All Time Greats Who Lost To Obscure/Bad Opponents

[Taansend]

Early on in their career or even in their prime. Not at the end.

Someone mentioned Pernell Whitaker losing to Jose Luis Ramirez in Paris so I was having a look at JLRs record & when he was 21-0 he lost over 10 rounds to a fighter Sergio Enriquez who had a 2-0 record. Then Enriquez never fought again.

Barry McGuigan lost to Peter Eubank - older brother of Chris - who was 3-4 at the time & ended up with a 14-21 record. Saying that, Eubank was a tough fighter who beat Joe Frazier Jr

[Taansend]

Alexis Arguello got stopped (in his 4th fight) by a man making his debut who never fought again.

[HomicideHenry]

Max Schmeling when he got kayoed in one round by a light heavyweight named Gipsy Daniels.... The irony is that just a year earlier he decisioned the same man... Daniels was 70-22-10 when he kayoed Schmeling, and prior to that Schmeling was 35-3-3 and would fight Sharkey for the title two years later.

[BoxBuzz]

Boxing is such a split second, precision sport (at times, and when the best are involved) a single nanosecond can turn a one sided fight being dominated by one fighters posessing superior skills into a career damaging oddball outcome......a bad moment on the job can literally be fatal or near fatal.

This is a topic that KayLand would ALWAYS sort as somehow "defining". Which is one of the goofiest takes by a contributor I've ever witnessed on the forum. It's like saying the "Wallendas" (is that how you spell the name?) were bad trapeze artists because one of them fell off, .....which in reality was a split second error, by an otherwise nearly flawless world class craftsman.

Not that I think a contributor touting such nonsense should be excommunicated....(unless your style points mount up past the point of no return.)

A bad day at the office for you and me means an extra trip to the shredder, or tossing out a badly mixed drink, or somesuch obscure moment that we will never remember. And for even the greatest of boxers it's no different in it's process, even if it's drastically different in it's outcome.....

You really do have to toss the outlier outcomes when considering a great boxing career. And then consider their overall record.

If you make the assessment about only the odd moments......dare I say....You're a moron? But I will admit, being off your game in boxing is more painful than a rock musician who plays the wrong chord for a moment.....he can just call it "Jazz". Whereas the Boxer is (Hopefully) picking himself up off the canvas.

Some moments that fit this would be those already mentioned, and Snipes knockin Larry down counts....maybe even Butterbean's equal feet....(though by that time in his career Larry was just phoning it in.) Wepner's KD of Ali....none of which ended up in a defeat for the better fighter.

Sometimes a styles conflict can create a big discrepancy between two equally great fighters. Foreman Frazier, Duran Hearns, (though I really think that Duran Hearns was a "one shot deal"....(you can take that anyway you want).

But to use the "lucky punch" or the "bad day at the office" or the "extreme styles conflict" as a single dynamic to define a boxer or even using it as a way to evaluate one boxer over another, is pretty lazy thinking in my opinion.

The most common recipe for this topic comes about when an older superior fighter (career wise) loses to a lesser fighter who's advantage ON THAT DAY was having father time is in his corner, vs being in the corner of the former great.

[BoxBuzz]

Bernard Hopkins lost his first fight.........to.....uh....hmmm can't remember was it .....Joseph Blow?

[DrDuke]

Tommy Morrison vs lacking pro-experience Michael Bentt. Prior to the fight Tommy was partying, boozing, looking though Bentt and planning to make Lewis fight next.

Ray Mercer vs journeyman Jesse Ferguson. Ray didn't prepare to Jesse, cause he was looking though him and planning to make Bowe fight next. While blowing the fight Mercer even suggested Jesse to throw it for money.

[Tony1244]

Alexis Arguello got stopped (in his 4th fight) by a man making his debut who never fought again.

That really makes you wonder when you hear something like that.

A potential all time great who just didn't give a poo. Or a fluke?

[bwu]

I would hate to refer to any of these professionals as bad. Let's stick with obscure.

Marty Marshall ended with a 22-14-2 record, but he had a win over Sonny Liston and broke his jaw in the process.

Jose Rodriguez was 2-11-3 when he beat Juan LaPorte. He wound up 5-18-4. Some might argue about whether Laporte was great, but I liked him.

[bwu]

Almost forgot: Al Iovino was 7-6-3 when he knocked out a debuting Henry Armstrong. He then lost two and never fought again.

[Taansend]

I would hate to refer to any of these professionals as bad. Let's stick with obscure.

Why?

Not looking for an argument, just asking why someone can't be called bad?

I boxed. I was bad.

[bwu]

No hostility intended. I love the theme of the thread. But as somebody who didn't box, and would've sucked if he did, I have no place calling any professional bad at the sport.

BTW, who is Wayne McGee and how did he get a win and a draw against Matthew Saad Muhammad?

See, I really like the thread!

[Taansend]

No hostility intended. I love the theme of the thread. But as somebody who didn't box, and would've sucked if he did, I have no place calling any professional bad at the sport.

BTW, who is Wayne McGee and how did he get a win and a draw against Matthew Saad Muhammad?

See, I really like the thread!

Fair enough. It's about the context. Not between you & the "bad" boxer but between the "Great" boxer & the "Bad" boxer.

A fighter with more losses than wins has a bad record whereas a multiple title holder has a good record.

Not meant as a slight on anyone. Just descriptive terms.

Thanks for the responses though. Always good to talk to fellow boxing fans. I'm never one to call fighters cowards or duckers. I never mean a fighter disrespect. I know what they have to go through.

[bwu]

No hostility intended. I love the theme of the thread. But as somebody who didn't box, and would've sucked if he did, I have no place calling any professional bad at the sport.

BTW, who is Wayne McGee and how did he get a win and a draw against Matthew Saad Muhammad?

See, I really like the thread!

Fair enough. It's about the context. Not between you & the "bad" boxer but between the "Great" boxer & the "Bad" boxer.

A fighter with more losses than wins has a bad record whereas a multiple title holder has a good record.

Not meant as a slight on anyone. Just descriptive terms.

Thanks for the responses though. Always good to talk to fellow boxing fans. I'm never one to call fighters cowards or duckers. I never mean a fighter disrespect. I know what they have to go through.

I gotcha. I like your explanation vis a vis bad records and good records. One of the things I like about this board is that I think the vast majority of the posters, like yourself, truly respect the sport and the participants.

Yet another one: I realize most people don't consider Greg Richardson, the former bantamweight champ, as an all time great. I always enjoyed following him. He once lost in a round to Henry Lee, the only win in Lee's 13 fight pro career.

[Taansend]

No hostility intended. I love the theme of the thread. But as somebody who didn't box, and would've sucked if he did, I have no place calling any professional bad at the sport.

BTW, who is Wayne McGee and how did he get a win and a draw against Matthew Saad Muhammad?

See, I really like the thread!

Fair enough. It's about the context. Not between you & the "bad" boxer but between the "Great" boxer & the "Bad" boxer.

A fighter with more losses than wins has a bad record whereas a multiple title holder has a good record.

Not meant as a slight on anyone. Just descriptive terms.

Thanks for the responses though. Always good to talk to fellow boxing fans. I'm never one to call fighters cowards or duckers. I never mean a fighter disrespect. I know what they have to go through.

I gotcha. I like your explanation vis a vis bad records and good records. One of the things I like about this board is that I think the vast majority of the posters, like yourself, truly respect the sport and the participants.

Yet another one: I realize most people don't consider Greg Richardson, the former bantamweight champ, as an all time great. I always enjoyed following him. He once lost in a round to Henry Lee, the only win in Lee's 13 fight pro career.

This is exactly why I started this thread.

I remember Greg Richardson well. Watched him a few times. Love the link that he lost to Henry Lee. Not only was that Lee's only win but he got stopped in 11 of his 12 losses. And the only guy who beat him on points had lost to Freddie Pendelton FOUR days earlier.

[Controversial]

Alexis Arguello got stopped (in his 4th fight) by a man making his debut who never fought again.

Someone mentioned Pernell Whitaker losing to Jose Luis Ramirez in Paris so I was having a look at JLRs record & when he was 21-0 he lost over 10 rounds to a fighter Sergio Enriquez who had a 2-0 record. Then Enriquez never fought again.

It's probably worth noting that boxrec isn't 100% accurate, some guys records are incomplete. especially in those areas of the world.

[APerno]

Max Schmeling when he got kayoed in one round by a light heavyweight named Gipsy Daniels.... The irony is that just a year earlier he decisioned the same man... Daniels was 70-22-10 when he kayoed Schmeling, and prior to that Schmeling was 35-3-3 and would fight Sharkey for the title two years later.

I know no details, this is just speculation, but doesn't the timing for that KO fit the classic gangster mold? "Want a shot at the title, first you have to lay-down once for us."

Why do you feel Gipsy Daniels fits the role of "obscure/bad opponent"? -- 70-22-10 sounds to be neither.

[APerno]

Nino Benvenuti vs Tom Bethea I (non-title fight) Benvenuti RTD after seven rounds.

By the end of his career Benvenuti had become notorious for showing up out-of-shape and disinterested so he deserved to have it catch-up to him.

Bethea was 9-5 at the time of the first fight and had just lost his last four fights, two by KO. (But he did extend Luis Manuel Rodriguez to a 10 UD loss, for whatever that is worth) -- Benvenuti was 80-3-1 at the time.

Benvenuti did come back and stop Bethea in 8 rounds a year later.

[hhaehre]

Napoles' loss to 29-10-4 Billy Backus. While Backus was no bum, he was more journeyman than championship calibre fighter. Backus btw, took one of the worst one round beatings I have seen in his last fight vs Cuevas.

[prewarboxing]

Max Schmeling when he got kayoed in one round by a light heavyweight named Gipsy Daniels.... The irony is that just a year earlier he decisioned the same man... Daniels was 70-22-10 when he kayoed Schmeling, and prior to that Schmeling was 35-3-3 and would fight Sharkey for the title two years later.

I know no details, this is just speculation, but doesn't the timing for that KO fit the classic gangster mold? "Want a shot at the title, first you have to lay-down once for us."

Why do you feel Gipsy Daniels fits the role of "obscure/bad opponent"? -- 70-22-10 sounds to be neither.

At the time Schmeling was the European Light-Heavyweight Champion. He had only just won this title. It was a surprise when he lost to Daniels but Max was still some way short of the fearsome heavyweight he was to become in late 1929. There is no way that he was to 'lie down' as has been suggested. He won this contest fair and square. Daniels was pretty decent British (actually Welsh) middle and light-heavy at this time and had been the British Light-Heavyweight Champion the year before. He vacated his title and di not lose it in the ring and so he was no mug.

In retrospect, of course, this seems like an odd result but, in the context of the time, whilst it was a surprise, and was described in the report as a sensation, such a win was not beyond Daniels capability, he could hit! I also will suggest that there is no possibility of the idea put forward by APerno that Schmeling had to 'lie down'. The bout took place in Frankfurt, Germany, and Schmeling, whilst a real good prospect, was not at this stage expected to become the World Heavyweight Champion. As you can see I have attached the reference to the contest from Boxing News, edition 28 Feb 1928.

Miles Templeton.

[APerno]

Max Schmeling when he got kayoed in one round by a light heavyweight named Gipsy Daniels.... The irony is that just a year earlier he decisioned the same man... Daniels was 70-22-10 when he kayoed Schmeling, and prior to that Schmeling was 35-3-3 and would fight Sharkey for the title two years later.

I know no details, this is just speculation, but doesn't the timing for that KO fit the classic gangster mold? "Want a shot at the title, first you have to lay-down once for us."

Why do you feel Gipsy Daniels fits the role of "obscure/bad opponent"? -- 70-22-10 sounds to be neither.

At the time Schmeling was the European Light-Heavyweight Champion. He had only just won this title. It was a surprise when he lost to Daniels but Max was still some way short of the fearsome heavyweight he was to become in late 1929. There is no way that he was to 'lie down' as has been suggested. He won this contest fair and square. Daniels was pretty decent British (actually Welsh) middle and light-heavy at this time and had been the British Light-Heavyweight Champion the year before. He vacated his title and di not lose it in the ring and so he was no mug.

In retrospect, of course, this seems like an odd result but, in the context of the time, whilst it was a surprise, and was described in the report as a sensation, such a win was not beyond Daniels capability, he could hit! I also will suggest that there is no possibility of the idea put forward by APerno that Schmeling had to 'lie down'. The bout took place in Frankfurt, Germany, and Schmeling, whilst a real good prospect, was not at this stage expected to become the World Heavyweight Champion. As you can see I have attached the reference to the contest from Boxing News, edition 28 Feb 1928.

Miles Templeton.

Hey don't quote me out of context - I never said he layed down, I said it just fit the mold of the times when gangsters would force such a deal on fighters (who were seeking title shots.) That is why I stated clearly "this is just speculation"

Wait, are you suggesting that there were no such thing as gangsters in 1920s Germany; that 1920s Germany was clean from corruption? From what I know about that period in Germany, it rivaled Chicago.

But anyway it was just an off the cuff speculation. Actually I always thought Schmeling could be terribly inconsistent and Schmeling getting caught by a journeyman was not unrealistic.

[APerno]

What about Frankie Randall and Chavez? -- Or was it that we just didn't know Chavez was finished?

[prewarboxing]

I know no details, this is just speculation, but doesn't the timing for that KO fit the classic gangster mold? "Want a shot at the title, first you have to lay-down once for us."

Why do you feel Gipsy Daniels fits the role of "obscure/bad opponent"? -- 70-22-10 sounds to be neither.

At the time Schmeling was the European Light-Heavyweight Champion. He had only just won this title. It was a surprise when he lost to Daniels but Max was still some way short of the fearsome heavyweight he was to become in late 1929. There is no way that he was to 'lie down' as has been suggested. He won this contest fair and square. Daniels was pretty decent British (actually Welsh) middle and light-heavy at this time and had been the British Light-Heavyweight Champion the year before. He vacated his title and di not lose it in the ring and so he was no mug.

In retrospect, of course, this seems like an odd result but, in the context of the time, whilst it was a surprise, and was described in the report as a sensation, such a win was not beyond Daniels capability, he could hit! I also will suggest that there is no possibility of the idea put forward by APerno that Schmeling had to 'lie down'. The bout took place in Frankfurt, Germany, and Schmeling, whilst a real good prospect, was not at this stage expected to become the World Heavyweight Champion. As you can see I have attached the reference to the contest from Boxing News, edition 28 Feb 1928.

Miles Templeton.

Hey don't quote me out of context - I never said he layed down, I said it just fit the mold of the times when gangsters would force such a deal on fighters (who were seeking title shots.) That is why I stated clearly "this is just speculation"

Wait, are you suggesting that there were no such thing as gangsters in 1920s Germany; that 1920s Germany was clean from corruption? From what I know about that period in Germany, it rivaled Chicago.

But anyway it was just an off the cuff speculation. Actually I always thought Schmeling could be terribly inconsistent and Schmeling getting caught by a journeyman was not unrealistic.

I really don't think I have quoted you out of context. Nor am I suggesting that you said he laid down. You have, however, speculated the proposition that Schmeling may have had to do so in order to get on and I am merely disagreeing with this speculation, because I do not think there is any evidence at all to support it.

I certainly don't wish to offend you, but it is you that have raised the idea that Schmeling may have had to lie down in order to further his career and I have responded by saying that I don't agree. Simple.

I do agree with your statement that Daniels record is far too good for him to be considered obscure/bad opponent.

Miles Templeton.

[APerno]

At the time Schmeling was the European Light-Heavyweight Champion. He had only just won this title. It was a surprise when he lost to Daniels but Max was still some way short of the fearsome heavyweight he was to become in late 1929. There is no way that he was to 'lie down' as has been suggested. He won this contest fair and square. Daniels was pretty decent British (actually Welsh) middle and light-heavy at this time and had been the British Light-Heavyweight Champion the year before. He vacated his title and di not lose it in the ring and so he was no mug.

In retrospect, of course, this seems like an odd result but, in the context of the time, whilst it was a surprise, and was described in the report as a sensation, such a win was not beyond Daniels capability, he could hit! I also will suggest that there is no possibility of the idea put forward by APerno that Schmeling had to 'lie down'. The bout took place in Frankfurt, Germany, and Schmeling, whilst a real good prospect, was not at this stage expected to become the World Heavyweight Champion. As you can see I have attached the reference to the contest from Boxing News, edition 28 Feb 1928.

Miles Templeton.

Hey don't quote me out of context - I never said he layed down, I said it just fit the mold of the times when gangsters would force such a deal on fighters (who were seeking title shots.) That is why I stated clearly "this is just speculation"

Wait, are you suggesting that there were no such thing as gangsters in 1920s Germany; that 1920s Germany was clean from corruption? From what I know about that period in Germany, it rivaled Chicago.

But anyway it was just an off the cuff speculation. Actually I always thought Schmeling could be terribly inconsistent and Schmeling getting caught by a journeyman was not unrealistic.

I really don't think I have quoted you out of context. Nor am I suggesting that you said he laid down. You have, however, speculated the proposition that Schmeling may have had to do so in order to get on and I am merely disagreeing with this speculation, because I do not think there is any evidence at all to support it.

I certainly don't wish to offend you, but it is you that have raised the idea that Schmeling may have had to lie down in order to further his career and I have responded by saying that I don't agree. Simple.

I do agree with your statement that Daniels record is far too good for him to be considered obscure/bad opponent.

Miles Templeton.

Miles,

I am sorry I left you feeling that way; I wasn't as upset as I pretended. I just wanted to make sure you realized it wasn't an idea but just an off the cuff speculation I hadn't actually given any thought to, i.e. just thinking out loud; a remark motivated by the timing of the loss.

I wonder if the Daniels loss cost him a shot at Tunney. Tunney would have probably quit anyway, but there was a dearth of opponents available in '29 and Schmeling could have filled the bill. Dempsey had soured Sharkey's credibility and I guess Daniels did the same to Schmeling. You think about it, that fight-off for the title was between two fighter with spots on their record. And then of course the outcome didn't help either of them or the fight game in general.

[BitPlayer]

A lot of great fighters from way back had some losses to not great opponents early in their careers.

Bob Fitzsimmons
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Henry Armstrong

A bad one was Philadelphia Jack O'Brien getting KOed by a novice by the name of Al Limerick

[prewarboxing]

Dec 20 1967. Paul Brown. Career record won 2 lost 11. Knocks out Joe Bugner in 3 rounds. Bugner's debut.