BoxRec

In the recent book FACING ALI (especially interesting btw for British fans, Joe Bugner and Brian London were among those interviewed and neither seems to have much use for Henry Cooper), the author discusses Belgian fighter (and Muhammad Ali challenger) Jean-Pierre Coopman. He writes of Coopman that he was the one "many in boxing believe is the least talented fighter ever to challenge for the heavyweight championship of the world...That's a debating point, of course. There are certainly other candidates." Yet he concludes there may have never been anyone "quite so obscure, quite so unqualified, who was given a title shot." But, was he?
I'm going to be "debating" some "other candidates." Of course, those who may have been previously obscure and still gave a good account of themselves (or earned a draw or even won) are not on the list. Here it is, #1 is least deserving going up to #8, (marginally?) more deserving, with overall records included:

1. Pat Callahan (0-1): I'm more of a Marvin Hart fan than are many here. But Callahan must have been picked out of an audience (Hart KO2), as he had no record and no reputation, Hart wouldn't have journeyed to Montana just to fight him. Only way he escapes #1 spot here is if his bout with Hart was an exhibition, accounts have differed on that, but otherwise I don't recognize official (heavyweight, anyway) "non-title" fights with a champion in them. The title should always be considered as on the line.
2. Jem Roche (0-3): the supposed "champion of Ireland" for his St. Patrick's Day fight with Tommy Burns (Burns KO1). Problem is he had no previous record (unless as a streetfighter) and Ireland at the time wasn't an independent nation. He did have two fights later, losing both.
3. Bill Squires (11-11): got 3 (!!!) title shots vs. Tommy Burns. Another easy opponent for Tommy whose only likely credentials were his sparring with and being a friend of Burns. What's really ridiculous is that, in the middle of this, Squires lost fights to both "Fireman" Jim Flynn and "Twin" Sullivan...yet Squires continued to get title shots! Flynn and Sullivan had each given Burns tough fights before, so it's clear that Burns wasn't only running from Jack Johnson but from them.
4. Jack Roper (39-37-1): title bout vs. Joe Louis (Louis KO1), as others have said Roper's sense of humor was probably greater than his fighting ability. Yes, he was the one who said, "I zigged when I should have zagged."
5. Jean-Pierre Coopman (36-16-2): did IIRC briefly hold the European title and beat Terry Daniels...though this last was thought by many a "hometown disqualification."
6. Terry Daniels (35-31-1): many of those losses toward the end of his career, his best fight may have been a lost decision to Floyd Patterson (I'm leaving off Ron Stander, another questionable Joe Frazier opponent, since he KO'd Daniels and even beat Earnie Shavers).
7. Jack Munroe (12-2-3): James Jeffries' last title opponent, there were others more deserving. As his record indicates, Munroe didn't lose often but he didn't win any major fights either (even for a fighter of his time).
8. Steffen Tangstad (24-2-2): don't let the record fool anyone, he had no business in a "world" title fight. Symbolic of Michael Spinks' "reign."

Some others rating (dis)honorable mention: Andre Spaul, or Sproul, not sure if he was even a boxer or wrestler (or the rules of his bout vs. Jack Johnson). Joe Hipp (42-6), not really a bad fighter but lost to a
pathetic "champion" in Bruce Seldon. Pete Rademacher, of course fought Patterson without any professional fights (but was actually older than Floyd and had extensive amateur experience). Dave Zyglewicz (31-4-1), an early Frazier foe for a "partial" title, he actually lost to Charley Polite! And Tim Tomashek (51-12), another challenger "picked out of an audience," in his case to fight Tommy Morrison. Was Tomashek there as some sort of "designated alternate"? Did he at least have time to warm up? And why did Mike Williams refuse to leave the locker room, he certainly wasn't a big enough name to warrant complaining about any of the conditions?

Anthony

Since it has been revealed that his fight with Dempsey was a real bout, and thus for the title. Jimmy Darcy gets my vote for worst heavyweight title challenger. His record, which I'm still researching, is at 43-67-40 right now.

How about Marvis Frazier?

Jean-Pierre Coopman was (24-3-0) when he 'fought' Ali (against a bunch of Belgians)...Leon Spinks was (6-0-1) against nobody significant...If you didn't know the outcome, which would you think would have been least deserving???

Sweet Scientist wrote:How about Marvis Frazier?

While they may have accomplished about as much at the time of their title shot, Frazier was a better challenger than Scott Frank.

What about Pete Rademacher, who challenged for Patterson's title in his pro debut?

Trajan wrote: Here it is, #1 is least deserving going up to #8, (marginally?) more deserving, with overall records included:

2. Jem Roche (0-3): the supposed "champion of Ireland" for his St. Patrick's Day fight with Tommy Burns (Burns KO1). Problem is he had no previous record (unless as a streetfighter) and Ireland at the time wasn't an independent nation. He did have two fights later, losing both.
3. Bill Squires (11-11): got 3 (!!!) title shots vs. Tommy Burns. Another easy opponent for Tommy whose only likely credentials were his sparring with and being a friend of Burns. What's really ridiculous is that, in the middle of this, Squires lost fights to both "Fireman" Jim Flynn and "Twin" Sullivan...yet Squires continued to get title shots! Flynn and Sullivan had each given Burns tough fights before, so it's clear that Burns wasn't only running from Jack Johnson but from them.

That is not their final career stats.

Yes, those records look shit if you just lift them off Boxrec, assume they must be correct, then take them as gospel.

Take a look at the bottom of their records, it says:

"NB this record may be incomplete/inaccurate and/or the boxer may still be active"

That disclaimer is there for a reason. Many of these old-timers have not had their records researched yet.

Ali Shill wrote:

Trajan wrote: Here it is, #1 is least deserving going up to #8, (marginally?) more deserving, with overall records included:

2. Jem Roche (0-3): the supposed "champion of Ireland" for his St. Patrick's Day fight with Tommy Burns (Burns KO1). Problem is he had no previous record (unless as a streetfighter) and Ireland at the time wasn't an independent nation. He did have two fights later, losing both.
3. Bill Squires (11-11): got 3 (!!!) title shots vs. Tommy Burns. Another easy opponent for Tommy whose only likely credentials were his sparring with and being a friend of Burns. What's really ridiculous is that, in the middle of this, Squires lost fights to both "Fireman" Jim Flynn and "Twin" Sullivan...yet Squires continued to get title shots! Flynn and Sullivan had each given Burns tough fights before, so it's clear that Burns wasn't only running from Jack Johnson but from them.

That is not their final career stats.

Yes, those records look shit if you just lift them off Boxrec, assume they must be correct, then take them as gospel.

Take a look at the bottom of their records, it says:

"NB this record may be incomplete/inaccurate and/or the boxer may still be active"

That disclaimer is there for a reason. Many of these old-timers have not had their records researched yet.

That's right. You can't knock the old timer's records b/c hundreds of fights haven't been compiled. Great example-Hank Griffith-had up to 200 fights but they are around 10 listed at boxrec

What about John Ruiz?

jack roper...his record said he didn't belong in there and he went out early...but joe louis said roper hurt ...and hurt him badly....with a left hook in the first round.....and he was certain roper didn't know it. louis's ability to keep that dead pan expression and his great recuperative powers helped him a lot in that one.

Southpaw Stylist wrote:What about John Ruiz?

What would make Evander Holyfield that?

One guy who was supposed to be cannon fodder but turned out to be much better than his 18-8 record was Mike Weaver..Weaver was a big underdog against Larry Holmes in june of 79
t gave a spirited challenge before falling in the 12th. Hercules managed
to parlay that into a several years run as a top heavyweight..

How about Leon Spinks. He was green at the time. He had a good amie career though, so I guess that qualifies him some. That had to be the most humiliating defeat in History for Ali.

Good points re: Jimmy Darcy, Scott Frank and Marvis "son of Joe" Frazier. It was in fact that Larry Holmes was giving "title" shots to fighters such as these latter two that seemed to show he was declining, and fast. Marvis might have given a better account himself in the ring had he fought, say, as a cruiserweight...but the $$$ and his papa pushed him to opponents like Holmes and Tyson.
Rademacher: yes, it was his first professional fight. Again, though, his extensive amateur background and the fact that, as Rademacher himself noted, he was actually older than Patterson (while being on the other hand much younger and theoretically more vigorous than Archie Moore, another potential title foe) somewhat mitigate to me his being undeserving. At least enough to avoid his being in the top (or bottom) 8 or so in the category.
Roper: yeah Joe Louis did say that Roper rocked him, so maybe Jack wasn't totally without merit as a contender. Lacked finishing technique.
Squires, Roche and even perhaps Callahan: it's true that the boxrec database is incomplete/inaccurate in some ways. Billy Conn's record, for example, is at the moment in total disarray. However, after 100 years, I tend to believe that had Squires or Roche had any significant fights (and certainly wins), not just against some local pug, not mentioned in boxrec they would have turned up somewhere. So my point still stands. Plus, Roche was out of there in the 1st round, in what IIRC was for many years the fastest KO on record in a heavyweight title fight. This against Tommy Burns, not noted as a KO artist, would indicate Roche's lack of talent.
As for Squires, again it's not that he got one title shot but that he got THREE (!!!) of them. He did nothing whatsoever to deserve this, indeed as I pointed out he lost against both "Twin" Sullivan and "Fireman" Jim Flynn in the midst of the title bouts vs. Burns. And Burns, because he had had previous tough fights against them, refused to meet either Sullivan or Flynn. The fact that Sullivan got title shots in another weight class (like Burns, he wasn't a true heavyweight) and Flynn later got his title bout vs. Jack Johnson doesn't change Burns ducking them in favor of easier fights with Squires.
Ruiz, like Leon Spinks and some others, won the title so that's why they weren't included even if they seemed undeserving. Spinks of course
had that well-known amateur background, which is likely why he was so pushed into an early title fight in the first place. If "Neon Leon" had dubious victories before he met Ali, though, that might qualify him for the list. I know Scott LeDoux and others thought he beat Spinks in that draw, again was there any similar controversy about the Spinks-Righetti decision?
For what it's worth, I don't believe Ali "threw" that first Spinks fight just to make a rematch more lucrative. He was too much the egotist for that, instead Ali seemed to be really "pacing" himself as he aged, just fighting hard in selected rounds (especially the last one) vs. Norton, Young and so on. That, Ali's reputation and the opponents' failure to knock him out or even down (or even maybe to fight hard in the final round) got Ali those decisions. He tried the same thing vs. Spinks but he had aged too much by then (also was less likely to get benefit of the doubt from judges after those other close decisions). And Leon fought vigorously throughout the fight, earning the victory. Ali was so shot by then that, had Spinks trained and fought as hard the second fight as he did the first, IMO Leon would have won again (and been the only man to beat Ali twice). But his substance abuse did him in and Ali managed to pull it together one last time (but still foolishly came back vs. Holmes and Berbick).

Anthony

i think the fighter you're referring to who got an title shot at frazier was terry daniels. had no business being in there, and was out of there in four.

frazier DID fight billy daniels, but that was before he won the title. billy daniels also fought ali before ali was champion. it was the first time i'd ever seen ali...might have been his first televised fight...and i thought ali looked bad. daniels was as tall if not taller and he bounced right hands off ali all night. he got stopped in seven on cuts..but i thought he was ahead at the time. daniels faded from the scene soon after, although i think he fought a draw with cleveland williams.

based on that fight, i didn't think ali was any where near ready to fight for the title....so that and the jones and cooper fights put me in the camp with those at the time who thought ali was mostly noise.

but then...well...look a the rest of the story.

I put Michael Grant on top list of all-time worst title challengers.

john ruiz

Tim Tomachek. (Fought Tommy Morrison for the WBO Title?)