BoxRec

I knew Eubank faced some British challengers - Sam Storey

Ryan Rhodes has challenged three times - 1997, 1999, 2006.

twenty six wrote:Ryan Rhodes has challenged three times - 1997, 1999, 2006.

Don't think the OP is considering the WBU. Otherwise we could be here all day!

John Lowrey fought Erik Morales in 1997 for WBC title.

LLoyd Honeyghan 1990 against Breland

wrimc wrote:I have got so far: Lewis Hamed Clarke Hide Thompson Lloyd Ingle Mcullough Schwer Woodhall Calzaghe Reid Wenton Catley Dunstan Graham Piper Wharton Eubank Akinwade Welch Rhodes Dodson Foster Jones Cantwell Bingham Regan Docherty Robinson Pyatt Hodkinson Mcmillan Davison Murphy Mckenzie McCrory

There must be a few more obscure ones especially early 90's?

paul weir, pat clinton

Eamonn Loughran WBO Welter champion for a few years.

Michael Carruth challenged for the WBO title.

Tim Driscoll 1991 against Stecca

Joey Jacobs 1991 against Kamel Bou-Ali

Eamonn Loughran WBO welter champ

Danny Porter 1992 challanged Pat Clinton

And gripping at straws Michael Olajide was born in Liverpool

Crisanto Espana was a damn excellent world champion.... massive reach.

Their flooding back now.

Stu, we really need a life

Sean Murphy challenged Steve Robinson.

Dave McAuley (once held the record for most number of defences by a British fighter) - cannot see his name there.

In your 2000's section you missed out Wayne McCullough's two brave efforts against Larios in 2005.

Do Interim titles count.... then you can add Afolabi vs Maccarinelli and also Steve Foster Jnr vs Alex Arthur.

Stu,
Didn't spot that.
Drop 2006 for Rhodes then.
The 2 in the nineties were WBO.

I dont think we can count interim titles as they aren't for the bona fide title however if the interim status is upgraded (Alex Arthur) then the first defence counts

Robert McCracken (2000)

stujones wrote:Crisanto Espana was a damn excellent world champion.... massive reach.

Their flooding back now.

He was Puerto Rican and boxed in Ireland!

ALI.W wrote:More belts mean more title fights and more television and public exposure for the sport.

Is that why boxing has been so badly marginalised and even hardcores can't recall all the mediocre boxers who challenge for spurious belts and claim to be champs? No one knows what the hells going on with all of boxing belts and few care that much anymore.

More belts has had the exact reverse effect of what you wrote, less TV, less public exposure. The sports a mess and will never be cleaned up.

overhand_right wrote:

ALI.W wrote:More belts mean more title fights and more television and public exposure for the sport.

Is that why boxing has been so badly marginalised and even hardcores can't recall all the mediocre boxers who challenge for spurious belts and claim to be champs? No one knows what the hells going on with all of boxing belts and few care that much anymore.

More belts has had the exact reverse effect of what you wrote, less TV, less public exposure. The sports a mess and will never be cleaned up.

us hardcore fans know who the champs are , i think the more belts , means more tv idea is probably about right as thats going to drag casual fans into boxing , watching fighters they would otherwise of never heard of

But that's the point - it has had the exact opposite effect!!!!

Do you actually thinking boxing is as popular now as it was decades ago? Christ we're all reduced to watching it on small grainy foreign pictures on illegal internet streams.

damianhucker1 wrote:

overhand_right wrote:

ALI.W wrote:More belts mean more title fights and more television and public exposure for the sport.

Is that why boxing has been so badly marginalised and even hardcores can't recall all the mediocre boxers who challenge for spurious belts and claim to be champs? No one knows what the hells going on with all of boxing belts and few care that much anymore.

More belts has had the exact reverse effect of what you wrote, less TV, less public exposure. The sports a mess and will never be cleaned up.

us hardcore fans know who the champs are , i think the more belts , means more tv idea is probably about right as thats going to drag casual fans into boxing , watching fighters they would otherwise of never heard of

It actually confuses people, so called "hardcore" fans may know who the champs are but I have friends who are confused that we have three world heavyweight champions, four super middleweight champions etc.

It is ridiculous to be honest, we don't have multiple F1 champions or multiple Premier League champions now do we?

Thank you Banjo, I thought I was going nuts. In the 80s you could identify one champ per division. Sometimes the title was fractured in two but could build up thrilling deciders ala Hearns & Leonard.

It got out of hand in the 90s and since 2000 it's been absolutely disgraceful. 2010 is well on the way to being even worse.

If only 'some' of the hardcores know who the champs are, that spells it out clearly that boxing has shot both it's feet off and is slowly working it was up the legs.

nicky piper DD

overhand_right wrote:

stujones wrote:Crisanto Espana was a damn excellent world champion.... massive reach.

Their flooding back now.

He was Puerto Rican and boxed in Ireland!

Venezuelan.

70's anyone?

Ken Buchanan, Joe Bugner, Richard Dunn, John Conteh, John H Stracey, Maurice Hope, Jim Watt,