The Worst Heavyweight Champs of all time

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 17 Nov 2003, 23:02

I came across this site http://www.iain.hampson.btinternet.co.uk/worst_five.htm

which listed the five worst heavyweights champs as:-

1. Greg Page. - unmotivated, overweight and a huge under achiever and most of all a huge waste of talent

2. Marvin Hart - an average fighter who was in the right place at the right time when he won the title

3. Gerrie Coetzee - basically a hard punching but very limited fighter who got lucky.

4. Leon Spinks basically ruined his own career with his personal problems and bad living and could never really live up to the hype after he beat a faded Ali and ended up just another talented fighter who threw it all away.

5. Frank Bruno. basically an average but determined fighter with limited skills and a big punch, he made his name fighting some of the worst import opponents seen in Britain and always seemed to fall short at world class.

What do you think of this list.? IMO you can pick the worst 5 form the list below. my bottom 5 are :-
1. Marvin Hart
2 Francesco Damiani
3. Bruce Seldon
4. Michael Bentt
5. Primo Carnera

However you could also choose from :- Frank Bruno, Henry Akinwande,
Chris Byrd, John Tate, Corrie Sanders, Gerrie Coetzee, Tommy Morrison, Hasim Rahman, Frans Botha, John Ruiz

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 18 Nov 2003, 00:44

Terap just thinks Coetzee is the greatest fighter of all time cause he was from Apartheid South Africa..

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 18 Nov 2003, 03:47

terap wrote:Marvin Hart beat Jack Johnson.

Leon Spinks beat the"greatest fighter of all time" Ali.

The greatest fighter of all time" Ali lost his title to the 7-fight novice Spinks, and won the second fight with now 8-fight novice Spinks by grabbing and holding and running for his life.

After this total of THIRTY rounds fighting the "greatest fighter of all time" in two fights,

Spinks could not get through three minutes against Gerrie Coetzee.

Nobody ever called Gerrie Coetzee the "greatest fighter of all time"----

but Coetzee knocked out Leon Spinks in the first round---just after Spinks had finished fighting two 15 round fights with Ali---"the greatest fighter of all time."

Interesting that someone would choose Coetzee to put down.

Guess it doesn't matter to you that Ali was 36 years old, 10 FULL years past his 'prime'...
Guess it doesn't matter that a fighter reaches a point when he is not what he once was...

Guess IT DOES matter to you when mentioning Jack Dempsey...
As I recall, YOU SAID (on another thread) that the reason Dempsey lost to Tunney was because he was old, 'legs were shot' (AT AGE 31!)...

Guess it's impossible for you to be fair...

Except when it's somebody you like....

What exactly does that make you???

Riddick Bowie · Post by **Riddick Bowie** » 18 Nov 2003, 07:42

disagree

tolstoy · Post by **tolstoy** » 18 Nov 2003, 09:45

I tend to your viewpoint, Neil, and don't really like the idea of calling guys "worst champions". Some of them weren't greats by any means and some of them were little more than transitional champions keeping the seat warm for the next fighter. "Worst" may be a little harsh.

In recent memory, however, James "Buster" Douglas, Bruce Seldon and Frank Bruno may be considered transitional champions. All three capitulated in the ring and surrendered their titles with little resistance.

In terms of the days of Greg Page, Gerry Coetzee, John Tate, Mike Weaver etc, all were quite evenly matched and the inability of any of them to take command of a version of the title was more down to that than their lack of talent.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 18 Nov 2003, 11:04

Neil (The Bounty) Hunter wrote:guvnor, why don't you just go fornicate yourself?

matter of fact, why dont you try lace on some gloves and see if you can ever achieve as much as these 'worst heavyweight champs of all time'?

these guys achieved more in one day than you will in your whole lifetime.

to piss on greg page when hes sat up in a wheel chair.... the man won the title fair and square. he had bags of talent. larry holmes wanted no part of him, and more importantly i've spoke to him several times and he is a wonderful great man and for you to disrespect these guys is pathetic.

why dont you go after some bullshit champiosn like wbo champs or guys liek john ruiz who were just paid into the #1 ranking?

guys like bruno and page earned the title, beat legit tough men to win their titles and would crush a long list of former and current heavyweight champs.

Agreed.

Greg Page was a very talented guy. Just because he didnt turn out to be an all time great does not mean he should be ridiculed.

All the guy's on guvnors list could fight and some of them could box very well.

At least they fought for and won a title, all of them in era's when titles meant more than they do today.

Shame on you Guvnor.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 18 Nov 2003, 12:29

To make a list stating 'worst ever' champs is a rather sad way of regarding these fighters. Sure, some champions are more talented than others but that is no reason to denigrate them. Remember also that guys like Hart and Carnera were 'undisputed' champions, in the days when there wasn't half a dozen guys calling themselves world champion.
Also Marvin Hart fought all his career while being blind in one eye.... and beat some good opposition in his career. Carnera gave an almost unbelievably brave display against Joe Louis.... taking a savage beating.
And Frank Bruno may only have lasted 3 rounds in his second fight with Tyson but he picked up a detatched retina in the process, yet finished on his feet not his back.... same when Frank lost to Witherspoon, Lewis and Tyson the first time. All these men had a lot of heart and deserve respect.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 18 Nov 2003, 12:57

I am not a fan of the argument that you cannot criticise any fighter, because you are not a fighter yourself, if that is true, the next time someone criticises one of my articles, i could remind them that they aren't a writer, see how that works.

Whilst every single fighter who steps into the ring and gives it their all deserves respect, some deserve more respect than others, and there always has to be someone who finishes last in the egg and spoon race, it doesn't mean they should be derided, but they can be criticised.

Leon Spinks may have beaten Ali, but it was a woefully out of shape and ill-prepared Ali who really was no longer the best heavyweight in the world.

I would say Ruiz is one of the worse, mainly because of the ultra-meek performance he put up against Jones, it was so bad some people thought the fight was a fix, and I can see why, even though I don't agree.

Carnera was moved very carefully to the championship, and was never the best heavyweight in the world by any stretch. He did beat Jack Sharkey however, which deserves credit, but he was in a weak era, and Joe Louis and Max Baer both gave him a hell of a shelling.

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 18 Nov 2003, 23:52

Neil (The Bounty) Hunter

Change you name to Nneil th fuk head. READ MY POST. I didnt name Page and Bruno as the worst is was referring to another web page.

I could go into a more lenthy debate but really cant be bothered

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 19 Nov 2003, 00:25

At least they fought for and won a title, all of them in era's when titles meant more than they do today.

Lets clear this up. IMO Page was a good fighter which is why he is not on my list of worst heavyweights.
I agree the term "worst" is harsh and unfair, its a tough position, but someone has to fill it.

If you read my post you would realise i was defending the likes of Page and offering more deseving candidates

I have yet to read anywhere or speak to anyone who regards Hart, Canerra, etc as anything more than average fighters.

Harts win over Johnson, proves that everyone has a an off night, Johnson was no exception.

Spinks / Ali ll. Its been along time since i watched this fight, but i rember it at the time, and i dont rember ali holding on for dear life as said by someone. What i saw saw a hopelessly out-of-his-dept Spinks looking to his corner for help.

Just to clarify, I think that anyone who steps into the ring is a hero in my eyes, no matter what level they are at. ( i have said as much in previous posts).

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 19 Nov 2003, 08:09

theguvnor wrote:
At least they fought for and won a title, all of them in era's when titles meant more than they do today.
Lets clear this up. IMO Page was a good fighter which is why he is not on my list of worst heavyweights.
I agree the term "worst" is harsh and unfair, its a tough position, but someone has to fill it.

If you read my post you would realise i was defending the likes of Page and offering more deseving candidates

I have yet to read anywhere or speak to anyone who regards Hart, Canerra, etc as anything more than average fighters.

Harts win over Johnson, proves that everyone has a an off night, Johnson was no exception.

Spinks / Ali ll. Its been along time since i watched this fight, but i rember it at the time, and i dont rember ali holding on for dear life as said by someone. What i saw saw a hopelessly out-of-his-dept Spinks looking to his corner for help.

Just to clarify, I think that anyone who steps into the ring is a hero in my eyes, no matter what level they are at. ( i have said as much in previous posts).

Thanks for clearing this up.

heavyhanded · Post by **heavyhanded** » 19 Nov 2003, 23:24

john ruiz

jsc1973 · Post by **jsc1973** » 21 Nov 2003, 07:34

In the interest of fairness, we'll call them the least distinguished heavyweight champs of all time. I wouldn't call any of these men "worst" of anything. All of them were top 10 heavyweights in their day, which is still pretty good.

The ones that come to mind quickly are Shannon Briggs, John Ruiz, both Spinks brothers (Michael was a great fighter, but as a lightheavy), Ernie Terrell (the first paper champ) and Primo Carnera.

The Weaver, Page, Tate, Dokes, Coetzee, et al. group chasing Holmes in the 1980s weren't great, but they're probably as good as today's contenders below Lennox Lewis. Weaver, for a few years at any rate, was the best of that bunch, and had an interesting career. He started out as the Ross Puritty of his day, spent about five years near the top, then went back to journeyman after he'd passed his prime.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Nov 2003, 08:36

I don't know how jsc can compare Mike Weaver with Ross Puritty, despite his erratic career Weaver was a world class heavyweight with great power and a good chin... his main flaw was that he could be hot or cold and he was also a notorious slow starter which resulted in a couple of early round defeats. But at his beat Weaver was a real handful who gave a paek Holmes a rough ride and was robbed twice against Mike Dokes (the too early stoppage and then the draw that Weaver won clearly) along with Dokes and Page, Witherspoon, Weaver was one of the exchamps that Tyson never met.
Weaver, Page, Coetzee, Tate, Dokes, Witherspoon and Thomas were all a class above the present day contenders and I would give them all a more than good chance against Lewis too. If Rahman and Mccall can ko Lewis with one punch (and neither man is really a great one punch knockout artist) then all those listed above would be a good bet to ko Lewis.

Alister · Post by **Alister** » 21 Nov 2003, 09:02

I don't consider alphabetsoup beltholders as champions unless they beat the lineal champ, or in event of his retirement, prove themselves to be the best in the division (example Ezzard Charles, Larry Holmes).
Therefore my pick as worst heavyweight champion is Shannon Briggs. He never beat a good fighter in his entire career, and also lost to fighters he never should have. When he did get an undeserving titleshot, he won a controversial decision over Geroge Foreman. Luckily, a worthy fighter in Lennox Lewis KO'd him to end the embarrasment a few months later.

As worst beltholder there is plenty to choose from even when not coutning the WBO (as I don't), but Bruce Seldon is probably my top choice. Frank Bruno and John Ruiz were also very weak champions.

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 21 Nov 2003, 20:51

[Alister wrote]my pick as worst heavyweight champion is Shannon Briggs[/quote]

Was Briggs Ever World Champion?

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 22 Nov 2003, 02:47

If you looked at the fighters whole career I'd have to say neon Leon was the most undistiguished underachieving Heavyweight champion ever Hands down ....He beat one great washed up fighter and a couple of fringe contenders but for the rest of his career he was a C- to D level clubfighter......

RagingRyan · Post by **RagingRyan** » 22 Nov 2003, 17:25

Briggs beat Foreman for the Lineal title.

theguvnor · Post by **theguvnor** » 23 Nov 2003, 22:40

[RagingRyan Wrote quote]Briggs beat Foreman for the Lineal title.[/quote]

So ... the answer is no then

Roll With The Punches · Post by **Roll With The Punches** » 24 Nov 2003, 02:39

Leon Spinks

most of the guys in this thread weren't champions.....winning a belt from the alphabet soup doesn't make you a champion

jsc1973 · Post by **jsc1973** » 24 Nov 2003, 16:40

silkov wrote:I don't know how jsc can compare Mike Weaver with Ross Puritty, despite his erratic career Weaver was a world class heavyweight with great power and a good chin....

I said he started out like Ross Puritty, but elevated his skills to a higher level after a few years. I don't think anyone can question that. I actually have a lot of respect for Weaver because he learned his craft the old-fashioned way--he took his lumps and learned from them. It takes a better man to succeed in boxing that way than it does for a fighter who breaks in against two dozen meat-packer bums.

I think Weaver was the best of the revolving-door champions of the early 1980s. He did give Holmes fits, then got a second title shot against John Tate in Tate's hometown and won it on a dramatic KO. Also, in my opinion, he got robbed against Dokes twice. The first was a bad stoppage, and the rematch was a "draw" that I had Weaver winning 10 rounds to 5.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 29 Nov 2003, 16:15

terap wrote:Marvin Hart beat Jack Johnson.

Leon Spinks beat the"greatest fighter of all time" Ali.

The greatest fighter of all time" Ali lost his title to the 7-fight novice Spinks, and won the second fight with now 8-fight novice Spinks by grabbing and holding and running for his life.

After this total of THIRTY rounds fighting the "greatest fighter of all time" in two fights,

Spinks could not get through three minutes against Gerrie Coetzee.

Nobody ever called Gerrie Coetzee the "greatest fighter of all time"----

but Coetzee knocked out Leon Spinks in the first round---just after Spinks had finished fighting two 15 round fights with Ali---"the greatest fighter of all time."

Interesting that someone would choose Coetzee to put down.

ALI WAS SO FAR PAST HIS PRIME WHEN HE FOUGHT SPINKS THAT THE FIGHTS SHOULD MEAN NOTHING TO ANYONE WHO IS NOT EXTREMELY BIASED AGAISNT HIM.

Boxerdog · Post by **Boxerdog** » 02 Dec 2003, 10:18

Carnera for me.

Special mention to Shannon Briggs though, who made the lineal title a joke. I also think that Briggs was more shocked than I was when they gave him he decision over Big George. A travesty.... (and George was gracious as ever).

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 02 Dec 2003, 13:30

In relation to the current thread about the greatest light-heavies ever and Michael Moorer's possible place in that pantheon, I'd have to say that while Moorer might well have gone on to be an all-time great light-heavy had he stayed at that weight, he was far less than great as a heavyweight champion. One significant win, a twelve-round MD over Holyfield in '94, was his only victory over a real top heavyweight. His wins over Schulz and Botha weren't bad, but the fact is, he was probably lucky to not get KO'd by Holyfield in '94, and he was KO'd both by grampa Foreman and Holyfield in their rematch. As a heavyweight, that makes him not appreciably better than the much-maligned John Ruiz in my eyes.

Your thoughts on Moorer's tenure at heavyweight?

p.s.: Briggs isn't even close to being in the same league as Moorer, mind you - the fact that the lineal HW title basically happened to fall out of the sky and conk him in the head as it were means sh*t to me.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 02 Dec 2003, 21:33

Eric the Viking wrote: Your thoughts on Moorer's tenure at heavyweight?

I doubt if you'll find him on anyone's top 10 list (or top 20 or top 30 or...).
But, since he's a local hero of sorts here...I'll point out that the Foreman KO was sheer luck, a 1 in 50 shot that just happened to 'hit' that night...

and that it would be real hard to find somebody to compete with Neon Leon for the 'Worst Heavyweight Champ' title...

Only 7 pro fights going in...and it was more a case of Ali LOST as opposed to Spinks WON...kind of like a favored football team that gives up 5 fumbles and 5 interceptions...Ali was only a shell of his former self AND over weight, over confident, under trained, giving away round after round, etc...

And that's the ONLY reason Spinks' name is in the books as a former champion...which qualifies him as the 'worst'...as he didn't belong there in the first place...

The Worst Heavyweight Champs of all time

The Worst Heavyweight Champs of all time

Weak argument.