worse boxer to ever hold a title?

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 16 Jul 2005, 21:45

who were the top 5 worse heavyweight champions of all time?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Jul 2005, 22:13

1. John L Sullivan
2. Bruce Seldon
3. Oliver Mccail
4. Frans Botha- He did get credit for winning the IBF title, he was then stripped for steroids.
5. Hasim Rahman

HM: Leon Spinks

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 16 Jul 2005, 22:14

John L. Sullivan? thats going out on a limb a bit isnt it?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Jul 2005, 22:20

he basically fought all his fight barenuckle. he used to do more training in wrestling than in boxing.

he is one of the strongest heavyweights champs of all time, and had rock solid muscle. he also ate well, and ran a lot. but also drank alot.

the guy would prob be DQed if he fought today lol. thats the way i see it.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 16 Jul 2005, 22:21

i can see where that is coming from now.. hed probly be DQ in every fight he ever fought lol with todays rules and all

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Jul 2005, 03:26

..sullivan fought by the rules of his time...and was dominant....so i don't see how he can be judged by modern rules. he fought mostly under the london prize ring rules, which allowed the wrestling, gouging and sleeping with the loser's wife (just checking to see if you're paying attention.) he himself said he preferred the marquis of queensbury rules..the basis of our rules from corbett on. ironic that he lost to corbett under those very rules, making corbett the first marquis heavyweight champion.

barry · Post by **barry** » 17 Jul 2005, 04:52

BB---You need to do a lot more reading on John L., he doesn't even come close to being on that list!

robert.snell1 · Post by **robert.snell1** » 17 Jul 2005, 07:38

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:he basically fought all his fight barenuckle. he used to do more training in wrestling than in boxing.

he is one of the strongest heavyweights champs of all time, and had rock solid muscle. he also ate well, and ran a lot. but also drank alot.

the guy would prob be DQed if he fought today lol. thats the way i see it.

I assume you put his name up to get people going mate. It worked.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 17 Jul 2005, 07:51

1- Leon Spinks
2- Marvin Hart
3- Hasim Rahman
4- Frank Bruno
5- Buster Douglas

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 17 Jul 2005, 08:55

How about 'worse threads of all time!'???... this childish ball of twine gets my top ten vote!.... 8)

kovit · Post by **kovit** » 17 Jul 2005, 11:22

John Ruiz is one of the worst boring wba heavyweight champions of all-time. JOHN RUIZ IS THE WORST HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION OF ALL-TIME!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Jul 2005, 12:56

Barry i just said it mainly as a jk cause he fought in a era of bare knuckle boxing. if someone really asked me the worst 5 heavyweight champs i wouldnt say john l sullivan. i have read interviews and stories on him, i think he was a very strong workhorse.

worst heavyweight champ of all time has to be frans botha or bruce seldon.

6 Pack · Post by **6 Pack** » 17 Jul 2005, 13:49

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Barry i just said it mainly as a jk cause he fought in a era of bare knuckle boxing. if someone really asked me the worst 5 heavyweight champs i wouldnt say john l sullivan. i have read interviews and stories on him, i think he was a very strong workhorse.

worst heavyweight champ of all time has to be frans botha or bruce seldon.

Glad we cleared that up. I was a little shocked to see his name on here. For the bareknucklers he is an all-time great. But that really was a different sport.

They cross trained in wrestling and had trips and throws that were as good as knock downs. THey also had holding and hitting (dirty boxing).

6 Pack · Post by **6 Pack** » 17 Jul 2005, 13:52

SPinks, Carnera, Seldon, Marvin Hart, and the whole lot of 80's champs.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Jul 2005, 20:38

..brockton boy..well, you sure fooled me. of course, it's a well-known fact that i have no sense of humor. :x

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 18 Jul 2005, 00:58

Al McCoy and Mike McTigue.

Al McCoy won the championship on what many felt was a lucky punch (I dont necessarily believe such a thing exists.) Go over his list of fight reports before, during, and after his reign and you will see that he was one of the worst, and least popular fighters of all time. His chief asset was his ability to avoid being KOd which prolonged his reign during the ND era. One of the few positive things that can be said about McCoy was that provided no decision was rendered he would pretty much meet anyone in the ring so if you could knock him out you could win the title. The problem was that he spent most of his time running and covering up to avoid the KO.

McTigue was a better fighter after he lost the title than before. He won the championship on a gift decision and was roundly criticised throughout much of his career for his lack of offense. He shamelessly dodged the best guys during his reign.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Jul 2005, 14:39

...mccoy probably wasn't the first...but he was the first champ i read about being called a "cheese champion."

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 18 Jul 2005, 15:01

klompton wrote:Al McCoy and Mike McTigue.

Al McCoy won the championship on what many felt was a lucky punch (I dont necessarily believe such a thing exists.) Go over his list of fight reports before, during, and after his reign and you will see that he was one of the worst, and least popular fighters of all time. His chief asset was his ability to avoid being KOd which prolonged his reign during the ND era. One of the few positive things that can be said about McCoy was that provided no decision was rendered he would pretty much meet anyone in the ring so if you could knock him out you could win the title. The problem was that he spent most of his time running and covering up to avoid the KO.

I had a question about Al McCoy. I was researching this era of middleweights and noticed that American fighters like Jeff Smith and Eddie McGoorty and others went to Australia to fight for the real middleweight title, at least in fan's eyes. Why didn't McCoy give these guys a shot at the title or Jack Dillon and Mike Gibbons for that matter? All were considered better than him.

George Chip had McCoy on queer street in a round of their rematch but McCoy survived to the bell.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 18 Jul 2005, 15:02

.....al singer must have had the SHORTEST reign as champion...won the lightweight title on a first round kayo in 1930 and lost it in his first defense on a one round kayo later that year....so his reign as a champion is measured in minutes. plus...in an over the weight bout between the fights he was kayoed in the third round.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 Jul 2005, 01:29

...dnahar...this is just a wild guess...pure speculation on my part....but........uh....like...maybe he thought they'd beat him?

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 19 Jul 2005, 04:50

Jaclem, I wanted to know why.

The post I responded to by klompton said that Al McCoy was giving all the fighters a chance knowing he couldn't be KO'd in a ND fight. So I was wondering why some of these fights didn't happen and that maybe he knew more about the situation.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 Jul 2005, 13:49

..dnahar....i just re-read klompton's post and ...yeah..your question makes better sense than my response to it.

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 19 Jul 2005, 13:52

First let me clear one thing up that always irks me. The Australian bouts were NOT for the real middleweight championship. None of those bouts had anywhere near a clear claim to the title. They were billed as such to boost promotion. They werent even held at the universally accepted weight limit (158) for middleweight. They were held at 160 in era almost 10 years before the poundage was extended to 160.

As for McCoy he fought Gibbons before he won the title and Gibbons beat him so easily that McCoy would never give him a shot at the title. McCoy faced Dillon while he was champion in a ND match and Dillon beat him easily as well but McCoy lasted the distance so the title did not change hands. Im not really sure why Jeff Smith didnt fight McCoy. Possibly because McCoy was afraid he would lose inside the distance. Smith was a good puncher and very fast but he was a little small for a middleweight and spent a lot of time on defense which lost him some fights. His record is incomplete so its possible that they fought (more likely early in their careers) and it hasnt appeared on their records.

Forgot to mention McGoorty: for most McCoys reign McGoorty (and Clabby who was another good fighter) were in Australia, so geography saved McCoy on that one as both would have been able to outpoint him and Mcgoorty may have been able to KO him.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 19 Jul 2005, 18:05

klompton, thanks for the insights. McCoy made a bundle fighting ND bouts in Brooklyn, and avoiding the real fights made him richer and less respected than he would have otherwise been. I guess avoiding these fights fits that profile.

I respectfully disagree about the Australia fights not being for a legitimate claim of the title. Yes, they used 160 and the US did not recognize it, but they were between top middleweights and McCoy "kidnapped' the title. In all those ND bouts, McCoy didn't have to be 158 so he almost always had the weight advantage on his opponents while the Australian fights were even weight-wise. An unequal playing field in favor of McCoy. Plus, when George Chip won the title before McCoy, he weighed 161 1/2 to Klaus's 163 and was awarded the title that McCoy won from him.

BTW, how's the Greb book going?

klompton · Post by **klompton** » 19 Jul 2005, 22:39

dnahar32 wrote:klompton, thanks for the insights. McCoy made a bundle fighting ND bouts in Brooklyn, and avoiding the real fights made him richer and less respected than he would have otherwise been. I guess avoiding these fights fits that profile.

I respectfully disagree about the Australia fights not being for a legitimate claim of the title. Yes, they used 160 and the US did not recognize it, but they were between top middleweights and McCoy "kidnapped' the title. In all those ND bouts, McCoy didn't have to be 158 so he almost always had the weight advantage on his opponents while the Australian fights were even weight-wise. An unequal playing field in favor of McCoy. Plus, when George Chip won the title before McCoy, he weighed 161 1/2 to Klaus's 163 and was awarded the title that McCoy won from him.

BTW, how's the Greb book going?

A couple of points: I dont like McCoy any more than anyone else but he was the man who beat the man, hence he was champ. Yes he hid behind the ND law BUT those were the rules of the day. The claim of Jeff Smith for a world championship (which was how Les Darcy won his claim) was as bogus as anyones. Jeff Smith, to the point when he fought Darcy, had never beaten anyone who had an even remote claim to the title outside of McGoorty who himself could only base his claim on a couple of inconclusive ND fights with the real champ Frank Klaus (a darn good fighter). Another problem with the Australian fights is that a lot of people including well respect Australian historians have problems with their legitimacy based on the incredible amount of money that was wagered on these fights and the more than suspicious outcomes of some including Darcy-Smith 1 and 2, Smith-McGoorty, Darcy-McGoorty 1, Darcy-Crouse, and Darcy-KO Brown 2. Add to this the ludicrous claim by Smith that he won his "title" by beating Georges Bernard who had as much claim to the middleweight championship (at any point in his career) as I do to the heavyweight championship. I love Darcy. I think he was tremendously talented and has a fascinating story, but neither him Smith, Clabby, or McGoorty were champs. They all deserved to be and had they been given a chance at decision match with McCoy they would have been, no doubt in my mind, but they werent. Its one of the injustices of boxing because I think they eclipse McCoy but Im not prepared to rewrite history for them. Remember, nobody gave McCoy a chance with Chip either and Chip only lasted one round with McCoy (less actually). Another point: McCoy wasnt really a big middleweight and rarely had a weight advantage over his opponents. In fact shortly before he won the title he was a welterweight. The only time I can remember him being heavier than an opponent was when he lost the title to O'Dowd (another underrated great) and he was fat in that fight at 167 (or there abouts). That is a good point you make about the weights of Chip and Klaus, the same thing supposedly happened when Klaus and Carpentier fought to solidify the title (although Im inclined to believe this was the pro-Carpentier promoters trying to lessen the shock of his loss as the weight issue only became an issue AFTER he was brutally beaten). One last point about the Australian bouts and their ligitimacy: If you are going to ignore McCoys title all together and recognise the dubious nature of the Australian promotions it does a great disservice to other great claiments of that era like Mike Gibbons, Jack Dillon, and even Harry Greb (who battered McCoy from pillar to post in a ND title match in Pittsburgh in 1917). Its much more simple, and logical, in my opinion to tell the story the way it happened which is one man who was a mediocre fighter knocked out the champ and won the title. One man who was a terrific fighter beat a lot of the top guys on his own turf but died before he got his shot at the title. The rest were frozen out until O'Dowd blasted McCoy from his title.

Whoops forgot to answer about the book. Its going great. My wife and I just had our first child and thats slowed me down a bit but its still very much on track. The contract for the printers is signed, we are ready to start printing up signatures (the individual sections of the book) and everything looks great. To be honest Ill be glad when Im done. Its taken over three years of my life which is about 2 years longer than I expected.