BoxRec

oliverfennell wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:Carlos Maussa, Michael Bentt and Bruce Seldon...

Why were Maussa and Bentt "lucky"? They had to beat the defending champs, and did so legitimately.

Seldon did benefit from easy matchmaking for a vacant title, but Maussa and Bentt did what they had to do.

Who said they were lucky?

The title of the thread is worst or luckiest, and in my opinion they're three of the WORST world champs in history.

Captain Hook wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:Carlos Maussa, Michael Bentt and Bruce Seldon...

Why were Maussa and Bentt "lucky"? They had to beat the defending champs, and did so legitimately.

Seldon did benefit from easy matchmaking for a vacant title, but Maussa and Bentt did what they had to do.

Who said they were lucky?

The title of the thread is worst or luckiest, and in my opinion they're three of the WORST world champs in history.

Yeah - forgot the thread also asked for "worst".

As for Bentt, his career was far too short to know his position in such a list. I suppose we can only judge on what see. Like most of us, I only saw his Morrison and Hide fights.

orbtastic wrote:
Corey Spinks has to be one of the worst belt holders in recent years

I wouldn't say that. Past his best now, but Spinks was a nice little boxer in my opinion!

Roco wrote:

reggaereggae wrote: Steve Robinson (good journeyman who beat only British class fighters)

I wouldn't call Hoko, Duke and Mcmillian british class fighters. I think they were better than that. However, I do agree that Robinson over achieved considering his ability.

Good point - they were good fighters....but good fighters in their prime....

They were way past their best by the time Robbo go to them.

Most of the above boxers were still better than 75-80% of the other boxers in their division at the time of a title try.

And Luis Santana was ahead on points in his 1st fight against Norris
He may of well been on his way to a knock out loss though.

Insider wrote:

orbtastic wrote:
Corey Spinks has to be one of the worst belt holders in recent years

I wouldn't say that. Past his best now, but Spinks was a nice little boxer in my opinion!

God-awful to watch most of the time though.

Leon Spinks - surely he was lucky to have gotten to fight a well past it Ali, given his own limited pro experience.

We all love him, but surely Frank Bruno must rank up there.

whicker wrote:We all love him, but surely Frank Bruno must rank up there.

I reckon there's far worse than Frank.

Bruce Seldon will always stand out due to his utter capitulation to Tyson.

Unfair to mention Barkley I think - nowhere near either worst or luckiest.

In worst category I'd throw in Vincenzo Nardiello. Thomas Molinares must be up there with the luckiest.

Matt W wrote:Bruce Seldon will always stand out due to his utter capitulation to Tyson.

Unfair to mention Barkley I think - nowhere near either worst or luckiest.

In worst category I'd throw in Vincenzo Nardiello. Thomas Molinares must be up there with the luckiest.

I thought his fight with Starling was declared a NC or was this at a later date?

The ending stood out as a lucky moment but you could well be right there.

Based on his performance against Lloyd Honeyghan I would throw Gene Hatcher into the mix for worst, although to be fair it is the only fight I've seen him in.

banjo wrote:

Matt W wrote:Bruce Seldon will always stand out due to his utter capitulation to Tyson.

Unfair to mention Barkley I think - nowhere near either worst or luckiest.

In worst category I'd throw in Vincenzo Nardiello. Thomas Molinares must be up there with the luckiest.

I thought his fight with Starling was declared a NC or was this at a later date?

3 time/weight world champ Barkley...I think he was lucky, personally. Massive overachiever.

To lose one world title may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

The Molinares fight is an odd one - He was initially declared the winner by KO, the punch being thrown fractionally after the bell sounded (that's how it looks to me anyway). The NJ board declared it a no contest but the good old WBA stood by it and kept Tomas as champ. He didn't have much luck though, he vacated it after suffering from depression (don't know too much more about that). Great punch though.

I'm probably splitting hairs here but being an overachiever and being lucky are different things for me. I think that generally overachievement comes when achievement exceeds talent, often via hard work & determination. In the case of Barkley he took a pummeling from Hearns but endured it and landed a peach of a shot and went on to prove himself world class.

Luck is a factor in many achievements to some degree or another, but you need to be prepared to take advantage of the opportunity that luck provides. To me when the luck element far outweighs the effort put in to make the most of it, I would consider someone lucky i.e. Santana. When it is coupled with a supreme effort then labelling something lucky seems unfair.

I am fully aware that that explanation may sound like utter bollocks...

orbtastic wrote:

banjo wrote:

Matt W wrote:Bruce Seldon will always stand out due to his utter capitulation to Tyson.

Unfair to mention Barkley I think - nowhere near either worst or luckiest.

In worst category I'd throw in Vincenzo Nardiello. Thomas Molinares must be up there with the luckiest.

I thought his fight with Starling was declared a NC or was this at a later date?

3 time/weight world champ Barkley...I think he was lucky, personally. Massive overachiever.

To lose one world title may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.The Molinares fight is an odd one - He was initially declared the winner by KO, the punch being thrown fractionally after the bell sounded (that's how it looks to me anyway). The NJ board declared it a no contest but the good old WBA stood by it and kept Tomas as champ. He didn't have much luck though, he vacated it after suffering from depression (don't know too much more about that). Great punch though.

Sugar Ray Robinson - luckiest middleweight champion in history.

Matt W wrote:I'm probably splitting hairs here but being an overachiever and being lucky are different things for me. I think that generally overachievement comes when achievement exceeds talent, often via hard work & determination. In the case of Barkley he took a pummeling from Hearns but endured it and landed a peach of a shot and went on to prove himself world class.

Luck is a factor in many achievements to some degree or another, but you need to be prepared to take advantage of the opportunity that luck provides. To me when the luck element far outweighs the effort put in to make the most of it, I would consider someone lucky i.e. Santana. When it is coupled with a supreme effort then labelling something lucky seems unfair.

I am fully aware that that explanation may sound like utter bollocks...

Is Santana lucky that Norris couldn't control himself (on more than one occasion)? Or is he just fortunate that he was picked as a stooge with a moderate clubfighter record by DK? I can't remember the chronology, but the shot that landed on the neck would have felled an elephant.

Barkley was world class but was essentially out-skilled by most guys with some class. He got lucky against Hearns - He literally threw the punch with his head down and his eyes closed, he was probably seconds from being stopped himself, Hearns was killing him to the body and had him cut over both eyes. He then loses to an old and fat Duran having a tiny last hurrah (remember how absolutely awful he looked in every fight after that point). He mugged Van Horn - I'm still not quite sure how he won two (!) world titles but was then hopelessly outclassed by an in-form Toney (Ring mag picked Barkley to win that) and he somehow gets a shot at Hearns who is bristling with indignation and hurt by the loss so much he rematches the guy and goes to war for 12 rounds, phone booth style because he's got it in his head that Barkley can't beat him (they were both on Arsenio Hall before the fight, you can tell Hearns is mega pissed and wants to knock him out)...and this is a creaking at the seams, really should retire not really that good at taking shots to the chin Hearns.

He was lucky to get his title shots, lucky to catch Hearns (both figuratively and literally) at the point he did.

If I met him tomorrow, I'd want to shake his hand and tell him that he's one of my favourite fighters to watch but would not say to his face he was lucky....but that's what I believe he was. He definitely overachieved, no doubt about it.

Yeah,Barkley has to be the worst or luckiest EVER.He only beat Hearns twice,lost splits to Nunn and Duran as well as beating Olajide and Van Horn.Thats nothing compared to what the likes of Silky,Vaca and all the others mentioned have done!

Matt W wrote:
In worst category I'd throw in Vincenzo Nardiello.

One of those fighters who seemed to get chance after chance.

won the vacant European title twice, and lost in first defence twice.

The got Nigel Benn for the world title and lost.

Challenged again for the European title and lost by TKO, and was rewarded with a third World title shot, against Sugarboy, a surprised winner over the faded Benn. Won in an awful fight, then immediatly lost it on his first defence, and managed to get a final shot against Richie Woodall.

Worst in recent years: Nicky Cook, Alex Arthur, Giancobbe Fragomeni, Anthony Mundine.

brian13 wrote:Worst in recent years: Nicky Cook, Alex Arthur

That was kind of an "intrim" belt or something, a bit confusing really.

orbtastic wrote:

Insider wrote:

orbtastic wrote:
Corey Spinks has to be one of the worst belt holders in recent years

I wouldn't say that. Past his best now, but Spinks was a nice little boxer in my opinion!

God-awful to watch most of the time though.

"God-awful to watch" is not the same thing as "worst".

banjo wrote:

whicker wrote:We all love him, but surely Frank Bruno must rank up there.

I reckon there's far worse than Frank.

Totally. Just off the top of my head: Seldon, Botha, Maskaev, Rahman, Hide, probably Hart (though I've never seen anything of him).

brian13 wrote:Worst in recent years: Nicky Cook, Alex Arthur, Giancobbe Fragomeni, Anthony Mundine.

I actually rate Mundine. In terms of talent, he's nowhere near among the "worst". Just a shame he seemingly has lost all ambition.

Matt W wrote:Bruce Seldon will always stand out due to his utter capitulation to Tyson.

Not to mention getting an ancient Tucker as his co-challenger for the vacant belt, and defending against Joe Hipp.

oliverfennell wrote:

orbtastic wrote:

Insider wrote: I wouldn't say that. Past his best now, but Spinks was a nice little boxer in my opinion!

God-awful to watch most of the time though.

"God-awful to watch" is not the same thing as "worst".

Still don't think he's very good.