BoxRec

a lot of the 80's fights were dreafully boring over 15 rounds.

earnie terrell 15u over eddie machen was boring.
tony tubbs 15u greg page - boring as hell

walcott and charles I- very boring but a tactical fight.



can u imagine a fight like jack johnson vs jersey joe walcott????

both two of the smartest defensive fighters. both would be waiting for the other guy to throw a punch all night. walcott was a little more agressibve so hell prob start the show but this could have been the most boring fight of all time. MAYBE 10 PUNCHES LANDED THE WHOLE FIGHT A 15 ROUND DRAW????????

..damn...when i read the thread my immediate answer was page/tony tubbs...but brocktonbuster already has it. good choice. worst i ever saw.


charles/walcott 1....well, after the fact the film might look boring, but as our boy said it was a very tactical fight between two of the cleverest men ever to hold the title...and i still see it that way. plus...when it was unfolding in real time it had a lot of suspense..especally for me...was ezzard going to win it, as i had loudly predicted? there was a point in the seventh round when ezz had the jersey man in real trouble and he could have finished him or at least put a lot of hurt on him...and he backed off. he said he was following his corners orders...walcott was a sly counterpuncher.....but there are those in the charles camp who said it was another case of him backing off.....as he did so much in the post sam baroudi stage of his career.

Johnny Nelson vs. Henry Akinwande

EDIT: sorry, this wasn't for a title.

Henry Akinwande vs. Lennox Lewis

or better yet,

Lennox Lewis vs. David Tua

considering that only the last few rounds of walcott-charles exist im curious how we can judge it as being boring other than news reports.

Personally I enjoy watching a chess match between two clever guys trying to outwit one another, there is always some suspense. The one I really can't take is Page-Tubbs: just two fat guys slapping one another's bellies...

Tubbs/Page was not boring, and not only that Tubbs was actually in shape it was after he became champ he started to become a lardo. So maybe you guys actually havent seen the fight.

It was fast paced with some slick combos & hard shots given and taken so whats your beef? It was no thriller but it was a lot better than Witherspoon/Page (which WAS just a maul-fest) and stuff like that.

O_R

Maybe I'm getting confused with Witherspoon-Page but if there's a picture of Tubbs in shape during those years I'd love to see it.

Muhammad Ali vs. Alfredo Evangelista...Ali well past his prime, slow & not in the best shape...Evangelista...almost 'naturally' boring...watch the film of this gem at night and you might just fall asleep...(we need a yawning Emoticon)...

Holmes vs Cobb. so one sided it was boring.

Sweet Scientist wrote:Muhammad Ali vs. Alfredo Evangelista...Ali well past his prime, slow & not in the best shape...Evangelista...almost 'naturally' boring...watch the film of this gem at night and you might just fall asleep...(we need a yawning Emoticon)...

I second the Ali-Evangelista fight. I remember watching that on regular TV and thinking this is just excrutiating.

Per an exchange you and I just had in the Holmes thread, have you (or has anyone) seen the Gerhart Zech-Karl Mildenberger fight for the HW title in Europe. I myself have not, but I've read accounts that it was more like a posing match than a boxing match, after which each fighter was showered with boos and had things thrown at them as they were exiting the arena.

Anyone with information on this?

If WBO counts?

Henry Akinwande vs Scott Welch.

KOJOE90 wrote:If WBO counts?

Henry Akinwande vs Scott Welch.

well in that case I would definitely go for Ruiz-Rahman

....i heard the charles/walcott 1 over the radio live....and saw a COMPLETE film of it shorly afterwards. a bootleg...but a good one.

that tall dark haired fellow in the film/tape (this scene exists on many tapes and films )standing next to charles as he was named the winner is the late gene elkus....a member of the family who first managed ezzard.

wsbuf wrote:Holmes vs Cobb. so one sided it was boring.

Yeah, but it led to Howard Cosell quitting boxing broadcasts...

The First Tommy Burns-Phila. Jack O'Brien 20 rounder was boring. Tommy tried constantly but O'Brien ran and ran and ran.

The second Schmeling-Sharkey fight was pretty slow, and the wrong guy won.

Throw in Ali vs. Rudi Lubbers or Buster Mathis. Ernie Terrell vs. Eddie Machen (although only for the WBA title).

Cap

Cap wrote:
Throw in Ali vs. Rudi Lubbers or Buster Mathis.

...throw them back out...non-title fights...

Jaclem wrote:....i heard the charles/walcott 1 over the radio live....and saw a COMPLETE film of it shorly afterwards. a bootleg...but a good one.

I'm impressed/

I wonder if you could tell me, how was the fight and more importantly Charles and Wallcott viewed at the time of their fights by the media and fight fans?

Were they viewed as highly skilled technicians of the ring? Or were they just percieved as 'caretaker' Champions untill the next 'great' came along?

..kojoe...alas, the media was (were) just as dumb as the average fan. walcott had been a crowd favorite after losing that decision in the first louis fight, but lost some luster in the second one...( a fight I think i should do a thread on). charles was always put down by the new york press...as a "dull" "cautious " fighter. of course, the had never seen his earlier years before he fought in new york. so..yeah...neither was given much praise when they fought for the title..considered "the best of a poor lot"...etc.
to add to the negatives, nat fleischer insisted the title was for the nba only and not legit ...until the british woodcockl/savold match was fought. really dumb.
charles defended his title three times but it wasn't until he beat joe louis that fleischer and the boxing world declared him world champion....walcott won some good fights, but looked terrible in losing to rex layne...lost a decision to charles again....with a ho hum reaction from the hordes..but then got very popular with his kayo over charles. walcott got even more acclaim with his marvelous but losing battle against marciano....but then again was looked down on after his one round kayo by rocky in the rematch......a lot of people thought he just sat down, took the money and retired.

so....a long way of answering....yes..they were considered caretakers. this was especially true of walcott because of his age and the emergence of marciano...who was the favorite when he challenged jersey joe.

marciano was more popular because of his aggressive style and kayo power...though fleischer and much of the boxing press were critical of his lack of "style"....but he won most of them over during his reign, and retired as a popular champion.

sorry for the long winded reply, but the situation was hard to sum up in just a few words.

WAS THERE ANYTHING ever worse then Ruiz-Oquendo?????

I can't imagine .. . . .

No contest. Even the announcers were bored. When Victor dropped Eddie for a two count they (the announcers) mentioned how it (the knockdown) didn't seem important. I will have to give Larry Holmes and Carl Williams credit for trying to fight an entire fight without actually touching each other.

any fight john ruiz was in.

Jaclem wrote:sorry for the long winded reply, but the situation was hard to sum up in just a few words.

Thanks for the feedback.

What you say pretty much underlines what I have read on the subject in various books etc.

It's amazing to think that two such highly skilled fighters were generally classed as "the best of a poor lot".

Let's not forget Tubbs/Witherspoon in '86 for the WBA belt.

I remember during the Ali-Evangelista "fight" Cosell saying "Ladies and gentleman, I apologize."

McCall vs Holmes: nothing that I can remember for 12 rounds