View Full Version : worst hw champ ever


chosen_one
04-02-2006, 05:43 PM
who is it i just wonna know

RockyMarcianofan00
04-02-2006, 05:45 PM
imo James Buster Douglas won it by a fluke but i'm sure there's worse ex-champs

Talking Turkey
04-02-2006, 05:48 PM
imo James Buster Douglas won it by a fluke but i'm sure there's worse ex-champsHow was it possibly a fluke? some people still can't get over the fact Tyson got his ass beat, by a guy who on that night, fought the fight of his life. anyway regarding the question, Bruce Seldon springs to mind.

Yaman
04-02-2006, 05:49 PM
Any champ who didn't get the title by a fight and lost it right after he fought. I can't think of anyone right now.

RockyMarcianofan00
04-02-2006, 05:55 PM
I'm not arguing the fact that James Buster Douglas fought the fight of his life and i'm not saying its impossible for Prime Tyson to lose i was just pointing out the fact that having sex and drinking and partying aren't the best ways to train for a hw title defense (tyson did those in tokyo)

RockyMarcianofan00
04-02-2006, 05:56 PM
also i was just looking and these are the guys with the shortest reign

Leon Spinks
James "Buster" Douglas
Michael Moorer
Hasim Rahman

blockhead
04-02-2006, 05:58 PM
vitali klitoris, hands down.

Talking Turkey
04-02-2006, 06:05 PM
vitali klitoris, hands down.Worse than the likes of Seldon?:dunno: :confused:

blockhead
04-02-2006, 06:34 PM
Worse than the likes of Seldon?:dunno: :confused:
i said the worst didnt i.

SuzieQ49
04-02-2006, 07:07 PM
defintley shannon briggs or 1990s george foreman

Da Iceman
04-02-2006, 07:21 PM
lets see john ruiz, buster douglas, hasim rahman, michael spinks, leon spinks, jim jefries, jess willard, sonny liston, jimmy ellis.

Yogi
04-02-2006, 07:32 PM
defintley shannon briggs

That's the one!

Slicksouthpaw
04-02-2006, 07:38 PM
Nicolay Valuev :lol1:

Talking Turkey
04-02-2006, 07:38 PM
Sorry guys, i'd still say Seldon.

Da Iceman
04-02-2006, 07:39 PM
what about spinks. he has almost as many loses as wins.

Yogi
04-02-2006, 07:41 PM
Sorry guys, i'd still say Seldon.

Some of us can't be bothered acknowledging those stupid alphabet belt holder as "champions", which automatically eliminates the likes of Seldon from the running.

Dempsey1238
04-02-2006, 08:08 PM
lets see john ruiz, buster douglas, hasim rahman, michael spinks, leon spinks, jim jefries, jess willard, sonny liston, jimmy ellis.


Jim Jeffires?? How can you say he was one of the worse heavyweight champs?? he should make almost any one's top 15 or 16 list. One of the elite of the divison. He clear out his era, and was the BEST in his era. I think the Johnson fight over shadows anything Jeffies has done. But he holds wins over Fitz, Corbett, Sharkey, Jackson and others. and these are good to GREAT fighters.

A pre Version Rocky Marciano if one thinks about it.

Kid Achilles
04-02-2006, 08:53 PM
Putting Liston and Jeffries in with those other guys is just plain ignorant. Jeffries was arguably a top ten heavyweight, a definitely a top fifteen at least. Liston is without a doubt top ten.

mokele
04-02-2006, 09:16 PM
Although Leon Spinks didn't always look awful, he was probably the worst heavyweight champ of all time, no better than a pretty good cruiserweight with maybe an average chin. His overall skill level was maybe on a par with Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson, and somewhat less than plenty of good journeyman fighters such as Oscar Bonavena and George Chuvalo.

Bruce Seldon was an awesome-looking boxer who could easily have chosen to be a body builder rather than a fighter. I don't know if he truly had a glass jaw or else simply froze under pressure, but he simply couldn't be counted on to make it to the final bell against a decent puncher. I saw his fights with Bowe, Oliver McCall and Tyson and a couple of his earlier fights when he was still undefeated and on the rise.

I actually had high hopes for Seldon before his fight with McCall, because he was big, fast, physically very strong and had both a decent jab and a respectable body attack. To his credit he did accumulate some decent wins during his career, against Jose Ribalta, Jesse "thunder" Ferguson, Greg Page, Tony Tucker, and Joe Hipp, so all things considered he was a bit better than Leon Spinks.

RockyMarcianofan00
04-02-2006, 09:47 PM
Jack Johnson isn't the worst but he may very well be one of the worst, he fought in a weak time, he had weight advantage height advantage and still got knocked down by middleweights

he fought bums and no names

i think that should count as horrible

Heckler
04-02-2006, 11:37 PM
imo James Buster Douglas won it by a fluke but i'm sure there's worse ex-champs

It wasn't a fluke, he fought the perfect match and exposed Tysons flaws. There is no exscuse, regardless of circumstance the performance douglas put on would always trouble Tyson because it took advantage of flaws that always existed.

Heckler
04-02-2006, 11:44 PM
Jack Johnson isn't the worst but he may very well be one of the worst, he fought in a weak time, he had weight advantage height advantage and still got knocked down by middleweights

he fought bums and no names

i think that should count as horrible

LOL!. Jack Johnson is without a doubt one of the most skilled HW boxers of all time. His weight and Height advantage are irrevant, its his performance that matters. Thats like saying, lets discredit Marciano because he was born with punching power. He fought in a weak time, and got knocked down by smaller fighters, he fought bums and no names - geez another fighter shares these cirucmstances... Oh thats right ROCKY MARCIANO - Knocked down by Archie Moore, best fighter he ever fought was Ezzard Charles who was aging and a natural light heavyweight. Rocky Marciano reigned in one of the weakest eras ever and fought alot of bums and no names... how you could go on to say that Jack Johnson should be rated as one of the worse HW's ever is beyond me.

Southpaw Stinger
04-03-2006, 12:11 PM
Johnson is probably one of the most overrated of all time. Some older generation black people regard him as the greatest of all time which is frankly pathetic.

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 03:01 PM
LOL!. Jack Johnson is without a doubt one of the most skilled HW boxers of all time. His weight and Height advantage are irrevant, its his performance that matters. Thats like saying, lets discredit Marciano because he was born with punching power. He fought in a weak time, and got knocked down by smaller fighters, he fought bums and no names - geez another fighter shares these cirucmstances... Oh thats right ROCKY MARCIANO - Knocked down by Archie Moore, best fighter he ever fought was Ezzard Charles who was aging and a natural light heavyweight. Rocky Marciano reigned in one of the weakest eras ever and fought alot of bums and no names... how you could go on to say that Jack Johnson should be rated as one of the worse HW's ever is beyond me.

took the words right out of my mouth. :D

RockyMarcianofan00
04-03-2006, 04:27 PM
Johnson is probably one of the most overrated of all time. Some older generation black people regard him as the greatest of all time which is frankly pathetic.
took the words right out of my mouth

Johnson has the most padded record

look at his record half the guys had never even fought before so don't tell me Marciano's worse, lets not even go there, i've said before that the guy was a decent fighter but anybody who has him in top10 is being biased
if the guy was white nobody would have even mentioned him

I don't see people putting James J Jefferies, or John L. Sullivan in there top 10's

so don't go saying ****, i didn't say he was the worst but i said he wasn't the greatest either

Marciano's time had better fighters also, Johnson got knocked down by middleweights, and if he fought in a weaker time then Marciano how come Johnson didn't go 49-0 don't even compare the two. they used thinner gloves back then and Johnson never did half the damage Marciano did.

Johnson's biggest fight was against a washed up Jefferies so pls just stop

SuzieQ49
04-03-2006, 04:33 PM
this is pretty funny considering we got a long list of names such as leon spinx, 1990s george foreman, shannon briggs, marvin hart, buster douglas, hasim rahman.......... YET we got people mentioning james jeffries, sonny liston and jack johnson as possbilities.


WHAT A ****IN JOKE!

RockyMarcianofan00
04-03-2006, 04:37 PM
I'm not sure i'd put sonny liston on that list because

if his fights weren't controlled by the mob then yes he was a good fighter to an extent

but if they weree he belongs on this list

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 04:39 PM
Johnson got knocked down by middleweights

what in the world is archie moore, then? :rolleyes:

RockyMarcianofan00
04-03-2006, 04:41 PM
what in the world is archie moore, then? :rolleyes:
i can't believe you even ask that

He fought at LHW and was actually a very good Heavyweight unlike Middleweights that just bloat themselves up to a weight without the skill to be there

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 04:42 PM
i can't believe you even ask that

He fought at LHW and was actually a very good Heavyweight unlike Middleweights that just bloat themselves up to a weight without the skill to be there

he fought at middleweight for several years as well.

RockyMarcianofan00
04-03-2006, 04:44 PM
he fought at middleweight for several years as well.
i'm aware but he was a natrual LHW and a very good, conditioned (not bloated) heavyweight

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/IrishInsomniac00/other%20boxing%20pictures/thArchie-Moore--C10104813.jpg

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 04:46 PM
i'm aware but he was a natrual LHW and a very good, conditioned (not bloated) heavyweight

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/IrishInsomniac00/other%20boxing%20pictures/thArchie-Moore--C10104813.jpg

holyfield was a well conditioned hw, does that mean he's not really a natural cruiserweight?

SuzieQ49
04-03-2006, 04:51 PM
what in the world is archie moore, then? :rolleyes:


let me ask you butterfly,


did archie moore get knocked down by middleweights anytime from 1951-62?

did archie moore weighing 175lb + ever get knocked down by a middleweight?



no answer me this, did archie moore weighing over 175lb ever fight a middleweight?

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 04:54 PM
let me ask you butterfly,


did archie moore get knocked down by middleweights anytime from 1951-62?

did archie moore weighing 175lb + ever get knocked down by a middleweight?



no answer me this, did archie moore weighing over 175lb ever fight a middleweight?

archie moore was a natural middleweight, plain and simple. he just moved up cause he knew he wasn't getting a title shot, that's all.

blockhead
04-03-2006, 05:10 PM
archie moore was a natural middleweight, plain and simple. he just moved up cause he knew he wasn't getting a title shot, that's all.
wrong wrong wrong, archie had trouble making weight his entire career. your a jackass.

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 05:10 PM
wrong wrong wrong, archie had trouble making weight his entire career. your a jackass.

cause he had eating problems, doesn't mean that cruiserweight was his natural weight.

blockhead
04-03-2006, 05:35 PM
cause he had eating problems, doesn't mean that cruiserweight was his natural weight.
umm, archie is one of the best light heavyweights ever, and a real fighter from back in the day, ever trying to discredit him or someone that he knocked down or beat (which you do often) is stupid.

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 05:44 PM
umm, archie is one of the best light heavyweights ever, and a real fighter from back in the day, ever trying to discredit him or someone that he knocked down or beat (which you do often) is stupid.

yeah, that's the key word, one of the best "light hw's" ever, but when you move up in weight, your power and chin will diminish. moore has been ko'd by middleweights and lighthw's, but yet it took 9 rounds of wild swinging for "hw" marciano to put him away, and he had to knock moore down 5 or 6 times in order for him to stay down. so what does that say about marciano's power? and on top of that moore was 42 yrs. old when he fought rocky, and when you get older, the fluid between your brain and skull decreases, thus making it easier to get knocked down and out, so logically it should have been easier for marciano to knock out moore than people like leonard murrow and eddie booker, but marciano was given a hell of a time.

blockhead
04-03-2006, 05:46 PM
yeah, that's the key word, one of the best "light hw's" ever, but when you move up in weight, your power and chin will diminish. moore has been ko'd by middleweights and lighthw's, but yet it took 9 rounds of wild swinging for "hw" marciano to put him away, and he had to knock moore down 5 or 6 times in order for him to stay down. so what does that say about marciano's power? and on top of that moore was 42 yrs. old when he fought rocky, and when you get older, the fluid between your brain and skull decreases, thus making it easier to get knocked down and out, so logically it should have been easier for marciano to knock out moore than people like leonard murrow and eddie booker, but marciano was given a hell of a time.
what does that say about marciano? that it took him 9 rounds to finish an all time great. not too shabby, and certainly not a valid criticism.
and you yourself have mentioned countless times that marciano was small, so, there you go.

DaWayne
04-03-2006, 05:48 PM
NO other than Neon Leon Spinks.

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 05:54 PM
what does that say about marciano? that it took him 9 rounds to finish an all time great. not too shabby, and certainly not a valid criticism.
and you yourself have mentioned countless times that marciano was small, so, there you go.

he's an all-time great light hw, not hw. let me ask you something. let's say if lennox lewis fought roy jones and was given a hell of a time beating him(i'm not saying he would but hypothetically), then since roy jones is an all-time great "lhw" that means it's ok? no! lewis is a hw, so it's no excuse no matter how great jones is at a lower weight class. the same goes for marciano. if marciano is so great and powerful, then he should have destroyed moore faster than tyson did spinks, right? but he didn't, so marciano is overrated. i'm not saying he's a bum, but he is overrated.

and i have said marciano is small cause he weighs 185 compared to someone like tyson or foreman, whom both weigh about 220. but moore is a natural 160-170, so he is small compared to marciano.

blockhead
04-03-2006, 06:00 PM
he's an all-time great light hw, not hw. let me ask you something. let's say if lennox lewis fought roy jones and was given a hell of a time beating him(i'm not saying he would but hypothetically), then since roy jones is an all-time great "lhw" that means it's ok? no! lewis is a hw, so it's no excuse no matter how great jones is at a lower weight class. the same goes for marciano. if marciano is so great and powerful, then he should have destroyed moore faster than tyson did spinks, right? but he didn't, so marciano is overrated. i'm not saying he's a bum, but he is overrated.

and i have said marciano is small cause he weighs 185 compared to someone like tyson or foreman, whom both weigh about 220. but moore is a natural 160-170, so he is small compared to marciano.
the size difference between lennox and roid jones is a bit different than rocky and archie. i agree that marciano is over rated, but i disagree with using archie moore as an example of his exagerated rating. archie will always hold the all time ko record, nobody will ever come close. trying to discredit anyone for having a hard time with moore is a mistake in my opinion.

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 06:06 PM
the size difference between lennox and roid jones is a bit different than rocky and archie. i agree that marciano is over rated, but i disagree with using archie moore as an example of his exagerated rating. archie will always hold the all time ko record, nobody will ever come close. trying to discredit anyone for having a hard time with moore is a mistake in my opinion.

alright, forget lewis. put in joe frazier instead.

if tarver or roy jones, or michael spinks at light hw had a hard time with moore, then that is no shame, cause they are lighthw's. but any hw who is considered a top ten hw, should not have a hard time with any light hw, or struggle to knock him out.

MR. V
04-03-2006, 07:40 PM
didnt read all the other post , so i dont know if this has already been stated but HANDS DOWN THE WORST CHAMPION EVER was Buster "too fat" Douglas. :boxing:


had the belt after beating the best , MIke tyson, and lost after one attempt to defend it to Evandor Holyfield.

RockyMarcianofan00
04-03-2006, 08:11 PM
butterfly did you even see that fight

by my score card Archie had three rounds and Marciano had 6 that fight should have been tko'd in the 7th but Archie still had some pep so they kept it going but it only took him 6 rounds to beat Archie Moore, after 6 archie had a few more good shots but thats about it so


hmm lets talk about discrditing, do you think it would have taken Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier 15 rounds to put Chuck Wepner away

Dempsey 1919
04-03-2006, 08:13 PM
butterfly did you even see that fight

by my score card Archie had three rounds and Marciano had 6 that fight should have been tko'd in the 7th but Archie still had some pep so they kept it going but it only took him 6 rounds to beat Archie Moore, after 6 archie had a few more good shots but thats about it so


hmm lets talk about discrditing, do you think it would have taken Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier 15 rounds to put Chuck Wepner away

ali was way past his prime at the wepner prime. marciano was in his prime in the moore fight.

RockyMarcianofan00
04-03-2006, 08:24 PM
ali was way past his prime at the wepner prime. marciano was in his prime in the moore fight.
i could disagree

Moore, and ****ell were Marciano's worst fights, he was still prime but if you ever read his bio (which i doubht it) it had said by the time the ****ell fight had come around he just wasn't enjoying fighting anymore, what it said in the bio is that when you go into your gym there's a certain odor and that odor makes you want to work, once you stop liking that odor you should retire. marciano by the time training began for the ****ell fight didn't like that smell. He was having issues with his manager and how he was taking most of the money away from Rocky etc... which eventually led to his retirement. He was going to make a comeback because his contract said he only had to stay with his manager until he retired but he decided to stay retired. A prime Marciano is probably Marciano v Walcott I - Marciano v Lastarza or Charles II

by the time ****ell came around he wasn't training AS hard, and Archie Moore marciano really had no intention to fight, its just moore pressured him into the fight. and marciano never refused a fight for the most part. A prime Marciano like the one that fought LaStarza would rip apart both Moore and ****ell

When i was watching the SuperFight, Peter Marciano was saying how in his family they had an italian saying, that translated too Don't make an embarassment of yourself or your family (or something along those lines) Marciano thought a loss would be the ultimate embarassment which is why he stayed retired in his prime

tommyhearns804
04-05-2006, 11:11 PM
Rocky Marciano...enough said

Dempsey 1919
04-05-2006, 11:40 PM
Rocky Marciano...enough said

hmmm, marciano was better than schmeling, carnera, jeffries, both spinks', rahman, moorer, patterson, etc.

i believe marciano is overrated, too, but he is not as bad as you make him out to be.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 12:38 AM
Some of us can't be bothered acknowledging those stupid alphabet belt holder as "champions", which automatically eliminates the likes of Seldon from the running.

If ur gonna go by that, then i can easily say that from 1900-1935 the coloured champ had a legit claim to the belt cuz they were more active. At times the coloured champ was much better than the "real champ".

Emon723
01-27-2007, 01:39 AM
If WBO title holders are counted, then the worst comes from that organization, michael bentt for example.

j
01-27-2007, 01:45 AM
how the **** can anyone mention jack johnson of jim jeffries? wtf? these guys fought when the boxing gloves were like the mittens you guys wear today. you had to be one tough bastard to fight with those poor excuses for boxing gloves on.

dropped on head as a baby syndrome award goes to blockhead for suggesting vitali klitschko.

sleazyfellow
01-27-2007, 02:01 AM
primo carnera has got to be the worst i seen....its either him or neon leon, but i think leon at least had a little skill whereas carnera had none. He was just a freakshow champion...big, and no skill whatsoever

Brassangel
01-27-2007, 11:08 AM
Leon Spinks was a horrible champion with potential to be a decent fighter. *CRACK*

James Douglas was a horrible champion who fought an amazing fight against a not-there great to gain the belt. He then put on almost 15 pounds and punched slow as a sloth in his fight with Holyfield.

John Ruiz sucked in this position.

Can't say much for Vaulev either, since he won't fight anybody at the top of the organizations; he's hoping to surpass the previously mentioned Marciano at 49-0 before fighting anybody important, I'd guess.

A lot of the guys who have been champion since Lewis and Klitschko have to be up there.

SABBATH
01-27-2007, 11:40 AM
If ur gonna go by that, then i can easily say that from 1900-1935 the coloured champ had a legit claim to the belt cuz they were more active. At times the coloured champ was much better than the "real champ".
Jack Johnson takes the blame for leaving such a bad impression as champ that blacks were denied a shot at the title for years afterwards. I don't necessarily buy into that theory. Those were racist times and a quality black heavyweight could still be avoided by a white fighter during the eras that followed Johnson without fear of repurcussion. If Johnson had have acted as a humble model citizen I still don't think the doors would have swung wide open in subsequent years for black heavyweights.

Jack basically chased Tommy Burns around the globe pressing him for a fight until the venue, money, and champion's pride allowed that fight to happen.

The timing was just right for Joe Louis who came along at one of the most boring periods of heavyweight history (Sharkey,Schmeling, Carnera, Baer, Braddock) was an exciting, explosive KO fighter (brought in the big gate receipts) and had underworld connections through his management team of Julian Black and John Roxborough. Even still Louis had to sign away a % of future earnings to Jim Braddock to get his title shot.

The colour barrier wasn't really broken until Louis defended against Walcott.

brownpimp88
01-27-2007, 03:44 PM
Jack Johnson takes the blame for leaving such a bad impression as champ that blacks were denied a shot at the title for years afterwards. I don't necessarily buy into that theory. Those were racist times and a quality black heavyweight could still be avoided by a white fighter during the eras that followed Johnson without fear of repurcussion. If Johnson had have acted as a humble model citizen I still don't think the doors would have swung wide open in subsequent years for black heavyweights.

Jack basically chased Tommy Burns around the globe pressing him for a fight until the venue, money, and champion's pride allowed that fight to happen.

The timing was just right for Joe Louis who came along at one of the most boring periods of heavyweight history (Sharkey,Schmeling, Carnera, Baer, Braddock) was an exciting, explosive KO fighter (brought in the big gate receipts) and had underworld connections through his management team of Julian Black and John Roxborough. Even still Louis had to sign away a % of future earnings to Jim Braddock to get his title shot.

The colour barrier wasn't really broken until Louis defended against Walcott.

If you think about it, Joe Louis and Rocky were the first Real Undisputed champs. Am i gonna belive that willard is the real champ when harry wills and langford are fighting each other for the real belt, while he takes 4 years off.

Dont let kid achilles know that 1926-1937 was the worst time frame in heavyweight history, he will go insane. Damn it must have sucked to watch heavyweight boxing back then, the champs were god damn aweful and they were defending the belt once a year.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-27-2007, 04:19 PM
If you think about it, Joe Louis and Rocky were the first Real Undisputed champs. Am i gonna belive that willard is the real champ when harry wills and langford are fighting each other for the real belt, while he takes 4 years off.

Dont let kid achilles know that 1926-1937 was the worst time frame in heavyweight history, he will go insane. Damn it must have sucked to watch heavyweight boxing back then, the champs were god damn aweful and they were defending the belt once a year.

Yea but I'd much rather watch a fight back then, rather then a fight today...Today with all the rules and regulations fighters can hardly get knocked down.....I mean back then fighters could fall through the ropes and get up and keep going. I bet if you fell out of the ropes today the fight would be called. Dempsey - Firpo today lol....

Of course the safety measures are good I'm just saying its more exciting watching two guys beat the **** out of each other..

Soundtraveler
01-28-2007, 02:14 AM
Much too hard to speak about fighters who were long dead before I was even born and truly form an opinion that could be considered relevant. If you were not there to actually bare witness to how "good" the opponants for a particular fighter were, then you are left with nothing but records. Records are very misleading, look at Emanual Burton for instance, who has a terrible record, but was actually a good fighter in his own right. To say that someone like Jack Johnson "never faced" any good opponants is rediculous, too many factors are involved, the sport itself was basically in it's infancy, despite the earlier exploits of a John L Sullivan, etc..

Take into consideration training methods, equipment, diet etc, and you can easily see a HUGE difference in the fighters of yesterday versus todays' fighters. The fighters back then were limited in numbers opponant wise as well, and communication was at best subjective, with the media having free reign on giving their own versions of what a fighter looked like, or even how a fight went, and there were plenty of exaggerated reports. There were no t.v. cameras or video to hold a sports writer to report a fight as it actually happened.

So, most of you, who are even younger than I am, can only truly base an opinion on fighters that you have seen first hand. Anything else is simply conjecture. For me, the worst excuse of a Heavyweight Champion in my opinion has to be Jon Ruiz, who would rather hug his opponant rather than actually "punch" him....

Dempsey 1919
01-28-2007, 02:47 AM
Much too hard to speak about fighters who were long dead before I was even born and truly form an opinion that could be considered relevant. If you were not there to actually bare witness to how "good" the opponants for a particular fighter were, then you are left with nothing but records. Records are very misleading, look at Emanual Burton for instance, who has a terrible record, but was actually a good fighter in his own right. To say that someone like Jack Johnson "never faced" any good opponants is rediculous, too many factors are involved, the sport itself was basically in it's infancy, despite the earlier exploits of a John L Sullivan, etc..

Take into consideration training methods, equipment, diet etc, and you can easily see a HUGE difference in the fighters of yesterday versus todays' fighters. The fighters back then were limited in numbers opponant wise as well, and communication was at best subjective, with the media having free reign on giving their own versions of what a fighter looked like, or even how a fight went, and there were plenty of exaggerated reports. There were no t.v. cameras or video to hold a sports writer to report a fight as it actually happened.

So, most of you, who are even younger than I am, can only truly base an opinion on fighters that you have seen first hand. Anything else is simply conjecture. For me, the worst excuse of a Heavyweight Champion in my opinion has to be Jon Ruiz, who would rather hug his opponant rather than actually "punch" him....

Good post.

Dempsey 1919
01-28-2007, 02:49 AM
For me, the worst excuse of a Heavyweight Champion in my opinion has to be Jon Ruiz, who would rather hug his opponant rather than actually "punch" him....

Haha, lol! :lol1:

The Raging Bull
01-28-2007, 07:30 AM
Primo Carnera/James J Braddock


Thread closed.

K-DOGG
01-28-2007, 11:29 AM
Primo Carnera/James J Braddock


Thread closed.

Well, wait. Couldn't Braddock have beaten Leon Spinks and maybe Shannon Briggs?

The Raging Bull
01-28-2007, 11:36 AM
Well, wait. Couldn't Braddock have beaten Leon Spinks and maybe Shannon Briggs?

Braddock fought a Baer who didn't have the will to fight anymore, that's why he won. But he had a huge heart and a decent punch so he has a chance against most people and even if he never beat Baer, he would still of been a good journeyman.

He has a chance against Briggs and Neon Leon, but on average I think Spinks and Briggs would beat Braddock more times out of ten than he would beat them.

Did Braddock have a prime because of the depression?

Carnera was just a fumbling fool.

It's nice to see Brassangel back too.

Ted The Bull
01-28-2007, 12:54 PM
who is it i just wonna know

Bruce Seldon!

Hydro
01-30-2007, 05:46 PM
lol @ people naming marciano and liston.

for christ's sake.

Dempsey 1919
01-30-2007, 06:08 PM
lol @ people naming marciano and liston.

for christ's sake.

Wow.:nonono:

Brassangel
01-30-2007, 11:35 PM
The Raging Bull said:
It's nice to see Brassangel back too.

Thanks.

And yeah, I think that Ruiz was pretty lame.

Franko
02-01-2007, 09:29 AM
I'm not arguing the fact that James Buster Douglas fought the fight of his life and i'm not saying its impossible for Prime Tyson to lose i was just pointing out the fact that having sex and drinking and partying aren't the best ways to train for a hw title defense (tyson did those in tokyo)

I think that at that time in their careers, Buster Douglas would have lost against Tyson nine times out of ten, but he did fight the fight of his life when he did beat Tyson, regardless of Tyson's preparation, and regardless of the long count (which i'm surprised hasn't been brought up). The fact of the matter is that Tyson underestimated Douglas and there is no excuse for that, however, Douglas did look terrible against Holyfield, and is a prime example of wasted talent.
I've read through most of this thread and have not seen Frank Bruno's name mentioned!

Emon723
02-01-2007, 09:38 AM
Linear: the worst has to be shannon briggs, if you count his gifted victory over 48 years old Foreman, if not, Leon Spinks, alphabet champs, seldon comes to my mind.