BoxRec

In terms of giving poor opponents title shots ? I'm thinking of some names, but I'll hold off till I get some responses.

Maybe Foreman, as he ran off with his belt after KO'ing Moorer? I'm pretty sure he was attempting to follow the path of least resistance.

Of course some "champs" never got past their first defense. So I suppose you'd have to list them.


But that's HW......I bet the real stories here are in the some of the non descript "belt" champions that got away with murder in some less watched divisions over about the last 10 years or so.

BoxBuzz wrote:Maybe Foreman, as he ran off with his belt after KO'ing Moorer? I'm pretty sure he was attempting to follow the path of least resistance.

Of course some "champs" never got past their first defense. So I suppose you'd have to list them.


But that's HW......I bet the real stories here are in the some of the non descript "belt" champions that got away with murder in some less watched divisions over about the last 10 years or so.

If you lose in your first title defense, you never really had a "reign," now did you?

Valuev's WBA "reigns" were pretty atrocious.

Pretty much any WBO title reign . . just pick one.

dempseyfire wrote:
If you lose in your first title defense, you never really had a "reign," now did you?

.

Ah...thought provocation......Hmmm....

I gotta disagree there Dempster....and go with "yes" albeit a very short or unimportant one.....E.G. King Tut. The Egyptian "Boy King". He might not have even rated WBO....but he had himself a "reign" .....of sorts.

James Buster Douglas "Reigned" as champ for almost all of 1990. From 2-11 to 10-25. Damn that's a long time for a guy who only carried it from one guy to another.

Artur Grigorian had a horrendous title reign.

According to granberry and granberry-lite, it's "Clay" isn't it?

At least 8 of Manuel Ortiz's successful title defenses came against rather soft opposition.

Caesarion had a pretty short reign, serves him right for being such an inbred mofo.

Schmeling. Won the title by being hit in the nuts, beat a light heavyweight and then lost title to bloke who hit him in the nuts.

Patterson?

Al McCoy

Between winning and losing his world crown, he lost 23 fights - more than any other reigning champion.

A determined troll could argue that it was Frazier, on the grounds that he wasn't the real, undisputed champion till he beat Ali, and that his reign therefore consists of two defences against very weak challengers before being bounced around the ring by Foreman.

Erdei

Ezzard wrote:Patterson?

See, while Floyd had some fairly bad comp (Rademacher, McNeeley) . .the fact he won the belt beating a legit ATG in Moore pretty much cancels out it being in the running for worst ever (and it took a great fighter in Liston for him to lose it). Someone like Erdei, who took his "title" off a washed-up old Roy victim and has never beaten anyone you could remotely construe as great, is much more fitting.

.....brute....indeed schmeling... win his title by being hit in his nether region ...but he lost it by a decision... to the same fellow who gave him the uppercut to the foul coup.

check out johnny kilbane's record for length of time versus number of title defenses...

Bowe's reign once he won the title was a disgrace. A completely shot Dokes and Jesse effing Ferguson.

...brute....i misread your post......of course you are correct re:herr max.......i was confusing him with jack sharkey...whose reign, now that i think about it ended with an uppercut by his opponent's wrist, which he finally was able to get the big fellow to land it..

Mccoy and mctigue.

Too many fighters went on bum of the month campaigns to count. Unfortunately it is getting more and more common because anyone worth their salt already has a belt. So they aren't exactly in demand.

Most of your so called "Paper Champions" have weak reigns, but some legit champions have pretty mediocre reigns. Jermain Taylor looked mediocre and beatable in all of his 4 title defenses as Middleweight Champion, ironically his best performance as champion was in his losing effort against Kelly Pavlik in which he fought a great fight over the first 5 rounds. Speaking of which Pavlik's Middleweight title reign is pretty forgettable as well. Marco Antonio Rubio and Gary...something or other I forget the guys name. I think there may have been another title defense or two I'm forgetting, but he basically lost the first time he defended against a Live opponent. That being our current reigning Champ Sergio Martinez, who say what you want, has had a better reign than Taylor and Pavlik combined in my opinion. Taylor fought bigger names, but didn't look as good as Sergio has looked in defense of his title.

I cast a vote for Elisha Obed. 154 lb champion from the mid 70's. Defended in Abidjan against a guy named "Sea Robinson" of whom absolutely nothing can be found before or after the fight( and Robinson went the full 15 rounds) and a journeyman fighting clubfights in Oklahoma named Tony Gardner- whom he knocked out in two (after getting wobbled in the first by him). I'd say that pair takes Frazier off the hook for Daniels and Stander.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Patterson?

See, while Floyd had some fairly bad comp (Rademacher, McNeeley) . .the fact he won the belt beating a legit ATG in Moore pretty much cancels out it being in the running for worst ever (and it took a great fighter in Liston for him to lose it). Someone like Erdei, who took his "title" off a washed-up old Roy victim and has never beaten anyone you could remotely construe as great, is much more fitting.

Some guys aren’t good enough. They battle their way to a title by the skin of their teeth and from then on are always looking to fall onto a mattress of cash to buffer the blow.

Patterson wasn’t one of those guys. He was talented. But he chose, or was directed towards, soft touches. I think that’s far worse than a C grade fighter who gets lucky. Erdei was a limited fighter who did the best he could. I have no problem with that. Patterson had a terrific career. But he was a real talent. I expect more from a guy like that in his reign.

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Patterson?

See, while Floyd had some fairly bad comp (Rademacher, McNeeley) . .the fact he won the belt beating a legit ATG in Moore pretty much cancels out it being in the running for worst ever (and it took a great fighter in Liston for him to lose it). Someone like Erdei, who took his "title" off a washed-up old Roy victim and has never beaten anyone you could remotely construe as great, is much more fitting.

Some guys aren’t good enough. They battle their way to a title by the skin of their teeth and from then on are always looking to fall onto a mattress of cash to buffer the blow.

Patterson wasn’t one of those guys. He was talented. But he chose, or was directed towards, soft touches. I think that’s far worse than a C grade fighter who gets lucky. Erdei was a limited fighter who did the best he could. I have no problem with that. Patterson had a terrific career. But he was a real talent. I expect more from a guy like that in his reign.

A real talent, yes, but he was not a real Heavyweight, in fairness.

Erdei and Felix Sturm come to mind for long reigns against terrible opposition.

Wow, no-one said Jack Johnson yet? His opponents while champion were damn right awful. McVea, Langford, Jeanette we're all more worthy challengers than the majority of the great white hopes. Battling Jim Johnson rematch also should have happened