BoxRec

Any opinions on the slickest dives in boxing history?

How about the most poorly executed?

Good topic regarding slick ones. None come to immediate mind.

Easy ones to spot...

Michael Spinks vs Mike Tyson (Please, people. I will maintain until they lay me in the ground he tanked it, and not convincingly in the least).

Cliff Ettienne vs Mike Tyson (Pathetic. All I have to say).

Bruce Seldon vs. Mike Tyson (And the Oscar goes to...).

Bruce Seldon vs. Riddick Bowe (Before Tyson-Seldon, there was...dun-dun-dahhh....Bowe-Seldon )

Bert Cooper vs. George Foreman (This really the same guy who stood in there with Mercer and Holyfield?)

Bert Cooper vs. Reggie Gross (Worse than the Foreman job...in fact, worse than anything on this list, sans MAYBE Tyson-Seldon).

Roberto Duran vs. Ray Leonard (What an embarrassment...for Elmer D)

Would you include guys basically quitting by refusing to even try to win? If so, I can think of a heap.

It wasn't slick, but Cintron leaping out of the ring for no reason against Williams was the most stunning. He almost got a win with it.

Oh yeah. There was that

Depends what Little Gran means by 'dive'.

Giancarlo wrote:Depends what Little Gran means by 'dive'.

Stop trying to split hairs, bubble head.

Even you should know what I mean.

And if you don't know....

Get back to flippin' burgers.

yancey wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:Depends what Little Gran means by 'dive'.

Stop trying to split hairs, bubble head.

You should know what I mean, even if I don't.

If it's that simple, then it shouldn't take you long to explain what you mean by 'dive'.

Saves all the crying and whining later.

Giancarlo wrote:

yancey wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:Depends what Little Gran means by 'dive'.

Stop trying to split hairs, bubble head.

You should know what I mean, even if I don't.

If it's that simple, then it shouldn't take you long to explain what you mean by 'dive'.

Saves all the crying and whining later.

Yes, yes, but crying and whining can also elucidate.

And yes, I noticed that you screwed with my words again. Not impressed.

Is it possible you're even more bitter than Gran at this point, Darling? D

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Is it possible you're even more bitter than Gran at this point, Darling? D

Don't talk badly about gran, Irene.

Especially when Little Gran is hanging around us.

Allow me to bring to manifestation great wisdom, where some have hinted at illumination, but few have been caught openly inferring.

A dive SHOULD have a sponsor.

Without a sponsor, there are too many variables....unless it can be proven that a man took out a bet against himself. In which case HE was the sponsor.

If another man...let's just say.... a George Foreman type should strike fear into his opponent to the point that an opponent asks himself "What's the use"? and proceeds to simply psychologically break down or implode......then I don't see this as a dive.

For example I believe......Sharkey "took a dive" against Carnera. He likely profited from the action and probably knew he could win if he would have made the attempt. In fact he proved it in another encounter.

IF the Cosa Nostra simply intimidated him, then I'm not sure that sort of self preservation would count...but it's grey. The scenario where Liston drops in order to save himself from the Nation of Islam could fit here I suppose. Perhaps it's a dive if the "psyche breakdown" was brought on by something other than the aura of invincibility brought on by the opponent.

If we can't stipulate this then half of all of Tyson's opponents who were "psyched" could be considered to have "taken a dive". Since the media played a big role in Tyson's successful campaign of rampage...IMHO...lol.

In my opinion A dive has to have pre-meditation....and probably can't take place in real time in the ring....when the point of the "dive" is simply the open admission of inevitable defeat. (Unless the opponent is fully cognizant of this plan going in....Something I think G.I. believes about Spinks.....I can tell you on a personal level.....Spinks was not wired that way. So it's a silly notion. But nevertheless one that has a fair amount of buyers.

If Foreman or Tyson could scare the bejabbers out of you before throwing the first punch, Or Ali could persuade you of your inevitable doom at his hands....then to me that's just another quill in their arsenal.

I.M.H.O.

BoxBuzz wrote:Allow me to bring to manifestation great wisdom, where some have hinted at illumination, but few have been caught openly inferring.

A dive SHOULD have a sponsor.

Without a sponsor, there are too many variables....unless it can be proven that a man took out a bet against himself. In which case HE was the sponsor.

If another man...let's just say.... a George Foreman type should strike fear into his opponent to the point that an opponent asks himself "What's the use"? and proceeds to simply psychologically break down or implode......then I don't see this as a dive.

For example I believe......Sharkey "took a dive" against Carnera. He likely profited from the action and probably knew he could win if he would have made the attempt. In fact he proved it in another encounter.

IF the Cosa Nostra simply intimidated him, then I'm not sure that sort of self preservation would count...but it's grey. The scenario where Liston drops in order to save himself from the Nation of Islam could fit here I suppose. Perhaps it's a dive if the "psyche breakdown" was brought on by something other than the aura of invincibility brought on by the opponent.

If we can't stipulate this then half of all of Tyson's opponents who were "psyched" could be considered to have "taken a dive". Since the media played a big role in Tyson's successful campaign of rampage...IMHO...lol.

In my opinion A dive has to have pre-meditation....and probably can't take place in real time in the ring....when the point of the "dive" is simply an admission of inevitable defeat.

If Foreman or Tyson could scare the bejabbers out of you before throwing the first punch, Or Ali could persuade you of your inevitable doom at his hands....then to me that's just another quill in their arsenal.

I.M.H.O.

Just different types of the same thing to me, but for arguments sake, what do you classify it when one man isnt afraid of the other, but refuses to try, since he feels he cannot win (ala Pacquiao-Mosley)?

GI...it's a good question....(see my edit regarding spinks)

It's damn hard to know when this takes place in a mans psyche. Basilio probably was incapable of taking a dive.....LaMotta as well. When refs step in are they "aiding in the dive"? If a man is popped by another man in a way that strikes fear into him, and he no longer feels capable of truly competing and he quits...isn't that an honest effort? Isn't he just substituting his judgment for the refs? If another man says to himself "one more shot to the gut, and I"m going to shyt myself I'm getting out of here "before the brownout". .....is he "taking a dive"? Or simply "accepting the consequences of his decision?

I think the subject is pretty damn complicated to quantify so easily.

You think it was damn hard to tell Barrera refused to try in his rematch with Pacquiao?

Here is one that doesn't seem to be mentioned often: Alex Stewart looked like he barely got hit when he fought Tyson.

BoxBuzz wrote:For example I believe......Sharkey "took a dive" against Carnera. He likely profited from the action and probably knew he could win if he would have made the attempt. In fact he proved it in another encounter.

Proof please! A comment like this without one shred of evidence is a disservice to both men. I also take issue with the logic that because Sharkey beat Carnera once he could do it again. If thats the case I guess every fighter who ever lost first but came back to win a second encounter should fall under a cloud of suspicion. The evidence is far more weighted in favor of Sharkey losing legitimately. He was at the tail end of his career and was never consistent performer to begin with. He had actually rocked Carnera right before he was knocked out and went in guns blazing only to walk in to an uppercut. Hardly the actions of a guy looking for a soft spot to lay down. It had been two years since he had won a convincing victory (and that came in the form of a decision over Carnera in which the giant proved he could go 15 with Sharkey), and prior to that it had been almost another two years since he had won another convincing victory (and that came against the aptly named Fainting Phil Scott). As long as Ive been studying boxing history I have never seen one shred of evidence that this fight was fixed. So if you have a bombshell to throw out Id love to hear it.

Ambling Alp wrote:Here is one that doesn't seem to be mentioned often: Alex Stewart looked like he barely got hit when he fought Tyson.

Yep....there should be a LOT of Tyson stories in this thread. There was a Svengali aspect to his reign of terror.

G.I. As far as Barrera....we may agree that it appeared that way. I'm just sayin it's hard to determine. I honestly feel you've made a mistake with Spinks....just my opinion....we probably agree on Antonio vs Pac Man...but when/how/where did he "tank"? Was it before he entered the ring? When is it a "dive" vs just an "aspect of the sort of victory the opponent achieved".

I think Spinks was stunned and helpless, I think Liston had his bell rung and was truly discombobulated, and maybe feeling hopeless about his chances. Did Antonio WISH he handn't signed the return match? Or did something happen in that match that made him feel that he just didn't have the tools and he lost faith in himself? If your opponent defeats you mentally....is that not an "earned win"?
Regardless of what a spectator may surmise?

A guy like Antonio who is strong minded, and competitive is not a "typical suspect" for such an assumption....nor is Spinks or Liston. But if the other guy wins the war of the minds why is that not any less honorable of a way to win, vs just knockin' someone out with a left hook? Hell we all want the easy fight.....whether it's the one round KO...or the "unwilling combatant". The win may be just as good either way.

klompton wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:For example I believe......Sharkey "took a dive" against Carnera. He likely profited from the action and probably knew he could win if he would have made the attempt. In fact he proved it in another encounter.

Proof please! A comment like this without one shred of evidence is a disservice to both men. I also take issue with the logic that because Sharkey beat Carnera once he could do it again. If thats the case I guess every fighter who ever lost first but came back to win a second encounter should fall under a cloud of suspicion. The evidence is far more weighted in favor of Sharkey losing legitimately. He was at the tail end of his career and was never consistent performer to begin with. He had actually rocked Carnera right before he was knocked out and went in guns blazing only to walk in to an uppercut. Hardly the actions of a guy looking for a soft spot to lay down. It had been two years since he had won a convincing victory (and that came in the form of a decision over Carnera in which the giant proved he could go 15 with Sharkey), and prior to that it had been almost another two years since he had won another convincing victory (and that came against the aptly named Fainting Phil Scott). As long as Ive been studying boxing history I have never seen one shred of evidence that this fight was fixed. So if you have a bombshell to throw out Id love to hear it.

Klompton....when you espouse that Greb is truly one of the greats, you do so based on much in the way of the written word....since there is no visual proof. I think you do a good job of postulating based on a great body of evidence. So though I don't like to rate what I have not seen, I don't disagree that you have a great and likely valid point...though there is little visual evidence. It's very true that all of the logic you just laid out regarding Sharkey COULD point to that fight being 100% legitimate. And it's my guess that that is in fact what you IMAGINE took place between these two fighters. And it's quite possible that it is true.

Now...with that said....it does not take an incredible amount of creativity to IMAGINE that Carnera who had SOME documented "support" that padded his record, to have some of that "support" available to him at a later more critical juncture. I IMAGINE that this indeed took place. The probability is likely somewhere close to an even bet that Carnera made it to the championship
"sans nonsense" of any kind. I don't have proof....but there is a pretty foul stench in the air about that fight......and there may have been some fish wrapped in a newspaper lying somewhere nearby causing the malodorous ambiance. I am one who thinks Carnera's skills were suspect....I am not alone. And I am fully aware that there are some that marvel at his jab, and nimbleness considering his size that say his success was inevitable in spite of his checkered "support".....I am not one of those folks. The revisionists that marvel at how well he did against Max Baer despite his many trips to the canvas do little more than confuse me. I still see that fight through the lens of his trips to the deck, rather than his many rises from the deck.

So you have no evidence of a dive but Im the one who is seeing what he wants to see?

Buzz, the annoying thing is that you are so stubborn in your beliefs on certain things you simply refuse to budge despite the complete absence of evidence to the contrary.

Carnera had backers connected to the underworld, but who had power in Europe, not America. Leon See years later admitted to all of the fights he fixed for Carnera . . .it was no great secret. As expected, a number of his early victories were fixed, but as he improved in boxing and took on bigger name opponents (who had their own powerful backers) the fights became on the level (he even got 'robbed' vs Stanley Poreda . . ). But now he suddenly has enough powerful backers to win the HW championship of the world, at that time truly the biggest prize in sports, on a dive?
I know you love to spout the Bert Sugar pseudo history of Carnera being a skill-less oaf who never beat a legit opponent without arrangements occurring beforehand, but the evidence just completely goes against that argument. In his losses to skilled heavyweights like Maloney and Sharkey, he was competitive and impressed the onlookers with his speed, stamina, and ability to take a hard punch. I have a good quality film of his first fight with Sharkey and he looks very good. Sharkey also by 1932-33 was not fighting often and slowing down as a fighter . . that he lost to the pedestrian Kingfish Levinsky in his next fight shows how much he'd slipped from his mid-late 20s prime.

Carnera wasnt great but he did develop into a good fighter. He was incredibly strong and that coupled with his size alone made him a difficult proposition. He defended his championship more than anyone from Gene Tunney to Joe Louis. Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, and Braddock didnt have as many successful defenses. If you go back and watch his fights, all them, you will see that while he was never graceful, he was also not a bum. In a year of fighting from 1933 to 1934 Carnera defeated four of the top heavyweights in the world. He killed Ernie Schaaf, knocked out Sharkey, and dominated both Loughran and Uzcudan. A year and a half after losing his championship he TKOd a decent fighter in Walter Neusel when he was basically written off. In none of these fights is there any evidence that Carnera won with any help, in fact its not even suggested in any fight except the Sharkey fight and that suggestion has only lingered because some people cant accept that Carnera could not have improved upon his earlier effort and wonder "what if."

Yes, yes, all of what you and Dempsey say are POSSIBLE...as is my "belief". I won't argue the point, but my gut says Sharkey was rewarded for his "quest" to find a punch that Carnera could knock him out with. lol.

Klompton....you are a "researchaholic"...tip of the stetson to ya on that....I appreciate and respect your efforts. And Dempsey, I think you are one of the best when it comes to "skills assessment". I think Carnera's story is a bit of an Achilles heel for you though.

Ah....and one other counterpoint I'd like to make. Klompton.....isn't there another "shoe" that needs to be dropped on the Schaaf story? The way you utilize this fact in your response does add a bit of credibility to Carnera's "strength" and yes he was I must admit, a bit muscle bound. However there is something else about Schaaf's mortality that I'm sure you are aware of, but are not speaking to. By not bringing it up here I'm a bit suspicious that you are attempting to use this "tidbit" to make a point, a point that may be comprimised by the dropping of that additional "shoe".

So here is an article on Schaaf....that is pretty well moderated by bringing up a lot of "possiblities"....any of which "Could"
be true. But that punch by Carnera gets the longest odds IMHO.


Boxing Tragedies: The 1933 Death of Ernie Schaaf

Who, or What, was Most Responsible for the Ring Death of the Promising Heavyweight?


Philo Gabriel, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Apr 5, 2011 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here.".
More:
Boxing
The Ring
Heavyweights
Heavyweight Boxing


Ernie Schaaf was the All American Boy type athlete. The son of German immigrants, he was a Navy veteran who served on the same ship with future World Heavyweight Boxing Champion Jack Sharkey. While in the service, he won the United States Navy championship in the heavyweight division and acquired the nickname the "Tiger of the Sea."
Once out of the Navy, the New Jersey native turned pro. After each victory he would send his mother rose carnations. A regular churchgoer, he spoke of his intent to enter the priesthood after his boxing career.

Through the late 1920s and into the early 1930s, Schaaf fought many top heavyweights and light heavyweights, including Tommy Loughran, Max Baer, Jim Braddock, Young Stribling, Tony Galento, Stanley Poreda and Paulino Uzcudun,. He didn't beat them all, but he won enough of those bouts, and was impressive enough overall, to establish himself as a legitimate title contender.

When Schaaf, sporting a record of 54-12-2, entered the Madison Square Garden ring against the giant Italian heavyweight contender Primo Carnera on February 10, 1933, it was expected that the winner would be in line for a title shot.

Death of Ernie Schaaf

The bout between Schaaf and Carnera was disappointing to the fans. There wasn't a great deal of action. What action there was favored Carnera. Schaaf seemed strangely fatigued and lacked the reflexes to avoid the ponderous punches of the hulking Carnera or to fight back effectively.

In the 13th round, Carnera landed what appeared to be a light jab. Schaaf collapsed to the canvas and was counted out. The crowd booed, and there were shouts of "Fake!" as he was carried from the ring.

The stricken Schaaf was taken to the Polyclinic Hospital where he was diagnosed as suffering from a intracranial hemorrhage and described as being in a "semi-coma." Four days later, on Valentine's Day, he was pronounced dead.

According to newspaper reports of the time, on his deathbed Schaaf was momentarily coherent enough to exchange words with his mother. "Honey, are you my sweetheart?" she asked her son. "Yes, Mom," he replied. "How are you?" "I'm OK, Mom."

The Navy veteran received a firing squad salute from the sailors of the Boston Navy Yard. His funeral was attended by numerous dignitaries and famous athletes, including his former shipmate and now Heavyweight Champion of the World Jack Sharkey. The distraught Carnera sent a six foot high cross of flowers adorned with a satin ribbon inscribed "With the deepest of sympathy, Primo Carnera."

Schaaf's mother responded to Carnera: "Kindly be assured that I do not consider you in any way responsible for the death of my boy. I feel toward you like I would have wished your mother to have felt toward my Ernie if you had met with some misfortune during your bout with him. I thank you for your offers of sympathy and for your expression of admiration for Ernie." The Italian heavyweight not only went on to fight for the title, but to win it, knocking out Sharkey in the 6th round four months later.

Was Primo Carnera Most Responsible for the Death of Ernie Schaaf?

Carnera is one of the most controversial-and lightly regarded-heavyweight champions in history.

In his heyday there were those who regarded Carnera-who was the second tallest Heavyweight Champion up to that time, and the heaviest by a wide margin-as a terror, a veritable man among boys. Especially after Schaaf's death, there were cries of alarm that Carnera was simply too big and too strong to box safely, that he had too much of a size advantage over almost all of his opponents. Some commentators called for a new weight class above the heavyweights, where Carnera would be matched only with other giants like himself.

At the same time, though, there were plenty of observers who viewed Carnera as quite the opposite of too dangerous to be allowed in the ring against most heavyweights. If anything they regarded him as the one at risk of serious injury if he faced a talented opponent.

It was something of an open secret that Carnera was managed by organized crime figures. There was reason to believe-and this has since become the prevailing view-that he built up his impressive record through a series of fixed fights, probably including even the championship fight against Sharkey. (Though it's also believed that the good-natured and somewhat dim-witted Carnera himself was unaware his fights were fixed.) Critics regarded him as untalented and uncoordinated, with little punching power and little ability to take a punch.

So when Schaaf gave such a lackluster performance, culminating in collapsing from a light jab, there was ample reason for the skepticism. If he wasn't paid to take a dive, he would have been the exception.

But if Carnera couldn't punch, and if he only got to where he got because his opponents were paid off, how could he have done sufficient damage to Schaaf to kill him?

Was Max Baer Most Responsible for the Death of Ernie Schaaf?

Many boxing historians believe that the true explanation for the ring death of Ernie Schaaf lies back in August of 1932, when he fought Max Baer.

Baer and Schaaf had fought less than two years earlier, with Schaaf prevailing by 10 round decision in a fight the New York Times called "as exciting a heavyweight encounter as has been seen here for some time."

Interestingly that had been Baer's first fight after an earlier ring death. The power punching contender Baer had pummeled Frankie Campbell with Campbell unconscious and held up by the ropes, unable to fall. Campbell was rushed to the hospital and died from the injuries he sustained in the fight.

Baer was hugely affected by what happened. He took several months off and seriously considered retirement. Though he returned to the ring, and indeed later held the Heavyweight Championship briefly (defeating Carnera), followers of the sport say he never came close to living up to his potential. For decades he suffered from nightmares about the Campbell fight, he drank heavily, he adopted a clowning devil-may-care attitude toward life, and he no longer displayed a "killer instinct," routinely letting opponents off the hook when he feared he could seriously hurt them.

In the 1932 rematch against Schaaf, Baer fought cautiously, perhaps holding back as was now his wont. The fight was basically even all the way. At the very end, however, Baer landed a devastating punch and knocked Schaaf out cold. Because it happened with less than 10 seconds remaining in the very last round, the bout ended before Schaaf could be counted out, thus it was not officially a knockout. Instead the fight went to a decision, with Baer narrowly getting the nod.

When Schaaf died several months later, few made a connection with the Baer fight. Later boxing historians did, however.

It seemed the logical explanation for how Schaaf could have died at the hands of the "fraud" Carnera. Perhaps he'd suffered major but undiagnosed brain damage from the Baer knockdown, and Carnera's weak blows had been the straw that broke the camel's back. Perhaps Baer had actually killed two opponents in his career.

Maybe. But there are problems with this theory. Not only was this at a time of his career when Baer tended to let up on his punches precisely because he never again wanted to be responsible for killing or seriously hurting an opponent, but Schaaf had in fact fought three times in between the Baer and Carnera fights, winning two and losing one, and showing no ill effects of having been knocked down by Baer.

Is There Some Other Explanation for the Death of Ernie Schaaf?

Some commentators believe that it was neither Carnera nor Baer who was most responsible for killing Schaaf.

The autopsy done on Schaaf revealed significant swelling of tissue surrounding the brain, or meningitis. Had that swelling already been present as a result of the damage done by Baer, presumably Schaaf would not have been able to fight as effectively as he had in winning two out of three fights in the interim.

But if the swelling happened after those three fights, and caused him to be so weak and ineffectual as to draw boos from the crowd against Carnera, and then to die soon after the fight, what could have caused it?

As it turns out, Schaaf suffered a bad case of influenza shortly before stepping into the ring with Carnera. He'd been so weakened by the illness that he'd even taken the drastic step of going into seclusion at a religious retreat outside of Boston to try to recuperate.

It's entirely possible that he had not recovered from the flu when he fought Carnera, that he was still weak, and that he already had the swelling around his brain that would ultimately kill him.

Conclusion

The evidence as to what caused the ring death of Ernie Schaaf is not conclusive. What is most likely is that it came about as a result of multiple factors.

Certainly he took a lot of punches from Carnera in his final bout. And while Carnera was not the fearsome slugger some fans assumed from his imposing bulk, he probably wasn't quite the joke later commentators made him out to be. Regardless of how much dishonest help he got early in his career, he seems to have developed into at least a respectable contender on his own merits. Once Mob support was withdrawn and he was on his own, his career didn't fall apart completely. He was knocked out by some excellent opponents, including Baer and a young Joe Louis, but he also won his share of fights against contenders. So he was not without skills and not without punching power, and it's reasonable to believe he could do some damage when he landed the kind of punches he did against Schaaf.

But it's also reasonable to believe that Baer's knocking Schaaf unconscious a few months earlier could have done the kind of brain damage to make him more vulnerable to later punishment. Maybe Baer did indeed hold back in some of his bouts after killing Frankie Campbell. But he still was one of the most devastating power punchers in the division, and there's no denying he'd flattened Schaaf with a heavy blow. A decisive knockdown like that can have permanent consequences, even if they are not immediately apparent.

But probably the most significant factor was indeed Schaaf's returning to the ring when he was not yet fully recovered from influenza and didn't realize that he had swelling around his brain and was putting his life in jeopardy by fighting in that condition.

Whatever the cause, the death of Ernie Schaaf forever altered the lives of his grief-stricken family and friends, as well as of the gentle giant Carnera, who, like Baer after the Campbell fight, eventually descended into alcoholism to cope with the memories of the ring death of an opponent.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Good topic regarding slick ones. None come to immediate mind.

Easy ones to spot...

Michael Spinks vs Mike Tyson (Please, people. I will maintain until they lay me in the ground he tanked it, and not convincingly in the least).

Cliff Ettienne vs Mike Tyson (Pathetic. All I have to say).

Bruce Seldon vs. Mike Tyson (And the Oscar goes to...).

Bruce Seldon vs. Riddick Bowe (Before Tyson-Seldon, there was...dun-dun-dahhh....Bowe-Seldon )

Bert Cooper vs. George Foreman (This really the same guy who stood in there with Mercer and Holyfield?)

Bert Cooper vs. Reggie Gross (Worse than the Foreman job...in fact, worse than anything on this list, sans MAYBE Tyson-Seldon).

Roberto Duran vs. Ray Leonard (What an embarrassment...for Elmer D)

Would you include guys basically quitting by refusing to even try to win? If so, I can think of a heap.

Not to sure about Spinks? Did You see his eyes roll back into his head as he hit the ground? The last punch on Spinks landed kind of weird but look at the way it forced him on his back so violently

scallum wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Good topic regarding slick ones. None come to immediate mind.

Easy ones to spot...

Michael Spinks vs Mike Tyson (Please, people. I will maintain until they lay me in the ground he tanked it, and not convincingly in the least).

Cliff Ettienne vs Mike Tyson (Pathetic. All I have to say).

Bruce Seldon vs. Mike Tyson (And the Oscar goes to...).

Bruce Seldon vs. Riddick Bowe (Before Tyson-Seldon, there was...dun-dun-dahhh....Bowe-Seldon )

Bert Cooper vs. George Foreman (This really the same guy who stood in there with Mercer and Holyfield?)

Bert Cooper vs. Reggie Gross (Worse than the Foreman job...in fact, worse than anything on this list, sans MAYBE Tyson-Seldon).

Roberto Duran vs. Ray Leonard (What an embarrassment...for Elmer D)

Would you include guys basically quitting by refusing to even try to win? If so, I can think of a heap.

Not to sure about Spinks? Did You see his eyes roll back into his head as he hit the ground? The last punch on Spinks landed kind of weird but look at the way it forced him on his back so violently

The clincher for me is the look in his eyes as he watches the ref after KD #2. Pure, lucid terror.