Least deserving world title challenger?

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 14 Feb 2007, 09:35

Who do you think was the least deserving world title challenger?

Mine has to be Pete Rademacher who fought Floyd Patterson for the world heavyweight title in his FIRST pro fight !!!

Any others?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 14 Feb 2007, 09:51

Here's 2 controversial ones seeings as they both won...

Michael Spinks
Ray Leonard

Spinks less so as there has always been a tradition of fighters moving up without taking fights at the new weight...but the difference between LHW and HW had become so big the Cruiser class came into being...

Leonard had been out of the game for years, had never fought at 160 and leap forgged a queue of deserving challengers: Hearns, Graham, etc...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 14 Feb 2007, 11:49

Maybe James Braddock, Which is why the world was stunned when he won. Proving of course than he did indeed deserve it. But few were thinking that when he stepped into the ring with Max.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 14 Feb 2007, 11:49

Theres tons of manufactured contenders. The list is endless.

Heartbreak_Kid79 · Post by **Heartbreak_Kid79** » 15 Feb 2007, 08:40

Marvin Frazier challenged Larry Holmes for the HW title way too early!

Got the title shot probably on account of who is father was (smokin Joe)

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 15 Feb 2007, 10:26

Anytime a fighter would get a shot at the title and lost and then got another shot without having another fight in between then I thought he was undeserving. I always thought he should of had to have beat somebody before getting another shot. Sometimes you would see a guy lose when challenging for the WBC title and right afterwords receive a shot at the WBA title.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 15 Feb 2007, 15:15

Tim Tomashek.

AndreWardFan2006 · Post by **AndreWardFan2006** » 15 Feb 2007, 17:46

Decagon wrote:Ali's title challengers in his first reign, from a mismatch point-of-view. Bookies across North America wouldn't even take action on Ali-Chuvalo, but Chuvalo was one of the best challengers Ali had.

Ali also fought a very lucky Leon Spinks...who I am so glad he beat in the rematch.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 15 Feb 2007, 20:07

Joe Louis v Bob Roper
Jack Johnson v Tony Ross-Battling Jim Johnson

Dart340 · Post by **Dart340** » 16 Feb 2007, 00:17

Oklahoma clubfighter Tony Gardner challenging Elisha Obed for the 154 Lb title in the late 70's comes to mind.

Tomashek was a late replacement, but fits the bill. The original scheduled fight against Mike Williams wasn't much better. At least Tomashek was a real fighter.

Scott Clark challenging Pipino Cuevas for the title, getting obliterated, and then never fighting again.

cosand · Post by **cosand** » 17 Feb 2007, 14:21

Mike Rossman and Billy Backus

Oddly enough, they both won the first time around.

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 02 Mar 2007, 05:00

What comes first? The title fight or 9th or 10th rating? I think in most cases it would be the former.

Nile4000 · Post by **Nile4000** » 18 May 2007, 17:12

THat Scott Frank character.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 May 2007, 00:46

..nice to see this one back....i was going to post mine the first time around but didn't get to it..

..according to the new york boxing commission and most of the sports writers,at least in new york...one of the most undeserving was..ta dah...jersey joe walcott against joe louis. the boxing commission wanted to call it an exhibtion...10 rounds...as louis was considered a cinch to blow out the "old man" as soon as he touched him with his jab. the provincial boxing writers....(nowhere were they more provincial than in new york) made jokes about the old grand pappy probably fainting when joe louis feinted. it was the intervention of nat fleischer and his powerful ring magazine....again, especially in new york....who insisted that it had to be a title match as the heavyweight champion always had his title on the line...there being no way he could come in over the weight.

i know this is well known...i and others have written about it here...but i love the irony on posting it on this thread.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 19 May 2007, 00:53

This list could go on and on... naming the number of undeserving contenders just this year could probably be lengthy... but I agree Rademacher, at 0-0, fighting the Heavyweight champion... that's got to be the worst...

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 May 2007, 00:54

..i changed my mind on my next entry but don't know how to cancel once i started....so...have a nice day...

Thunder and Lightning · Post by **Thunder and Lightning** » 19 May 2007, 05:17

Rademacher probably is to be the least deserving challenger but with Jaclem mentioning Jersey Joe you could say he is the least deserving too, i mean he lost three worldtitle fights straight than beat some fighters the only real contender being Harold Johnson (Ten Hoff and Tandberg were pretty good but not world class) and then he lost to Rex Layne but still got a title shot wich he lost but with no fight in between he got another title shot and won so did Wallcott realy deserve all those title shots, was the HW divison realy that weak in those days that you could recycle a challenger like that.

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 19 May 2007, 09:15

I Feel Fine wrote:This list could go on and on... naming the number of undeserving contenders just this year could probably be lengthy... but I agree Rademacher, at 0-0, fighting the Heavyweight champion... that's got to be the worst...

Rademacher wouldn't be anywhere close to being the least deserving challenger. He was an Olympic champion, & that automatically puts him in the top 15% of active heavyweights. He was untested as a pro, but an Olympic champion would beat 85% of the active pros & with some experience maybe all but 5%. Four or Five years after turning pro he might even be the champion. All pro means is you get paid. Look at the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. Amateurs to be sure. They licked a team the best of the NHL couldn't. Rademacher wasn't handled properly, but he would probably be closer to the most deserving than least. I'll bet half the challengers who did challenge for the title over the years, wouldn't have beaten him. How many of them could have won Olympic gold . Damn few.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 19 May 2007, 09:21

I understand what your saying Bill, however there is always the issue of what has the fighter accomplished in the pro ranks to earn the shot.
A guy coming right out of the amateurs , leap frogging over guys who have beaten other pro contenders who have been paying their dues so to speak becomes an issue.

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 19 May 2007, 09:35

Expug wrote:I understand what your saying Bill, however there is always the issue of what has the fighter accomplished in the pro ranks to earn the shot.
A guy coming right out of the amateurs , leap frogging over guys who have beaten other pro contenders who have been paying their dues so to speak becomes an issue.

Expug, No arguement on that point. Their have been many deserving fighters who never did get their chance. However, how many undeserving challengers get a top 10 rating IN ORDER TO GET THE FIGHT. They beat no one of signifigance, a payoff occurs, they then get the rating & then the fight. Rademacher was undeserving. I don't argue that. I do say he was more deserving than most. Olympic Gold has a lot of credibility.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 19 May 2007, 18:05

dunder and blitzen...yes...maybe walcott did get a shot or two some would say were undeserved......bit i was specifically referring to the PERCEPTION of his deserving one before the first joe louis fight.

as for walcott later....i think i've written how that third shot at charles came about.....which was the result of a bit of chicanery by a few people involved...in both camps. again, he fooled the experts....nat fleischer was overseaas and when he got a telegram saying walcott had knocked out charles he thought it was an error...that the message had the names reversed. when he told this story at a boxing writer's dinner....and said, from the podium that he didn't think walcott had a chance in that one..walcott was so put out that he refused to stand when he name was mentioned and had to be convinced by the members of his party to do so instead of walking out as he inteneded to do.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 19 May 2007, 23:56

Bob Foster against Joe Frazier, why a man who got knocked out by Charlie Polite think he could take on an undefeated prime Joe Frazier without having any fights against top 10 HW's to even get title contention, is beyond me.

That and "Irish" Bob Baker, when he took on Maurice Hope. Baker was just a club fighter and for some reason was 'suddenly' ranked #7 in the world and was butchered by Hope.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 May 2007, 01:30

bill.lockhart wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:This list could go on and on... naming the number of undeserving contenders just this year could probably be lengthy... but I agree Rademacher, at 0-0, fighting the Heavyweight champion... that's got to be the worst...
Rademacher wouldn't be anywhere close to being the least deserving challenger. He was an Olympic champion, & that automatically puts him in the top 15% of active heavyweights. He was untested as a pro, but an Olympic champion would beat 85% of the active pros & with some experience maybe all but 5%. Four or Five years after turning pro he might even be the champion. All pro means is you get paid. Look at the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. Amateurs to be sure. They licked a team the best of the NHL couldn't. Rademacher wasn't handled properly, but he would probably be closer to the most deserving than least. I'll bet half the challengers who did challenge for the title over the years, wouldn't have beaten him. How many of them could have won Olympic gold . Damn few.

I didn't say he was the worst fighter to challenge for a title, I said he, at 0-0, was the least deserving.

Thunder and Lightning · Post by **Thunder and Lightning** » 20 May 2007, 06:28

Jaclem wrote:dunder and blitzen...yes...maybe walcott did get a shot or two some would say were undeserved......bit i was specifically referring to the PERCEPTION of his deserving one before the first joe louis fight.

I didn't write that you said anything about Charles vs Wallcott i just said you brought him up and that got me thinking and by saying Wallcott got one or two title shots he maybe shouldn't have had that only confirms what i wrote.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 20 May 2007, 09:26

HomicideHenry wrote:Bob Foster against Joe Frazier, why a man who got knocked out by Charlie Polite think he could take on an undefeated prime Joe Frazier without having any fights against top 10 HW's to even get title contention, is beyond me.

That and "Irish" Bob Baker, when he took on Maurice Hope. Baker was just a club fighter and for some reason was 'suddenly' ranked #7 in the world and was butchered by Hope.

"Irish " Mike Baker.
Not Bob.

Least deserving world title challenger?

Least deserving world title challenger?

Here's a few...

Manufactured contenders

Least Deserving Challenger

Least Deserving Challenger

Re: Least Deserving Challenger