Who got the most undeserving shot at the HW Championship?

[Kalan]

Worse was John Finnegan, Jeffries' worst challenger... His record was 4-2-4 according to boxrec and he weighed 180 "looking like a boy" next to Jeffries... He lasted 44 seconds, was hit 3 times and knocked down 3 times.

Interesting list you dug up . . . do you think Dempsey-Miske was an 'exhibition' sold as a defense?

Not at all lad ... Because Miske was a very good Heavyweight challenger... MIske went undefeated for his next 20 fights after he fought Dempsey -- beating such well know campaigners as Fred Fulton, Bill Brennan, Tommy Gibbons, Willie Meehan, and Charlie Weinert.

[davie]

Can I include Charles Martin, even though he "won" it?

NOPE!!!! ... He was 6'5" X 247

The new qualifying criteria for being a world title challenger is height and weight?

an undefeated in 25 fights...

Padded meaningless records against nobodies like Tom Dallas
Alexander Flores was his best win.
Must have been a great fighter. Undefeated 14-0, stood 6'5" and 240lb

He must be deserving if he won it...

Against an even less deserving weak challenger
he won it because Glaskovs knee gave out

If he were that bad he wouldn't have lasted 3 rounds

Like when he surrendered the title against a relative novice?
The most embarrasing defence I've ever witnessed of the greatest prize in sport.
Champion?

[Tomasino]

Can I include Charles Martin, even though he "won" it?

NOPE!!!! ... He was 6'5" X 247

The new qualifying criteria for being a world title challenger is height and weight?

an undefeated in 25 fights...

Padded meaningless records against nobodies like Tom Dallas
Alexander Flores was his best win.
Must have been a great fighter. Undefeated 14-0, stood 6'5" and 240lb

He must be deserving if he won it...

Against an even less deserving weak challenger
he won it because Glaskovs knee gave out

If he were that bad he wouldn't have lasted 3 rounds

Like when he surrendered the title against a relative novice?
The most embarrasing defence I've ever witnessed of the greatest prize in sport.
Champion?

Kalan is such a joke poster can't believe he's still here

[Ambling Alp II]

It's not even worth going into all the stiffs who fought for WBS titles (and sometimes won) since Lennox Lewis retired.

Al Perno asked for 5 at the beginning of this thread, so here are my 5:

1. Pete Rademacher
2. Jack Roper
3. Terry Daniels
4. Lucien Rodriguez
5. Jean Pierre Coopman

Jewey Smith, Jack Palmer, Scott Frank, Tom McNeeley, Johnny Paycheck, Tony Musto, Harry Thomas, and Jose King Roman weren't much better.

[Kalan]

NOPE!!!! ... He was 6'5" X 247

The new qualifying criteria for being a world title challenger is height and weight?

an undefeated in 25 fights...

Padded meaningless records against nobodies like Tom Dallas
Alexander Flores was his best win.
Must have been a great fighter. Undefeated 14-0, stood 6'5" and 240lb

He must be deserving if he won it...

Against an even less deserving weak challenger
he won it because Glaskovs knee gave out

If he were that bad he wouldn't have lasted 3 rounds

Like when he surrendered the title against a relative novice?
The most embarrasing defence I've ever witnessed of the greatest prize in sport.
Champion?

Kalan is such a joke poster can't believe he's still here

Tomasino you're an abysmal poster who never expressed an intelligent thought.

Davie... Charles Martin has 1 loss in 27 fights and he's a former Heavyweight Champion.. Every opponent he fought beyond his 9th fight had a winning ring record.. That doesn't make him a good Heavyweight Champion -- or even a real good challenger for the Heavyweight title.. But it also DOESN'T put him into contention for the worst Heavyweight Title challenger of all time.. There were literally hundreds of chump challengers worse than Martin.

Martin looked hopeless against Joshua... That doesn't mean he'd look hopeless against Ingemar Johannson, Jimmy Braddock, Marvin Hart, Michael Bentt, Tommy Morrison, Leon Spinks, Gerry Coetzee, Bermane Stiverne, Tommy Burns, and other champs who were easy to hit and defeat. Let's just admit Martin wasn't close to the ineptitude of a Johnny Davis, Jack Palmer, or John Finnegan.

[Caractacus]

yeah,but suppose all of these guys mentioned would fight in a Fantasy tournament on the planet Gorn.
Who would win and would the winner of it still be deserving of a title shot based on that ?

[Caractacus]

I had heard that Jack Roper was good.
He certainly gave it his all with his chance anyways (while he lasted that is )

[Nile4000]

Definitely Scott Frank.

[Dart340]

Based on Hauser's Ali book and description of the behind the scenes buildup to the Coopman fight, I'd say it has to be Jean Pierre. Hauser related that Coopman was getting schooled by a bloated and retired middleweight who hadn't fought in five years. Terry Daniels was a credible Top 20 heavyweight who beat a ranked Ted Gullick decisively and was still regarded as a promising developing fighter, so I'd exclude him. Rodriquez showed heart and durability against Holmes, who couldn't finish him. Zyglewicz might fit the bill, based on getting stopped out in CA the fight before Frazier. Vaughn Bean always seemed a strange choice to fight Holyfield. Maybe you guys know more about him than me.

[Nile4000]

If Terry Daniels could get a shot, so should have Mac Foster.

[davie]

. Let's just admit Martin wasn't close to the ineptitude of a Johnny Davis, Jack Palmer, or John Finnegan.

I'm sure we can find some common ground there

[Ambling Alp II]

Every record book I have found doesn't list the Davis fight as a title fight. In fact, outside of Boxrec I have never seen it even listed as a fight on Joe Louis' record. Can't believe Davis would have been regarded as the champion had he won a 4-round decision.

Jeffries-Finnegan is listed as a title fight in one record book that I have. Finnegan had knocked down Jeffries previously in an exhibition and it was milked for all it's worth in hyping up their fight.

Surprised the Village Idiot has not mentioned a fight Jess Willard had that is listed in Boxrec as a title fight. Have not seen that one listed as a title fight anywhere else.

There are probably dozens of guys you can list in the last 15 years or so. There are now 4 titles. Obviously there are going to be guys getting title shots (and occasionally even winning) that are not very good at all; despite whatever their irrelevant stats might show. Charles Martin is just one.

[Tony1244]

Saturday Night Live: "Muhammad Ali's next defense will be in June against a 7 year old blind girl."


Jack Roper
Alfredo Evangelista
Jean Pierre Coopman
Dave Zygelititz
Terry Daniels

[Kalan]

Can't believe Davis would have been regarded as the champion had he won a 4-round decision

You're the village idiot Stumbling Alp -- so you know what's going on here. Why don't you mention the Willard fight since you're doing so much research with no intelligent input whatever, just emotional outbursts since you think size historically favors smaller shorter Heavyweights.

Since the NYSAC was the governing body having ruling jurisdiction over Louis-Davis -- Davis WOULD have been the Heavyweight Champion in the one-in-a-billion chance he had at winning. Doubtless there would have been an immediate rematch with Louis scoring an immediate KO. Louis eliminated that impossibility entirely by smashing Davis out with his first punch -- which was his way of telling John J. Phelan to shove his ruling into the appropriate slot.

[APerno]

Can't believe Davis would have been regarded as the champion had he won a 4-round decision.

I ran into two newspaper articles, one regarding the original intent of the Louis-Walcott fight, and another regarding Dempsey-Billy Miske.

The original plan for Walcott was to be a ten round non-title fight (as we know NYSAC put the ka-bash on that one,) supported by an interesting comment made by Louis, which went something to the effect that if Walcott KOed Louis, Louis would recognize Walcott as champion. Otherwise the original 10 round fight was intended to go to a NC if there was no KO.

The same thing appeared for the Dempsey-Miske fight, this time it was announced publicly that if Miske won by a KO he would be considered champion, but otherwise there would be no decision. This fight went off under those conditions.

I am looking to see if the same rules were employed for Louis-Davis. No luck yet.

[APerno]

Can't believe Davis would have been regarded as the champion had he won a 4-round decision

You're the village idiot Stumbling Alp -- so you know what's going on here. Why don't you mention the Willard fight since you're doing so much research with no intelligent input whatever, just emotional outbursts since you think size historically favors smaller shorter Heavyweights.

Since the NYSAC was the governing body having ruling jurisdiction over Louis-Davis -- Davis WOULD have been the Heavyweight Champion in the one-in-a-billion chance he had at winning. Doubtless there would have been an immediate rematch with Louis scoring an immediate KO. Louis eliminated that impossibility entirely by smashing Davis out with his first punch -- which was his way of telling John J. Phelan to shove his ruling into the appropriate slot.

I found this in the NY Times - it is dated three days before the fight; The Times still believed the fight would be an exhibition.

Which begs the question, when did the NYSAC announce it would not except an exhibition? It seems unlikely that the NY Times would be this wrong just three days from the fight. I am starting to wonder if the claim that the NYSAC forced a title fight is true or not. I didn't find any NY Times follow up article regarding the fight's outcome. It wasn't much of a fight though. - I am going to look elsewhere and see if I can find a NYSAC announcement.

[Ambling Alp II]

Good research.
I don't consider the Davis fight anymore than an exhibition. The record books don't either. Outside of Boxrec I have never seen it mentioned as a title fight.

I had read something about Walcott-Louis originally supposed to be just an exhibition. Walcott was not highly regarded. He had bad management for much of his career and was a late bloomer.

As for Miske-Dempsey, I didn't realize that it was scheduled as a No-Decision fight. That would have hurt Miske's chances of winning the title because it's was very doubtful that he would stop Dempsey; especially in just 10 rounds.
I have commented on previous posts that I was skeptical that he was that sick for this fight. He did have success after the Dempsey fight. Someone else did mention they thought it was a situation where he would got sick, then his health improved, but then had a relapse and eventually died. Hard to say.

[Kalan]

three days before the fight; The Times still believed the fight would be an exhibition.

Which begs the question, when did the NYSAC announce it would not except an exhibition? It seems unlikely that the NY Times would be this wrong just three days from the fight. I am starting to wonder if the claim that the NYSAC forced a title fight is true or not. I didn't find any NY Times follow up article regarding the fight's outcome. It wasn't much of a fight though. - I am going to look elsewhere and see if I can find a NYSAC announcement

Don't wear out your shoe leather... Don't believe everything you read in print because reporters OFTEN get it wrong. Believe what you see in real life. One of two things happened and there's no other possibility but what I list below.

1. An exhibition match...in which you wear sparring gloves and you don't try to hurt your opponent. It's a match where you’re demonstrating your boxing skills for the appreciation of the fans. There’s no winner declared any more than a regular sparring match in a boxing gym where nobody’s watching. You don’t get a fat lip, beaten up, hurt, knocked down or anything. You’re boxing a competent opponent and he knows how to defend himself, so you don’t play pitty-pat with him. You spar regular and score punches as you can for the entertainment of the fans.

2. A fight...in which you’re wearing no head gear... You’re wearing 10oz gloves if you’re a Heavyweight – but they wore 6oz in the ‘40s – and you box to WIN. You try to hurt your opponent. If you possibly can you knock him unconscious. He’s not your friend.

Ask yourself which of those 2 events took place... There’s your answer to what the A-holes at the NYSAC did. The bastards pulled rank like they love to do.

[APerno]

three days before the fight; The Times still believed the fight would be an exhibition.

Which begs the question, when did the NYSAC announce it would not except an exhibition? It seems unlikely that the NY Times would be this wrong just three days from the fight. I am starting to wonder if the claim that the NYSAC forced a title fight is true or not. I didn't find any NY Times follow up article regarding the fight's outcome. It wasn't much of a fight though. - I am going to look elsewhere and see if I can find a NYSAC announcement

Don't wear out your shoe leather... Don't believe everything you read in print because reporters OFTEN get it wrong. Believe what you see in real life. One of two things happened and there's no other possibility but what I list below.

BoxRec's claim that the fight was 'forced title fight' is based on a newspaper article from the The Baltimore African-American, December 2nd 1944. Why is should we assume that newspaper is correct and that the NY Times incorrect? By what standard do we draw that conclusion?

What does add to the 'forced title' argument is the presence of two judges at the fight (according to BoxRec) - but I am starting to believe that what may have happened is that, there was an early controversy between Louis' people and the NYSAC, (which the Times article claimed was settled) and the controversy spawned an apocryphal story that got legs under it.

Especially when you consider that the story has such a romantic flair to it: The great Joe Louis, with his back to the wall (had to protect himself from a bad 4 round decision) cleans up the problem with his fists, in under a minute. It's the stuff legends are made of.

In regards to the glove size, The Times article makes a point of identifying the glove size as an exception, suggesting it was a compromise between the two parties. Which adds credibility to The Times article; that it recognized the difference.

The Baltimore African-American, who made the claim 3 weeks later, (just enough time for a story to get legs under it) doesn't hold enough prestige for us to just brush aside a contradicting NY Times article.

People like their history romantic and we embellish.

[APerno]

three days before the fight; The Times still believed the fight would be an exhibition.

Which begs the question, when did the NYSAC announce it would not except an exhibition? It seems unlikely that the NY Times would be this wrong just three days from the fight. I am starting to wonder if the claim that the NYSAC forced a title fight is true or not. I didn't find any NY Times follow up article regarding the fight's outcome. It wasn't much of a fight though. - I am going to look elsewhere and see if I can find a NYSAC announcement

Don't wear out your shoe leather... Don't believe everything you read in print because reporters OFTEN get it wrong. Believe what you see in real life. One of two things happened and there's no other possibility but what I list below.

BoxRec's claim that the fight was a 'forced title fight' is based on a newspaper article from the The Baltimore African-American, December 2nd 1944. Why is should we assume that newspaper is correct and that the NY Times incorrect? By what standard do we draw that conclusion?

What does add to the 'forced title' argument is the presence of two judges at the fight (according to BoxRec) - but I am starting to believe that what may have happened is that, there was an early controversy between Louis' people and the NYSAC, (which the Times article claimed was settled) and the controversy spawned an apocryphal story that got legs under it.

Especially when you consider that the story has such a romantic flair to it: The great Joe Louis, with his back to the wall (had to protect himself from a bad 4 round decision) cleans up the problem with his fists, in under a minute. It's the stuff legends are made of.

In regards to the glove size, The Times article makes a point of identifying the glove size as an exception, suggesting it was a compromise between the two parties. Which adds credibility to The Times article; that it recognized the difference you pointed out.

The Baltimore African-American, who made the claim 3 weeks later, (just enough time for a story to get legs under it) doesn't hold enough prestige for us to just brush aside a contradicting NY Times article.

People like their history romantic and we embellish.

[Kalan]

BoxRec's claim that the fight was 'forced title fight' is based on a newspaper article from the The Baltimore African-American, December 2nd 1944. Why is should we assume that newspaper is correct and that the NY Times incorrect? By what standard do we draw that conclusion? ... Especially when you consider that the story has such a romantic flair to it: The great Joe Louis, with his back to the wall (had to protect himself from a bad 4 round decision) cleans up the problem with his fists, in under a minute. It's the stuff legends are made of ... In regards to the glove size, The Times article makes a point of identifying the glove size as an exception, suggesting it was a compromise between the two parties. Which adds credibility to The Times article; that it recognized the difference

Again.. You need to look at what happened in the fight.. Louis smashed Davis out and Joe was a very nice guy... Boxers frequently get pissed off at boxing commission rulings.. You have a bunch of old fartheads who decide what goes.. The boxer and coach are forced to react "Alright, you want to call this kid a challenger we're going to treat him like a challenger. We're not going to let you old bastards pull any fast ones" BOOM!! SPLAT!! "There's your title fight creeps."

Louis didn't do that to treat a horribly mismatched opponent badly... He did that to tell the head commissioner "UP YERS" ... Louis wanted an exhibition and the NYSAC wanted a fight because they didn't like exhibitions??? ... That's the kind of sh!t that wears boxing managers out. People pushing their weight around. Why this kind of goofy stuff happens in Boxing more than any other pursuit I don't know. What is it about Boxing and the folks who govern it?

[APerno]

BoxRec's claim that the fight was 'forced title fight' is based on a newspaper article from the The Baltimore African-American, December 2nd 1944. Why is should we assume that newspaper is correct and that the NY Times incorrect? By what standard do we draw that conclusion? ... Especially when you consider that the story has such a romantic flair to it: The great Joe Louis, with his back to the wall (had to protect himself from a bad 4 round decision) cleans up the problem with his fists, in under a minute. It's the stuff legends are made of ... In regards to the glove size, The Times article makes a point of identifying the glove size as an exception, suggesting it was a compromise between the two parties. Which adds credibility to The Times article; that it recognized the difference

Again.. You need to look at what happened in the fight.. Louis smashed Davis out and Joe was a very nice guy... Boxers frequently get pissed off at boxing commission rulings.. You have a bunch of old fartheads who decide what goes.. The boxer and coach are forced to react "Alright, you want to call this kid a challenger we're going to treat him like a challenger. We're not going to let you old bastards pull any fast ones" BOOM!! SPLAT!! "There's your title fight creeps."

Louis didn't do that to treat a horribly mismatched opponent badly... He did that to tell the head commissioner "UP YERS" ... Louis wanted an exhibition and the NYSAC wanted a fight because they didn't like exhibitions??? ... That's the kind of sh!t that wears boxing managers out. People pushing their weight around. Why this kind of goofy stuff happens in Boxing more than any other pursuit I don't know. What is it about Boxing and the folks who govern it?

Here is a theory: Davis was a 'bum' and the first time Louis tagged him, he crumbled. Causing great embarrassment for all involved. He even succeeded in making Louis look like a bully when he wasn't.

Then post fight, an embarrassed Phelan went crazy in front of the media swearing he would never let another exhibition in New York State, thus the Walcott exhibition had to become a title fight.

OR

Phelan tried to stab Louis in the back by turning the fight into a title fight after The Times article was published. (Sometime between the November 11th and fight night on the 14th.) This second theory makes both newspapers correct: Phelan turned dick at the last minute and showed up at the fight with two judges. Only when the judges appeared did Louis and his people realize they had been screwed, and then Louis had no choice but to protect himself by a quick KO. But this scenario necessitate's Phelan pulling a real dirty trick at the last minute and if he did that, we then have to ask why Louis would risk yet another scheduled exhibition against Walcott. (That exhibition was schedule for 10 rounds.)

For me this story is now in question and won't have a proper answer until a few more primary sources appear. The story is full of romance but it could turn out to be as real as that April day in Havana where the temperature reached, 101 - 103 - 105 -115

[gp.]

Charles Martin is the only man who not only got an undeserved shot at the title but also got to make an undeserved defence.

[Kalan]

Here is a theory: Davis was a 'bum' and the first time Louis tagged him, he crumbled. Causing great embarrassment for all involved. He even succeeded in making Louis look like a bully when he wasn't

I think the newspaper was wrong.. They knew 6oz gloves aren't used for exhibitions so why would you use them except for a regulation fight??? Makes no sense except for a boxing commission that wanted to be a horse's ass and block an exhibition match.. The other evidence is Joe Louis's actions when the bell rang... He obviously didn't throw a punch for about 34 seconds so he was looking for a big opening... Davis had 6 pro fights 3-3 and had been hit tons before... He wasn't going to crumble from an exhibition shot because Louis fought tons of exhibitions during the war and always took it easy. However with the commission calling it a title fight, essentially a real fight, that screwed everything up.

Davis threw no punches and Louis threw one... The plan from Lewis's side was to make it a one punch affair to make an ass out of the commissioner who doubtless had his own agenda for God knows what reason... You can't take a chance.

[Kalan]

Charles Martin is the only man who not only got an undeserved shot at the title but also got to make an undeserved defence.

Not really... Martin had a poor ranking himself -- but his defense was deserved because Joshua was a top Heavyweight... Leon Spinks got an undeserved title shot... And Spinks made an undeserved defense against Ali instead of the top contender... So Spinks was stripped of the title and Holmes became the Heavyweight Champion by beating Norton.

Then you had Michael Bentt getting an undeserved Title Fight with Tommy Morrison... Then Bentt made his first defense against Herbie Hide... Was Hide was one of the world's top Heavyweight challengers??? Maybe, I'm not sure -- so that may have been another double... Hide was a 2-time Heavyweight Champion who also won the title against undeserved Tony Tucker by quick KO, and defended that title against 2 undeserved challengers with good records who you never heard of.