Is has to be Howard Eastman vs Gary Beardsley. Beardsley was 2-8-1 or something like that. Eastman only beat Beardsley up so Thirwall would have a easy time in their second fight.
Jose Sulaiman against Steve Lillis was also desperately one-sided. Sulaiman, an old man, threw a left hook that nearly took Steve's head off. Those Mexicans, you know.
But the ultamite for me is Walker vs Karmazin. I don't want to sound bad, but it did appear to me like the team knew he didn't stand a chance - thats why the stopped it as quickly as they did.
Klitschko-Moli was a disgrace, he's another fighter who should have his purse withheld that Moli bloke. Eastman-Beardsley as well i agree, and dare i say....Gomez-Arthur Lol
Kevo wrote:Erik Morales vs Bobby Boy Verladez. Now that was a fornicating joke
Incidentally, I am the only one who felt that Morales was bang out of order in posing for the photographers right next to a downed Verladez. That was deliberate.
Kevo wrote:Erik Morales vs Bobby Boy Verladez. Now that was a fornicating joke
Incidentally, I am the only one who felt that Morales was bang out of order in posing for the photographers right next to a downed Verladez. That was deliberate.
Kind of disagree with Valderez vs Morales being a total mis-match on paper, remember Valderez had an excellent win over the once highly ranked Jaun Carlos Ramirez (whoose still ranked #11 with boxrec) and also his brother.
I could think of all worse opponents, whilst I didn't think Valderez would win I thought he stood a similar sort of chance as Espedas the 2nd time (who looked a worn fighter several times prior to his rematch). It turned out to be a mismatch, as did Klitchko vs Johnson - but it wasn't won on paper.
Now, there was a major fear before the fight that DLH vs Campas, Walker vs Karmarzin, Klitchko vs Moli, Barrera vs Kelly, Morales vs Croft were mis-matches and we were proved correct. For me, these are the truer mis-matches. Fights that shouldn't have happend - although I can understand DLH's reasoning, and as Morales' entire purse for his match Croft went to charity - so that to was understandable.
The other matches had a major air of "Why" about them BEFOREHAND.
I didnt' see anything worse than James Hare v Earl "The Pearl" Foskin...thankfully.
The Commonwealth challenger could barely stand up, let alone fight.
stujones wrote:I think the same applies with Johnny Nelson's last defence.
Yes true but i think the potential judging always kept that one interesting It actually reminded me a little of Schulz-Akinwande II, a limited home town guy being roared forward while not landing much, against a technically superior Boxer.