But Who Are The Worst Hv Champs

go sell crazy someplace else, we're stock full over here why would that be crazy ??

and i think buster is the most underated fighter in history go sell crazy someplace else, we're stock full over here

and i think buster is the most underated fighter in history

i guess it depends on how you look at the question. buster douglas is critisized because he never made a successful defense. michael dokes never made one eiher and he won the title from weaver not tyson. dokes is remembered well for his great fight with holyfield and maybe he was not that bad as a fighter, but his resume as a champion is as bad as it gets i know little about him so you know ..but i am looking for who the worst fighter is more then worst rein as champ..alot of guys only had 1 or 2 defenses ...

i myself never thought he was all that bad i guess it depends on how you look at the question. buster douglas is critisized because he never made a successful defense. michael dokes never made one eiher and he won the title from weaver not tyson. dokes is remembered well for his great fight with holyfield and maybe he was not that bad as a fighter, but his resume as a champion is as bad as it gets

once again, michael dokes i myself never thought he was all that bad

once again, michael dokes

Rahman was bad, ruiz, buster, botha.... looking at this list ne body could be a HW champ welll i was wrong Botha was never champ it was a NC

jess willard by far, he was an outright bum! http://boxrec.com/media/images/e/ef/Willard.Jess.jpg i was going to add him to ..or put carnera and him as the same

Rahman was bad, ruiz, buster, botha.... looking at this list ne body could be a HW champ

jess willard by far, he was an outright bum! http://boxrec.com/media/images/e/ef/Willard.Jess.jpg

Lennox Lewis! I HATE HIM! I want to rip out his heart and feed it to him

Burns could have that record, my friend, as he did have a number of title defenses end in knockout. I can't say for sure without doing the math, though, but I would venture to say Burns is right up there in that category. i think it was him i got a mag about it ..i just dont feel like going thru all them to find it ..i remember it was something on how underrated and unknown he was yet he held this record for so long

hey YOGI didnt Burns also hold the record for most strate ko's in title fights before Holmes or am i thinking of Fits Burns could have that record, my friend, as he did have a number of title defenses end in knockout. I can't say for sure without doing the math, though, but I would venture to say Burns is right up there in that category.

vitali klitschko, since he wasnt on the list i voted for the other giant not able to box freak, primo carnera. oh and carnera didnt deserve his title either. ey another hating post by dickhead

I didn't vote Ruiz because despite his boring style he does manage to get through fights and keep the belt. I didn't vote Spinks because i believe that he was more suited for the crusierweight division! Botha's win was changed to a NC so i don't think he ever held the IBF title in the first place, he should be removed from the poll! I picked Seldon because his chin was more of an issue than his skill. I picked Buster Douglas because apart from the Tyson win he achieved nothing. And i picked Mike Weaver because he was able to win a title because it was the worst heavyweight scene in history! Good thread though! buster beat the hottest fighter of his time how can u say he wasnt worthy....

hey YOGI didnt Burns also hold the record for most strate ko's in title fights before Holmes or am i thinking of Fits

Byrd and Rahman get my votes.

yeah, tommy burns is quite a plausible pick. it might happen to seem a bit more plausible because he was ducking johnson for a couple of years and then got whipped when he eventually stopped running. I would disagree with that as I think Burns actually deserves credit for eventually breaking the infamous colour line that held black boxers back in the years previous (as well as other athletes in other sports). Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Jeffries all drew the colour line when they were Heavyweight champions and refused to defend against the best black fighters around during their eras...Sullivan printed that infamous challenge in various newspapers where he stated that he "will not fight a Negro". Corbett underwent negotiations for a title defense against Peter Jackson, but would only defend his title against Jackson in the deepest southern states, where "The Black Prince" would've certainly recieved his fair share of unfair disadvantages. Bob Fitzsimmons also outright refused to fight Jackson and there are quotes of his to this day regarding that refusal. And James Jeffries refused Jack Johnson' challenges to a title fight in the ring before the his initial retirement, but according to the stories, Jeffries was perfectly willing to fight Jack in the streets (a famous story in a bar recounts Johnson's challenge to Jeffries, which almost resulted in a fist fight between the two). Yet Tommy Burns (a quick in-and-out fighter of both hand & foot, who carried a excellant punch, immense toughness, great heart, and outstanding reach for someone of his size) is criticized for finally breaking the colour line and defending against his most worthy challenger? Judging by the previous Heavyweight champions, the precedant was surely set and by no means did Burns have to defend against Johnson. The public didn't care to see the fight, and in fact, Burns was even criticized by the prejudice public for his facing the challenge of Johnson. Yet he did fight him...so shouldn't he, in most ways, be applauded for breaking the colour line and facing Johnson in a fight in which he entered the ring suffering from a case of influenza (the sickness is according to boxing historian & Burns' researcher, Larry 'Cap' Roberts)?

if weaver is on the list i think michael dokes needs to be also. dokes drew with weaver in the rematch and i dont think he ever defended. weaver did actually have some defenses before losing to dokes.