Page 1 of 3

Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 15:25
by Quixall
Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights ?

In this particular topic i want to concentrate on the heavyweight scene, as i think that giving someone like Chisora the possiblilty of a title shot after only 14 fights is testament to something being dreadfully wrong with the heavyweight division. This could equally apply to other divisions so all opinions are welcome on the subject, but it just struck me that the heavyweight division was opening itself to criticism by offering a title shot to a fighter who doesn't even have European experience. As it turned out the fight didn't happen and Chisora went on to give some validation to my opinion by losing his British title to Tyson Fury, a decent but not spectacular domestic level fighter.

I know that we have had examples in the heavyweight division from the past that could be quoted, such as Tim Witherspoon challenging Larry Holmes after 15 fights and Leon Spinks also springs to mind with his fight against Ali. We also have had situations where the likes of Holyfield, Jones, Toney, Michael Spinks etc came up from lower division classes and got title shots in a relatively short period of time, but the obvious point here is that all these guys had been excellent fighters in their respective weight classes and had proved themselves at world level before moving up to the heavyweight divison. We have recently also had Haye and now Adamek has has moved up to fight Vitali in his quest to join the above names.

My point is that i don't think a fighter with a 14 fight record should be given a title shot, when he clearly lacks experience, particularly if a fighter like Chisora hasn't even fought at European level or anybody in the top 10 rankings. In my opinion a fighter should have to gain a domestic title, then a European title or the equivilant and then fight two or three opponents from the top ten. I just feel that it says something about the quality of the heavyweight divison or the politics and business strategy of the mangers, promoters and sanctioning bodies, that they are allowed to give title shots to virtually unknown and unproven fighters. I know that the sport is not perfect and i'm not naive about the "politricks" as Lewis would say, but i think a line has to be drawn that says a fighter must prove himself through using a rigerous ranking system, that makes sure that up and coming fighters are given a chance at particular titles and particular fighters when they have proved they are ready to do so.

What do you guys think ?

Re: Should anyone be getting a title shot after 14 fights ?

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 15:33
by orbtastic
Pete Rademacher got his on his debut...

Re: Should anyone be getting a title shot after 14 fights ?

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 15:35
by Quixall
orbtastic wrote:Pete Rademacher got his on his debut...
He may have done, i'm not aware of that fact.......

Ive quoted other people who got title shots early, my point is "Should this be allowed....."

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:03
by Old bones Ian
Depends really, i'd say most heavies are not really prepared after 13 or 14 fights. But in the lighter weights from lightweight down it seems to work ok.

Re: Should anyone be getting a title shot after 14 fights ?

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:11
by Jon Saxon
Quixall wrote:
orbtastic wrote:Pete Rademacher got his on his debut...
He may have done, i'm not aware of that fact.......

Ive quoted other people who got title shots early, my point is "Should this be allowed....."
He did and he dropped Patterson


At Jnr Heavyweight (the original name for CW) Holyfield won the title against Dwight Muhammad Qawi after only 12 fights and I think the timing was right as it was obvious he was special.

However Dough Boy Chisora? no fuking way should he have been slotted in to face Wlad, I don't think that K2 even planned the fight to happen ever I think it was a rouse (if that's the right spelling) to get Haye to commit do a fight.

Didn't Paul Weir win the WBO after SIX fights? what a total joke that was and it showed the lack of depth in the minimum weight division.

one other thing Quix for years they were offering the great Teófilo Stevenson millions to go pro and fight Ali in his FIRST HW fight, but he decided to stay am and accept a bike and a pig from Castro for his loyalty to the cause.
which oddly enough whenever he is asked for an interview these days he asks for cash upfront!

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:15
by el_grande_mauro_mina
Davey Moore won the WBA light middleweight title in Japan in his 9th fight and defended it on the road - notably against Charlie Weir and his rabid supporters in apartheid South Africa and he went on to defeat the excellent Ayub Kaule so... it all depends.

Yes - he got dismantled against Roberto Duran - but that would have happened if Moore had been 30-0.

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:19
by Jon Saxon
Fat Git wrote:Davey Moore won the WBA light middleweight title in Japan in his 9th fight and defended it on the road - notably against Charlie Weir and his rabid supporters in apartheid South Africa and he went on to defeat the excellent Ayub Kaule so... it all depends.

Yes - he got dismantled against Roberto Duran - but that would have happened if Moore had been 30-0.
9th fight? I never knew that.

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:19
by funso banjo baby
ppv and alphabet crooks

we allowed it to degenerate all in the name of money...so ultimately we are to blame.

ditch SKy if you love boxing...subscribe if you dont


simples

Re: Should anyone be getting a title shot after 14 fights ?

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:22
by Old bones Ian
Jon Saxon wrote:
Quixall wrote:
orbtastic wrote:Pete Rademacher got his on his debut...
He may have done, i'm not aware of that fact.......

Ive quoted other people who got title shots early, my point is "Should this be allowed....."
He did and he dropped Patterson


At Jnr Heavyweight (the original name for CW) Holyfield won the title against Dwight Muhammad Qawi after only 12 fights and I think the timing was right as it was obvious he was special.

However Dough Boy Chisora? no fuking way should he have been slotted in to face Wlad, I don't think that K2 even planned the fight to happen ever I think it was a rouse (if that's the right spelling) to get Haye to commit do a fight.

Didn't Paul Weir win the WBO after SIX fights? what a total joke that was and it showed the lack of depth in the minimum weight division.

one other thing Quix for years they were offering the great Teófilo Stevenson millions to go pro and fight Ali in his FIRST HW fight, but he decided to stay am and accept a bike and a pig from Castro for his loyalty to the cause.
which oddly enough whenever he is asked for an interview these days he asks for cash upfront!
I think the Paul Weir winning the world title was more down to the weak state of the WBO at the time , and good match making.
The other Light Fly champions at that time were Michael Carbajal, Humberto Gonzalez, Leo Gamez, Myung-Woo Yuh. And there were a host of good contenders as well.
Any of those champions would of had Weir for tea if he was matched with them after 7 fights

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:24
by hurlock
what about david reid who defeated laurent boudini@?

i think you have to look at rds & scheduled 12rounders as some dont get stretched regardless. if some one is fed 4-3's & 6-2's & been modicodled then know but if they have been pitched in & have broke down good opposition absolutely.

Re: Should anyone be getting a title shot after 14 fights ?

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:28
by Jon Saxon
Old bones Ian wrote:
Jon Saxon wrote:
Quixall wrote: He may have done, i'm not aware of that fact.......

Ive quoted other people who got title shots early, my point is "Should this be allowed....."
He did and he dropped Patterson


At Jnr Heavyweight (the original name for CW) Holyfield won the title against Dwight Muhammad Qawi after only 12 fights and I think the timing was right as it was obvious he was special.

However Dough Boy Chisora? no fuking way should he have been slotted in to face Wlad, I don't think that K2 even planned the fight to happen ever I think it was a rouse (if that's the right spelling) to get Haye to commit do a fight.

Didn't Paul Weir win the WBO after SIX fights? what a total joke that was and it showed the lack of depth in the minimum weight division.

one other thing Quix for years they were offering the great Teófilo Stevenson millions to go pro and fight Ali in his FIRST HW fight, but he decided to stay am and accept a bike and a pig from Castro for his loyalty to the cause.
which oddly enough whenever he is asked for an interview these days he asks for cash upfront!
I think the Paul Weir winning the world title was more down to the weak state of the WBO at the time , and good match making.
The other Light Fly champions at that time were Michael Carbajal, Humberto Gonzalez, Leo Gamez, Myung-Woo Yuh. And there were a host of good contenders as well.
Any of those champions would of had Weir for tea if he was matched with them after 7 fights
hey Ian, I was in WHSmiths buying boxing news once and this guy came up to me and said "I see you like boxing I'm mates with Paul Weir" i said "cool" when I walked out of Smiths the guy walks over with this tiny wee guy and says "this guys a boxing fan, meet Paul Weir" ...so I go to put my hand out to shake his and Weir handed me an autographed photo of himself.
I can't comment beyond this point as I may offend :D

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:28
by Old bones Ian
opps forgot about Leon Spinks,

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:30
by Jon Saxon
hurlock wrote:what about david reid who defeated laurent boudini@?

i think you have to look at rds & scheduled 12rounders as some dont get stretched regardless. if some one is fed 4-3's & 6-2's & been modicodled then know but if they have been pitched in & have broke down good opposition absolutely.
I think the Frechman handed his title over to him that night for a good fee I beleive, he wasnt in the best of shape.

I thought Ried could have been realy good but I was fooled by his fake Roy Jones'ness.
Trinidad ruined him and Vargas IMO.

Re: Should anyone be getting a title shot after 14 fights ?

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:33
by Old bones Ian
Jon Saxon wrote:
Old bones Ian wrote:
Jon Saxon wrote: He did and he dropped Patterson


At Jnr Heavyweight (the original name for CW) Holyfield won the title against Dwight Muhammad Qawi after only 12 fights and I think the timing was right as it was obvious he was special.

However Dough Boy Chisora? no fuking way should he have been slotted in to face Wlad, I don't think that K2 even planned the fight to happen ever I think it was a rouse (if that's the right spelling) to get Haye to commit do a fight.

Didn't Paul Weir win the WBO after SIX fights? what a total joke that was and it showed the lack of depth in the minimum weight division.

one other thing Quix for years they were offering the great Teófilo Stevenson millions to go pro and fight Ali in his FIRST HW fight, but he decided to stay am and accept a bike and a pig from Castro for his loyalty to the cause.
which oddly enough whenever he is asked for an interview these days he asks for cash upfront!
I think the Paul Weir winning the world title was more down to the weak state of the WBO at the time , and good match making.
The other Light Fly champions at that time were Michael Carbajal, Humberto Gonzalez, Leo Gamez, Myung-Woo Yuh. And there were a host of good contenders as well.
Any of those champions would of had Weir for tea if he was matched with them after 7 fights
hey Ian, I was in WHSmiths buying boxing news once and this guy came up to me and said "I see you like boxing I'm mates with Paul Weir" i said "cool" when I walked out of Smiths the guy walks over with this tiny wee guy and says "this guys a boxing fan, meet Paul Weir" ...so I go to put my hand out to shake his and Weir handed me an autographed photo of himself.
I can't comment beyond this point as I may offend :D
how modest of him :D

Re: Should anyone be getting a title shot after 14 fights ?

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:34
by Jon Saxon
Old bones Ian wrote:
Jon Saxon wrote:
Old bones Ian wrote: I think the Paul Weir winning the world title was more down to the weak state of the WBO at the time , and good match making.
The other Light Fly champions at that time were Michael Carbajal, Humberto Gonzalez, Leo Gamez, Myung-Woo Yuh. And there were a host of good contenders as well.
Any of those champions would of had Weir for tea if he was matched with them after 7 fights
hey Ian, I was in WHSmiths buying boxing news once and this guy came up to me and said "I see you like boxing I'm mates with Paul Weir" i said "cool" when I walked out of Smiths the guy walks over with this tiny wee guy and says "this guys a boxing fan, meet Paul Weir" ...so I go to put my hand out to shake his and Weir handed me an autographed photo of himself.
I can't comment beyond this point as I may offend :D
how modest of him :D
Have to say he did it like a magician, I never saw the slide of hand coming :DDD

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:35
by hurlock
Jon Saxon wrote:
hurlock wrote:what about david reid who defeated laurent boudini@?

i think you have to look at rds & scheduled 12rounders as some dont get stretched regardless. if some one is fed 4-3's & 6-2's & been modicodled then know but if they have been pitched in & have broke down good opposition absolutely.
I think the Frechman handed his title over to him that night for a good fee I beleive, he wasnt in the best of shape.

I thought Ried could have been realy good but I was fooled by his fake Roy Jones'ness.
Trinidad ruined him and Vargas IMO.
ha ha jon you love a scandal :!: you know laurents cuz raff post's on here :lol:

yeah he got his ar$e handed to him no doubt :!:

mcracken used to spar alot with him while out in the states.

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:39
by Quixall
I can see the point that maybe heavyweights can take longer to come to maturity if thats the right word and i suppose it depends on the quality of the individual fighter. You may get the cases like Oscar where he went for a title shot after 12 fights and was perhaps ready for that challenge, but if after 12 fights they haven't fought many or any guys inside the top ten, how do you gauge that ? Oscar was special and i suppose you will get some divisons that are weak at times, especially with the alphabet title up for grabs, but i still think that in the main its way too soon for any fighter to be sanctioned a world title shot.

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:41
by Jon Saxon
Quixall wrote:I can see the point that maybe heavyweights can take longer to come to maturity if thats the right word and i suppose it depends on the quality of the individual fighter. You may get the cases like Oscar where he went for a title shot after 12 fights and was perhaps ready for that challenge, but if after 12 fights they haven't fought many or any guys inside the top ten, how do you gauge that ? Oscar was special and i suppose you will get some divisons that are weak at times, especially with the alphabet title up for grabs, but i still think that in the main its way too soon for any fighter to be sanctioned a world title shot.
Oscar went in the back door (ooh er mrs) Bredahl wasn't the real champ were as Holy went straight for the man in the division.

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:45
by tsunami
Guillermo Rigondeaux prime example of being ready to challenge for world title in minimal amount of fights

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:46
by Quixall
Jon Saxon wrote:
Quixall wrote:I can see the point that maybe heavyweights can take longer to come to maturity if thats the right word and i suppose it depends on the quality of the individual fighter. You may get the cases like Oscar where he went for a title shot after 12 fights and was perhaps ready for that challenge, but if after 12 fights they haven't fought many or any guys inside the top ten, how do you gauge that ? Oscar was special and i suppose you will get some divisons that are weak at times, especially with the alphabet title up for grabs, but i still think that in the main its way too soon for any fighter to be sanctioned a world title shot.
Oscar went in the back door (ooh er mrs) Bredahl wasn't the real champ were as Holy went straight for the man in the division.
I suppose you would be able to have a good idea that say a yopung Holyfield or De La Hoya had something a bit exceptional that allowed that early development, but in the case of Chisora, everyone with eyes could see that the guy was well of his league facing Klitschko and that's not with hindsight, i was saying that at the time the fight was initially sanctioned.

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 16:47
by Quixall
Jon,

I suppose it will be like when we have our first fight on PS3............

Your a veteran of the ring, it will be my first fight and you will lose and get knocked out :DD :box:

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 17:14
by milpool
I've been thinking about this...Chisora getting a shot after beating nobody at world level, Fury being touted as an opponent for Klit after beating the aformentioned Del Boy.
Neither are ready for such a step up and it further devalues the so called biggest prize in boxing.

But there are exceptions, some have already been mentioned and I doubt many people would disagree with matching the 'Nordic Nightmare' with a Klit in the very near future. Whereas if a fight was set up between Tyson Fury and either Wlad or Vitali, we'd all be crying mismatch.

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 18:13
by McCannW14
You are all forgetting Leon Spinks and Davey Moore!

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 18:29
by Jon Saxon
Quixall wrote:Jon,

I suppose it will be like when we have our first fight on PS3............

Your a veteran of the ring, it will be my first fight and you will lose and get knocked out :DD :box:

Hey Quix I just chinned the HW champ known as ko king!!! AND the British champ and he wouldnt fight me again :(
I'm buzzig out of my tits on meds right now and playing out of my box.

Maybe when they wear off I might realise that it's all been a dream:-)

PS I have the WORST record online 1700 fights roughly 1000 loses (yep 1000) roughly 700 wins 500 od ko's
I went Butterbeen for the fist month so that i could get the shit kicked out of me in order to learn the hard way. :lol:

Re: Should anyone be getting a world title shot after 14 fights

Posted: 03 Aug 2011, 18:50
by el_grande_mauro_mina
McCannW14 wrote:You are all forgetting Leon Spinks and Davey Moore!
No we didn't. :P