't hold it against Joe.

GorDoom

kikibalt
05-19-2006, 06:14 PM
Some one once said about Joe Louis .

" In boxing's galaxy, Joe Louis was a star for a longer period of time then most, burning intently. And with dignity"

So true.

Frank B.

thumper3852
05-19-2006, 06:21 PM
That makes more sense when put that way; Tyson made a voluntary defense in the interim period leading up to the required defense against Holyfield. On the other hand, haven't we also seen one ABC require a defense against their #1 while another was requiring a different opponent for a mandatory defense?

The title belongs to the title holder, and I emphasize the singular, which I know is pure nostalgia on my part. I know there have been belt holders that ducked the best contender, but the boxing public eventually demands (and pays for the privilege) to see the champ fight his best challenger. I know that's not the perfect system, but it worked better than what's going on today.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere besides Don King's bank account.

My god, I'm not only being nostalgic, I'm also being naive!

Roberto Aqui
05-19-2006, 08:02 PM
I always thought it was unfair that Buster Douglas, as an example, was required to fight #1 ranked Holyfield as a mandatory defense in his first defense.

Actually Buster had the choice between Tyson and Holy. Given that he caught lightning in a bottle for one fight which led to an obscene amount of money paid him against Holy, I don't feel sorry for him at all save for his lack of preparation that cost him much reputation.

As far as Ali goes, he fought 2 title defenses in Houston near the end of his first title run, which was where he also refused to step forward for the draft. I grew up there and bore witness to an incredible time.