The most un deserving HW title challengers...

Nile4000 · Post by **Nile4000** » 05 Feb 2008, 14:45

I Feel Fine wrote:Yeah, that last line is another point I wanted to make. It seems that it was implied by someone above that Holmes would have fought Page but didn't because Page was upset by Bey. That is untrue. Holmes didn't want to fight Page and vacated his WBC title. Page then fought for that vacant title but lost to Witherspoon, then in his next fight lost to Bey. So Holmes didn't want to fight Page, didn't want to fight Witherspoon in a rematch after he beat Page and won the WBC title, of those three choices Holmes went with a fight against Bey; an inept opponent with less than 15 pro fights.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 05 Feb 2008, 18:23

I am a big Holmes fan regardless.

I think he should of had faced Page, regardless of the Bey elimination.

Holmes SHOULD have faced the ther names in his reign and should have
re-matched those guys who he struggled against.

The fact remains he was the man from 1978 to 1985. He was the dominant star that the person in the street in a sense recognised as the champ. Top guys did not get to face him, but then again some did.

I think he does rate as an all time great HW champion, I am biased but I wont appologies for his failings.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Feb 2008, 19:30

I think we can agree there. Finally.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 05 Feb 2008, 19:35

But its fun to disagree :)

Klee Gluckman · Post by **Klee Gluckman** » 12 Feb 2008, 04:18

golotta got four title shots without winning. Lost twice to Bowe and then got a shot at lewis, lost tyson and got a shot at Byrd. Then got a shot at Ruiz and Brewster without actually winning a fight.

Tyrell Biggs got a shot after struggling agianst Bey because the Duvas were owed a favour from Jacobs apparently.

Botha got ko'd in five by Tyson and got a go at Lewis.

Bowe fought Fergurson instead of Lewis.

Lewis fought Shannon Briggs as a reward for Briggs losing to a 48 year old Foreman. Yes I know the official verdict.

I dont thing Ray Austin deserved a title shot.

Mcline got a shot he did not deserve but was competitive. This guy had Peter, Brock , Byrd on the canvas but lost to all three.

Douglas got a shot ahead of Holyfiled but pulled of the upset

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 12 Feb 2008, 07:34

As the title is least deserving challengers you could make a strong case for the novice Leon Spinks, despite the fact that when given his opportunity he made the most of it.

Thunder and Lightning · Post by **Thunder and Lightning** » 12 Feb 2008, 09:57

I think i've said this before but Jersey Joe Walcott deserves to be mentioned I mean he got two title shots against Joe Louis and he lost both, then he got another title match with Ezzard Charles for the vacant title and lost then he won five fights the only real top contender being Harold Johnson he then lost to Rex Layne and STILL got a title shot against Ezzard wich he lost and with no fight inbetween he got ANOTHER title shot wich he won.

PS Rex Layne got no title shot even thou he beat Wallcott and Walcott got TWO.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 12 Feb 2008, 10:02

Thunder and Lightning wrote:I think i've said this before but Jersey Joe Walcott deserves to be mentioned I mean he got two title shots against Joe Louis and he lost both, then he got another title match with Ezzard Charles for the vacant title and lost then he won five fights the only real top contender being Harold Johnson he then lost to Rex Layne and STILL got a title shot against Ezzard wich he lost and with no fight inbetween he got ANOTHER title shot wich he won.

PS Rex Layne got no title shot even thou he beat Wallcott and Walcott got TWO.

LOL, when you put it that way, without any commas as if you haven't drawn breath, it does sound bad

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 12 Feb 2008, 12:31

Thunder and Lightning wrote:I think i've said this before but Jersey Joe Walcott deserves to be mentioned I mean he got two title shots against Joe Louis and he lost both, then he got another title match with Ezzard Charles for the vacant title and lost then he won five fights the only real top contender being Harold Johnson he then lost to Rex Layne and STILL got a title shot against Ezzard wich he lost and with no fight inbetween he got ANOTHER title shot wich he won.

PS Rex Layne got no title shot even thou he beat Wallcott and Walcott got TWO.

Walcott was one of the better punchers in the history of the heavyweight division.

Walcott won the title with a single punch kayo of Ezzard Charles.
Charles was out for several minutes.

Walcott knocked Marciano down in the first round.

Walcott knocked an old Joe Louis down in TWO fights.

Harold Johnson was not a 'contender' when they threw him in with heavyweight Walcott. At the time Johnson was a less than full grown lightheavyweight with little experience as a pro as compared to the long experienced Walcott.

The fact that that fight took place at that time shows clearly that Johnson's 'managers' were NOT his friends.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 12 Feb 2008, 13:03

Thunder and Lightning wrote:I think i've said this before but Jersey Joe Walcott deserves to be mentioned I mean he got two title shots against Joe Louis and he lost both, then he got another title match with Ezzard Charles for the vacant title and lost then he won five fights the only real top contender being Harold Johnson he then lost to Rex Layne and STILL got a title shot against Ezzard wich he lost and with no fight inbetween he got ANOTHER title shot wich he won.

PS Rex Layne got no title shot even thou he beat Wallcott and Walcott got TWO.

Well, the way you explain that part of Walcott’s career; yes his title shots seem undeserved. However, reality was quite a bit different.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Feb 2008, 13:32

Thunder and Lightning wrote:I think i've said this before but Jersey Joe Walcott deserves to be mentioned I mean he got two title shots against Joe Louis and he lost both, then he got another title match with Ezzard Charles for the vacant title and lost then he won five fights the only real top contender being Harold Johnson he then lost to Rex Layne and STILL got a title shot against Ezzard wich he lost and with no fight inbetween he got ANOTHER title shot wich he won.

PS Rex Layne got no title shot even thou he beat Wallcott and Walcott got TWO.

Walcott went on a great run prior to his first title shot vs Louis, lost a controversial decision, was beating Louis until the KO . . .all of his fights with Charles were fairly close.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 12 Feb 2008, 13:57

dempseyfire wrote:
Walcott went on a great run prior to his first title shot vs Louis, lost a controversial decision, was beating Louis until the KO . . .all of his fights with Charles were fairly close.

Walcott was a DANGEROUS puncher

and VERY deceptive in getting off his big punches.

His first fight with Marciano was one of the great fights in the history of the heavyweight championship.

Thunder and Lightning · Post by **Thunder and Lightning** » 12 Feb 2008, 16:24

granberry wrote:
Thunder and Lightning wrote:I think i've said this before but Jersey Joe Walcott deserves to be mentioned I mean he got two title shots against Joe Louis and he lost both, then he got another title match with Ezzard Charles for the vacant title and lost then he won five fights the only real top contender being Harold Johnson he then lost to Rex Layne and STILL got a title shot against Ezzard wich he lost and with no fight inbetween he got ANOTHER title shot wich he won.

PS Rex Layne got no title shot even thou he beat Wallcott and Walcott got TWO.
Walcott was one of the better punchers in the history of the heavyweight division.

Walcott won the title with a single punch kayo of Ezzard Charles.
Charles was out for several minutes.

Walcott knocked Marciano down in the first round.

Walcott knocked an old Joe Louis down in TWO fights.

Harold Johnson was not a 'contender' when they threw him in with heavyweight Walcott. At the time Johnson was a less than full grown lightheavyweight with little experience as a pro as compared to the long experienced Walcott.

The fact that that fight took place at that time shows clearly that Johnson's 'managers' were NOT his friends.

I don't say Walcott was not a good fighter he was a very good fighter and his record show that BUT in my book you have to fight your way to your title shot and even if he did deserve both his fights with Louis and let's say even the first with Charles even thou he had two straight losses, who can realy say he did deserve his last two with Charles after he won five fights against no real top contenders and lost to Layne.

cannonball · Post by **cannonball** » 12 Feb 2008, 16:29

DAMON REED,WHO GOT BLOWN AWAY BY HERBIE HIDE WAS ABOUT AS POOR AS IT GETS IMO. TERRY DANIELS,SCOTT FRANK,JACK ROPER.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 12 Feb 2008, 17:14

In regards to the Douglas Tyson fight...that was a 'warm up' defence for a Holyfield show down.

Bowe fought fergusson who beat Mercer and that is how Fergusson got the shot.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 14 Feb 2008, 00:16

I would say Walcott was deserving of the first rematch with Charles. Charles and Walcott were the best guys in the division, so it made sense that they would have a rematch. The reason why there was a third fight was, again, there weren't that many names and because Walcott was getting older and it was supposedly meant to be a going away fight for him. Walcott finally won the title on his fifth try for it.