BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, three world titles just weren't enough, were they?

It did not happen overnight, but it was in the 2000s. I remember in the 1990s HBO started a policy where they would not even mention the WBO on the air. Lampley would say something like "he has a title from an organization that we don't recognize." (Right after the ring announcer would refer to someone as the WBO champion.)

This was supposed to be some sort of ethical stand concerning the paper title situation.
However, they dropped that policy after a while.

The promoters and the networks like have a lot of "world titles" (and undefeated fighters) because they think it helps promotes fights.

The numerous titles have been one of the factors in boxing's downfall.

Judah Ben Fur wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, three world titles just weren't enough, were they?

It did not happen overnight, but it was in the 2000s. I remember in the 1990s HBO started a policy where they would not even mention the WBO on the air. Lampley would say something like "he has a title from an organization that we don't recognize." (Right after the ring announcer would refer to someone as the WBO champion.)

This was supposed to be some sort of ethical stand concerning the paper title situation.
However, they dropped that policy after a while.

The promoters and the networks like have a lot of "world titles" (and undefeated fighters) because they think it helps promotes fights.

The numerous titles have been one of the factors in boxing's downfall.

I think 1995/96 was the year it turned around for the wbo... for the first time a legit bona fide hw people respected as champ in riddick bowe....young guns like barerra,hamed ,de la hoya and michaelzewski as champs,names like eubanks......

Prior to that there were too many Mickey house titles and title fights early on before that.that said, moorer,hearns and camacho were good early champs

Ambling Alp II wrote: When he was the WBO champion, nobody consider it a major belt. Neither he nor Mercer (or Bennt, or Hide for that matter) were considered real champions and it is annoying that people now retroactively make it out to be that this title meant something.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Apr 2016, 14:06 I did not see a lot of him, but what I did he was not bad. He had some boxing ability and could punch. He should have beat Mercer, but quit once he got hurt.

Syntax Error wrote: ↑13 Apr 2016, 13:17When did that happen & why are the likes of the WBF, IBO etc not considered to be 'majors'?

Caractacus wrote: ↑12 Apr 2016, 11:37Francesco Damiani-How Good Was He?

Caractacus wrote: ↑12 Apr 2016, 11:37How good do you think he could have been?

Kalan wrote: ↑04 Jan 2018, 19:27 James Broad was Damiani’s toughest opponent eh??? Whooo baby...That's really funny,

It's interesting how your toughest opponent is always one of the more inept and chinny guys you ever fought, but somebody who you beat... Every time I hear an interviewer ask a boxer that question I always get ready for some bullcrap…

Ali a few fights after losing to Joe Frazier said something like... "Toughest opponent? Whew... Cooper was tough.. Chuvalo was real tough... Doug Jones was a very tough fight... I'll probably say Karl Mildenberger was my toughest... His southpaw style gave me fits.”

Floyd Patterson.... "I fought so many really great fighters.. Pete Rademacher kept getting up every time I knocked him down.. Eddie Machen was exceptionally tough.. Jerry Quarry was a tough kid, but not the toughest.. Cassius Clay? Well, I had a bad back and couldn't test him.. The Liston fights were over too fast to gage his effectiveness.. Johansson was the first guy to really beat me and that was my toughest loss because I was such a big favorite to beat him. I’ll go with Ingo.” He also ranked Ingo well over Liston for his top 10 Heavyweights of all time. He didn't include himself.

Joe Frazier.... “I fought a lot of tough guys. Bonavena.. Jerry.. Clay.. I really can’t say who was the toughest opponent I fought. They were all tough.” No mention of Foreman of course.

Kalan wrote: ↑04 Jan 2018, 19:35 But as for how good Damiani was...

He was a very sloppy and poorly conditioned Heavyweight... He was a poor man's Gerry Cooney... He had a better chin than Cooney but a very soft and flabby body... He needed a strength coach and a nutritionist to get the fat off and apply some muscle and strength to his frame... He needed a boxing coach because he was strictly a brawler... He got hit all the time.. He had no footwork, jab, or defensive expertise such as a Larry Holmes would have -- but at that time Larry was very fat also -- but fat or in shape Holmes could go 12 or 15 rounds easy as pie because he knew exactly what he was doing... If Holmes could really hit, and was physically strong and very well conditioned instead of super fat, he would have had the package.

This is what separates Joshua from Heavyweights of earlier generations.

Flump wrote: ↑05 Jan 2018, 10:06

Kalan wrote: ↑04 Jan 2018, 19:35 But as for how good Damiani was...

He was a very sloppy and poorly conditioned Heavyweight... He was a poor man's Gerry Cooney... He had a better chin than Cooney but a very soft and flabby body... He needed a strength coach and a nutritionist to get the fat off and apply some muscle and strength to his frame... He needed a boxing coach because he was strictly a brawler... He got hit all the time.. He had no footwork, jab, or defensive expertise such as a Larry Holmes would have -- but at that time Larry was very fat also -- but fat or in shape Holmes could go 12 or 15 rounds easy as pie because he knew exactly what he was doing... If Holmes could really hit, and was physically strong and very well conditioned instead of super fat, he would have had the package.

This is what separates Joshua from Heavyweights of earlier generations.

He was nothing like Gerry Cooney, except he was white

Caractacus wrote: ↑06 Jan 2018, 12:56 Check out Francesco Damiani in this amateur fight from April.15. 1982.
World Amateur Boxing Championship in Munch Germany.

Kalan wrote: ↑07 Jan 2018, 23:50 Damiani was getting beaten up by Mercer.

Mercer was never hurt and landing good shots on Damiani.....breaking him down... McCall hit him with even sharper and better shots... That was one of the few times you'll see a name boxer quit on his feet in mid round from a vicious beating... Damiani lacked the conditioning to keep a battle of attrition going against a resolute and iron tough opponent... When you see a very flabby opponent who lacks strength you know he won't sustain a real war for the distance.

But a fight where there was no give in either warrior was Lewis vs Mercer... Not a great boxing match but a great fight... A tough way to win - but if you lack an elite jab and defensive skills often size, strength, and physicality will win it.

Crease wrote: ↑05 Jan 2018, 08:13

Caractacus wrote: ↑12 Apr 2016, 11:37Francesco Damiani-How Good Was He?

Not very good, I'm afraid.

Looking at his record, which the only objective way of judging any fighter - he showed that he had a bit of talent about him, but his losses to Ray Mercer and Oliver McCall suggest that he would have struggled against other top 10 Heavyweights of the '90s.

His great achievement was winning and holding that WBO Heavyweight Championship, yet it's difficult to give him full credit for it considering that ne never beat an established World Champion for it.
So well it is a very good achievement becoming World Heavyweight Champion, he can't get full credit for it.

Caractacus wrote: ↑12 Apr 2016, 11:37How good do you think he could have been?

But isn't the difficulty of rating him? We never seen him fight multiple credible contenders like a Razor Ruddock, a Phil Jackson, or a Michael Moorer - so we'll never know how good he could have been.

And that's not even counting the top guy like Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis & Bowe. All four of which, I'd say would have beaten him handily enough.