The Biggest Mismatches

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:25

A lot of great fighters fought bums inbetween big fights, not just Chavez. Its a way to make extra money and stay sharp. Robinson, Moore, Duran... whoever you want to name.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 09 Sep 2007, 23:40

I'm not comparing their overall competition. I'm talking about the stay busy fights they'd have inbetween title fights. I think its something a lot of fighters used to do, not just the fighters mentioned.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Sep 2007, 00:31

^^^I would

I dont see the difference between Moore fighting professional wrestlers, journeyman and down right tomato cans in between fights with contenders and mandatories for his title at 175 pounds, than what Chavez done.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 10 Sep 2007, 00:49

Stay busy fight... I'm pretty sure that's a term that is used. I guess tune up is a more common term.

I'm not making the comparison as a way to knock Robinson and Moore. And I'm only using those two, and Duran, to show that what Chavez did wasn't unprecedented, that it was something that past fighters had always done. I could just as well have named three other fighters. The point I was making is that I don't think, or at least I don't know that Chavez did it to inflate his record, as some suggest, I assume he did it to stay active, like past fighters did. Like Chavez they did sometimes fight fighters who had losing records, who had less than 10-15 fights, who sometimes had never boxed professionally. Whether those lesser fighters who Robinson and Moore fought in-between their big fights were better than the lesser fighters Chavez fought in-between his big fights, I won't say, its not meant to be an exact comparison.

And I think taking these fights is a good thing, I think its probably better to stay active in-between more important fights than it is to take long breaks like most fighters do today.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Sep 2007, 01:39

Archie Moore, if I recall, fought some 53 times while he held the title at 175. He defended the title all but 9 times in those 10 years as champion, but outside of the men he defended his title against (Giulio Rinaldi, Yvon Durelle 2x's, Tony Anthony, Yolande Pompey, Bobo Olsen, Harold Johnson, Joey Maxim; whom he won it from) he fought the likes of:

The Good:

Rocky Marciano- HW title (lost by KO 9th)
Floyd Patterson- Vacant HW title (lost by KO 5th)
Bob Baker
Nino Valdes- Nevada HW title
Howard King
James J Parker
Bert Whitehurst
Willie Besmanoff
Charley Norkus
Buddy Turman

^^^Take into consideration that Moore fought King, Whitehurst and others multiple times.

The Bad:

Julio Neves
Roger Rischer
Bob Mitchell
Gene Thompson
Sonny Andrews
George Parmentier
Willie Bean
Bob Dunlap
Rinaldo Ovidio Ansaloni
George Abinet

The Down Right Ridiculous:

Professor Roy Shire (professional wrestler)
Sterling Davis (professional wrestler)

This of course is during Moore's championship reign, but practically throughout his entire career he fought many, many men who were down right laughable in between some of his more meaningful fights...but nonetheless the 185-23-11 fight record is something to behold.

************************************************************

Chavez on the other hand, from 1984 to 1994, went an incredible 47-0 (i believe) from his win over Mario Martinez for the vacant WBC Super Feathweight title to his loss to Frankie Randall for the WBC light welterweight crown.

The Good?

Andy Holligan
Pernell Whitaker
Terrence Ali
Greg Haugen
Hector Camacho
Frankie Mitchell
Angel Hernandez
Lonnie Smith
John Duplessis
Kyung Duk Ahn
Meldrick Taylor
Sammy Fuentes
Alberto de las Mercedes Cortes
Roger Mayweather
Jose Luis Rameriz
Rodolpho Augilar
Edwin Rosario
Danilo Cabrera
Juan La Porte
Fransisco Tomas Das Cruz
Rocky Lockridge
Refugio Rojas
Faustino Martires Barrios
Ruben Castillo

And mind you, Chavez fought Mayweather and some others in rematches during that time period.

The Bad?

Rafael Limon
Vernon Buchanan
Kenny Vice
Nicky Perez
Manuel Hernandez
Jaime Balboa
Tommy Small
Jorge Alberto Melian
Juan Soberanes
Marty Jakubowski
Silvio Walter Rojas

The Shameful:

Bruce Pearsen
Ignacio Pedromo
Akwei Addo
Russell Mosely
Ramon Aramburu
Rodolpho Batta
Roberto Collins Lindo

Not too bad for a man Decagon says fought more 'underneath fighters' than Moore and Robinson; seems to me his ledger is just as good as champion.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Sep 2007, 02:19

I never said PRIME I said as CHAMP; but if you want to go that route, yeah Chavez was probably the most spoon fed fighter I have ever seen, but then again most Mexican/Argentinian fighters are...Duran fought quite a few softies in his time too.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 10 Sep 2007, 03:08

Greg Richardson challenged Jeff Fenech for the 122 pound title when he could barely make it up to the flyweight limit. Richardson ran around the ring for 5 rounds trying to keep away and I thought Fenech was literally going to kill him

theone · Post by **theone** » 10 Sep 2007, 17:33

You're comparing Chavez in his prime to Moore when he was in his 40s, though. Look at the bulk of Moore's career at middleweight and light heavyweight.

Between his 30th pro fight and his title winning effort against Maxim; Moore fought ALOT of bums and no hopers. Very comparable to Chavez, Duran, or most fighters that fought as often as them.
But so what? It doesn't change the fact the Moore is an all time great.
Just as its retarded to use it to belittle how great a fighter Chavez was. As Homicide mentioned, Chavez has many victories over many very good fighters. Not only the fact that he won, but how dominant he often looked doing it. Having the most title fight wins in boxing history is quite a feat as well.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Sep 2007, 18:56

Then why are you ignoring Moore's tenure as California State Middleweight Champion?

Because for one, a WORLD title and a State title are two entirely different worlds; I know alot of great 'state' fighters who would have been decked in the 1st round by a world champion [i.e. Monte Masters, for example].

But, by no means am I knocking Moore's career as a middleweight, he was completely shut out from that title, and it was many years before he got a chance at the 175 pound title as well...but state titles in general are meaningless, least these days. So tbh, I never gave it any thought at all, and who could really blame me for not doing so?

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 10 Sep 2007, 23:33

Yeah, but, if I recall while Joe Louis was in the Army, the interim champion was Joey Maxim(?) because they had a big box-off as to who was 'champ', the whole thing was ridiculous considering when Louis came back it didn't even matter, none of the men who contested for the Interim title were acknowledged.

Same deal happened after Louis retired, and despite Charles gainging recognition as the champ by beating Walcott different organizations claimed Lee Savold was the champion; wasnt til Charles beat the comebacking Louis did the BBBC change their minds on Savold.

So...really I dont hold much stalk into state champions and interim champions...considering most who won those titles never won it from the man who beat the man (the real fighters who really counted).

In this case a WBC title holds more stalk than Moore's 'coveted' state title, which he won from 14-6-1 no-hoper Billy Zander; also take into consideration Moore went 5-1-0 after Zander, losing to Ezzard Charles by KO in the 8th, and he lost that same title to another no-hoper named Leonard Morrow who was 11-2-0 by KNOCK OUT in the FIRST ROUND not even a full year after he won it!

You're telling me Moore's "prime" when he won the California State Light Heavyweight crown is better than Chavez's prime championship career?

Or how about Moore's California State Middleweight title? Moore held the title for a whole month, winning it from Jack Chase over 15 rounds, then lost it back to Chase over 15 rounds...before then Moore challenged for the same title twice, both draws, against Eddie Booker.

You could honestly put the two title careers together, and it wouldnt come close to matching Chavez's glorious title reign...and to do so, is not only off the charts retarded, but a slap in the face to Chavez.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 11 Sep 2007, 00:55

theone wrote:
You're comparing Chavez in his prime to Moore when he was in his 40s, though. Look at the bulk of Moore's career at middleweight and light heavyweight.
Between his 30th pro fight and his title winning effort against Maxim; Moore fought ALOT of bums and no hopers. Very comparable to Chavez, Duran, or most fighters that fought as often as them.
But so what? It doesn't change the fact the Moore is an all time great.
Just as its retarded to use it to belittle how great a fighter Chavez was. As Homicide mentioned, Chavez has many victories over many very good fighters. Not only the fact that he won, but how dominant he often looked doing it. Having the most title fight wins in boxing history is quite a feat as well.

Nobody is questioning Chavez greateness. I had only said that he fought some bums in between. This guy like Decagon, probably does not like me and I do not care.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 11 Sep 2007, 00:58

Another that fought a lot of bums: Felix "Tito" Trinidad, Terry Norris and Billy Graham for example.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 01:13

Duration champion, Interim champion...who really gives a shit, its all the same premise....you just dont want to admit Moore's Middleweight "state" title was about worthless, and deny Chavez's greatness.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 01:31

And Burley never won the world middleweight title, neither did Booker, neither did Chase or Marshall...all top notch contenders yes, but they weren't champion material; Burley could have been champ, had he not been shut out of the title shot he long deserved, but nevertheless.

The thing that shows me, how great Chavez was, is that he drew Whitaker and beat the likes of Haugen and Camacho when he was in the latter part of his perspective prime...and Whitaker is an ATG who was at his best.

To me you cant compare apples to oranges, Moore was great, yes, as a middleweight...but I don't believe he would have been champion at that weight; not with Burley being out there, or Robinson, or LaMotta or Cerdan or Zale.

His best was at LHW, whether it was when he was older or not, Moore seemed to improve with age and it took HOF men or damn near Hall of Famers to beat him as he got older (least up until his title was stripped of him).

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 02:13

Burley could have been champ, had he not been shut out of the title shot he long deserved, but nevertheless.

MOTHER fornicator...u know I said this^^^of Burley, so quit making me sound like to be a complete fuckin moron you god damned chink...as far as Marshall is concerned he also LOST to Oakland Billy Smith, the unknown Henry Flakes, Holman Williams, Ezzard Charles numerous times, Bivins, Ceferino Garcia, Johnny Romero, not to mention Archie Moore numerous times...

And mind you to be fair I didn't even throw in the years 1948 and onward, considering it was his declining period and he would eventually lose to guys like Bob Murphy, Don Cockell, Conny Rux, Bobo Olsen, Kid Matthews and others!

And as far as LaMotta is concerned quite a few fans and sportswriters thought that LaMotta's last flash of flurries had given him the edge, it was heavily contested, yes, but nonetheless it was believed LaMotta, not Marshall, should have won the fight.

I never said the man wasn't a top notch contender, he was, and he probably should have gotten a title shot, but I dont believe he was on the level enough to have won it, and even if he did, he would have lost it almost as quick as he won it...nobody lasts that long fighting that tough of men on that regular of a basis without losing eventually.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 02:43

You're going to tell me the guy who lost to an 8-1-0 fighter in 1947, would beat the Jake LaMotta who beat Janiro and Tommy Bell also in 1947?

Mind you, when LaMotta "lost" to Marshall, it was 3 years before, and it wouldnt be until 1949 that Jake would get the title...I dont see how the guy who beat Robinson and many others, would lose to a guy who was on the decline.

theone · Post by **theone** » 11 Sep 2007, 07:24

Nobody is questioning Chavez greateness. I had only said that he fought some bums in between. This guy like Decagon, probably does not like me and I do not car

What are you an infant? I wasn't even referring to you when I wrote that. Get over yourself.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 11 Sep 2007, 07:33

RazorKO wrote:Foreman vs Jose King Roman.

Great shout.

How did that one come about, especially when you consider that there was so much HW talent around in the 70's?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Sep 2007, 08:51

I Feel Fine wrote:Stay busy fight... I'm pretty sure that's a term that is used. I guess tune up is a more common term.

I'm not making the comparison as a way to knock Robinson and Moore. And I'm only using those two, and Duran, to show that what Chavez did wasn't unprecedented, that it was something that past fighters had always done. I could just as well have named three other fighters. The point I was making is that I don't think, or at least I don't know that Chavez did it to inflate his record, as some suggest, I assume he did it to stay active, like past fighters did. Like Chavez they did sometimes fight fighters who had losing records, who had less than 10-15 fights, who sometimes had never boxed professionally. Whether those lesser fighters who Robinson and Moore fought in-between their big fights were better than the lesser fighters Chavez fought in-between his big fights, I won't say, its not meant to be an exact comparison.

And I think taking these fights is a good thing, I think its probably better to stay active in-between more important fights than it is to take long breaks like most fighters do today.

I agree

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 16:00

Given the right circumstances, the right time and place, it can be done. LaMotta beat Bob Satterfield who would eventually become a top contender for Rocky Marciano's title, by KO. As far as Janiro is concerned, I don't believe he could have. Tommy Bell, I don't think he could have pulled it off either; but I think really, you could take any fighter from any weight class and if you matched him carefully enough, he could beat a man who outweighs him greatly.

LaMotta was rarely ever stopped, and it took Robinson to pull it off against Jake when he was at the end of his peak (the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre) and "Irish" Bob Murphy, whose right behind Foster and Spinks as the hardest hitting LHW of all time...and LaMotta reversed the stoppage loss in the return.

Given all things considered, I think LaMotta could have beaten alot of the great LHW's of his time (if he was fighting today he more than likely would have fit comfortably as a super middleweight, considering his problem with gaining and losing weight), but his skills are under-rated and he hit pretty hard and his toughness is second to none; I think he could have met a few HW's and could have possibly beaten them...his style of having someone beat him up til they were tired, would have suited the HW division, considering HW's get tired quicker, generally, than the smaller men.

Bob Satterfield, LHW or not at the time, was one of the greatest punchers of all time and one of the most ferocious, if LaMotta could weather that storm, I think he could have had a shot against guys like Tommy Gomez who were also bangers, but never could quite get over that next hump.

As far as Lloyd Marshall is concerned, maybe I under-rated him, he was rather terrific at middleweight; he was a great amateur of over 200 fights, who won his first 12 fights as a pro...it wasn't so much that Marshall didn't exactly have the tools or the where with all to go places, but if it wasn't for him being in with the mob, having a soft chin (really his only drawback as a fighter) and yes, the titles being "frozen" during the war...he possibly could have been the champion of the world.

I just don't personally base some things on "what if's", all you can go by is records, and on records he did defeat eight men who later became champions, and that's impressive...but I don't think Marshall, even if he won the title, could have held it for too long; there was such a deep and talented division then with a roster like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jake LaMotta, Marcel Cerdan, Tony Zale, etc Nobody could have taken on that many men who were so good, and to have won every time out, championship belt or not.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 16:58

Yeah, but even LaMotta said had he fought today he would be a Super Middleweight (168), and what's the difference in a pound if LaMotta fought at 169 at Light Heavyweight? LaMotta fought at 175 after the 6th Robinson fight against Bob Murphy and split a win and a loss between him, and Murphy was in his prime and easily behind Foster and Spinks in terms of being the hardest hitting LHW's of all time.

Not too bad for a man who was washed up...as far as Satterfield is concerned, he was fighting at LHW against LaMotta considering MW is 160 and the weights were 164 1/2 for LaMotta and 167 for Satterfield and he knocked out Satterfield, hell not even two years later he fought Tommy Gomez at Heavyweight and had done fought Maxim and Moore also at LHW...hell if TRUTH be told, Satterfield hadn't fought as a MW ever, he was always a Light Heavyweight.

The lightest he ever weighed in any of his professional fights was 163, still three rounds higher than MW. So you're dead wrong.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 11 Sep 2007, 21:16

theone wrote:
Nobody is questioning Chavez greateness. I had only said that he fought some bums in between. This guy like Decagon, probably does not like me and I do not car
What are you an infant? I wasn't even referring to you when I wrote that. Get over yourself.

Yes you did sir...There you go again calling people infants....Keep it up you hear, keep it up.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 22:14

Yeah, what we call LHW today...back then LHW was 161 to 175, there was no super middleweight division then. He was fighting Satterfield at LHW.

As far as the HW thing is concerned, I said it's possible that given the right circumstaces, time and who, any fighter from any weight class could beat a man much bigger than they are...never said LaMotta could take on the top HW's, just particular heavyweights.

Don't see how it was so easy to invision Jones doing HW, but not LaMotta. Or invision Walker taking on HW's, or Greb, etc but LaMotta couldn't.

theone · Post by **theone** » 11 Sep 2007, 22:19

Yes you did sir...There you go again calling people infants....Keep it up you hear, keep it up.

First of I didn't call you an infant...I asked if you were one. You sure act like one with all the whining you do. Secondly, I was responding to something Decagon wrote, and then immediately making a general statement on the subject. I didn't actually disagree with anything you wrote on this post.
Now stop crying.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 12 Sep 2007, 01:24

He beat a prime Bob Murphy when he was all but shot as a fighter, and Murphy was right behind Foster and Spinks as the hardest hitting LHW to ever live....I dont think LaMotta would have been the success he was at MW had he fought as a LHW earlier than he did, but still, it shows me he was good enough to beat top contenders in Satterfield and Murphy.

As far as HW is concerned, again I never said he would have been a success, or would have beaten top men, just particular heavyweights...and what I mean by that is guys who were journeyman or somewhere along those lines.