Which heavyweight champ had the weakest title challengers ??

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 17 Jan 2006, 17:08

Which heavyweight champ had the weakest level of title challengers?

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 17 Jan 2006, 18:14

Larry Holmes. He fought a lot of underserving bums. Plus, some of the best names that he fought were future contenders who were very green and had not yet reached their prime. Holmes definately takes the cake here. His reign was only impressive in its longevity.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:04

perrycarter wrote:Larry Holmes. He fought a lot of underserving bums. Plus, some of the best names that he fought were future contenders who were very green and had not yet reached their prime. Holmes definately takes the cake here. His reign was only impressive in its longevity.

i disagree,

holmes fought some great depth. some of the best in history. just because he didnt have a great name on his record other than norton didnt mean he beat a lot of very good fighters like spoon, shavers, berbick.

how was witherspoon green? he was an incredibly expeirenced amatuer and in the holmes fight, he was 14-0 and almost anyone who seen it will say spoon was at his peak fighting the best fight of his career. spoon that night fought a fight much like douglas did against tyson.

and who are these other green guys u are talking about?

weaver wasnt green, he was at his peak. he fought and incredible fight against holmes and found out that night he was no journeyman. weaver went on shortly after to win the WBA title.

look at all the other challengers.........

the only one u can say was green and not ready was marvis frazier, however marvis was still ranked 9th by the WBC which is a top ten ranking and stil marvis was coming off wins over bugner, and broad.

david bey was only 14-0, BUT.........

bey had recentley beat top contender greg page the man who holmes "supposedly" ducked which is bullshit.

bonecrush may have been 14-1, BUT

he was coming off a huge knockout win over undefeated frank bruno and was a top 10 contender. i might also add holmes was 35 and past his prime for this fight

snipes was 22-0 and a top contender who recentley beat renaldo snipes

gerry cooney may have been overhyped, but he was 25-0 and was dominating everyone he fought and he probed in the holmes fight he was a capable fighter. i think gerry had he kept fighting would have been an alpha champ.

berbick may have been only 18-1 but.............

berbick had recentley knocked out former WBA champ john tate in 9 rounds and berbick was young and in his prime.

if ur talking who fought the most weakest TITLE DEFENSE opponents.........

i would have to say the following guys

tommy burns
jack johnson
floyd patterson

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:32

Decagon wrote:Mike Tyson's name has to be brought up. He fought the same guys Holmes did, but when they were five years older.

bullshit they were all in there prime

trevor berbick 32 years old coming off the best fight of his career in a win over pinklon thomas. 32 years old is NOT old for a heavyweight.

pinklon thomas 29 years old in his prime

tony tubbs 29 years old in his prime, an old tubbs nearly beat a prime riddick bowe

tony tucker 29 years old in his prime

bonecrusher 33 years old but he got a late start in boxing. before the tyson fight, bonecrusher was coming off his peak fight knocking out tim witherspoon in one round. bonecrusher was very much in his prime.

tyrell biggs 27 years old in his prime

michael spinx 31 years old in his prime

carl williams 29 years old in his prime

frank bruno 27 years old in his prime

get ur facts straight decagon!

i could argue berbick, bonecrusher were more experienced and better fighters when they fought tyson than when they fought holmes.

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:38

Geez BB, I only see three opponents of Tyson's that Holmes also fought, one of them beat Holmes twice and the other two were very green and very young when Holmes fought them and if I remember correctly Holmes had a rather difficult time with both Bonecrusher Smith and Carl Williams...all three of which Tyson easily beat when they were in their primes...in fact, I don't see any top opponents of Tyson who also fought Holmes...most definately not the same guys as Decagon mentions...Like you said BB, someone needs to pay better attention to what they say, but then again, Decagon has become known for making incorrect comments that he tries to put off as fact!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:38

Decagon wrote:Are you seriously telling me that Pinklon Thomas and Michael Spinks were in their prime against Tyson?

yes they were........

pinklon thomas was only 29 years old which is young for a heavyweight. pinklon thomas had won the HW title just 3 years earlier and had held the title till just 1 year earlier when berbick upset him. from the berbick till tyson fight, pinlon record 3 wins in a row showing no signs of aging.

so let me ask u

did thomas show any signs of aging when he fought tyson? was he slower than in his previous fights?

watch the tyson-thomas fight, thomas looks just as good as he did in when he held the title a couple years earlier. he used his jab very well and was a polished boxer who used his size well. no signs of aging i saw vs tyson.

michael spinx may have been coming off a layoff but he certainly was in his heavyweight prime. just two years earlier michael spinx beat larry holmes, and 1 year earlier spinx knocked out a ring rusty gerry cooney. easily.

fact is poor michael spinx ran into a peak mike tyson who was a dangerous machine that night.

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:45

Decagon---what about all the recycled opponents of Holmes that Tyson later fought...you said that Tyson just fought the same guys Holmes did only they were older and past their prime for Tyson, but I can only recall three top fighters that both faced and they were in their primes when Tyson faced them.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:47

Decagon wrote:Pinky's jab wasn't nearly as sharp as it was two years earlier. He was in the middle of a pretty bad slide.

So, 29 or 30's a good age for a heavyweight? What was Mike Tyson like when he was 30 or 31? Was he in his prime?

how could u say that, did in a span of suddenly two years he lost zip on it? ridiculous claims. i better u never seen the thomas-tyson fight. i watched it, pinklon used his jab very well vs tyson and had good zip on it, just as much zip on it when he fought spoon and weaver. its just tyson had such good defense he was able to avoid it most of the time. still pinklon had a great jab and was able to catch tyson with it at times. on the outside, pinklon waited for tyson to lower his gaurd and then he would attack with his jab.

to say his jab wasnt as sharp as it was two years ago is ludicrous. fact is tyson was so good at defense he made pinklons jab look less sharp than when pinklon was facing a a guy like a fading mike weaver.

everyone primes differentley, however if u do research u will find most heavyweights are still in there prime at 29 years old.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:47

barry wrote:Decagon---what about all the recycled opponents of Holmes that Tyson later fought...you said that Tyson just fought the same guys Holmes did only they were older and past their prime for Tyson, but I can only recall three top fighters that both faced and they were in their primes when Tyson faced them.

tyson totally cleaned out the division and actualy in his 9 title defenses fought more alhpa champs than holmes did in his 20 title defenses.

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:48

O-Kay, so Spinks was not in his prime, but the others were!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:51

Decagon wrote:Spinks wasn't in his prime. He'd had one fight in almost two years, and he was wearing braces on both knees.

in almost 2 years? once again check ur facts

spinx hadnt fought a fight in 1 year and 12 days. does that sound like almost 2 years to you?

please dacegon check ur facts before opening ur mouth with false slander.

tyson literally destroyed spinx in his heavyweight prime

pleasse decagon tell me how holmes title defense opponents were better than tysons?

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 00:59

I would like to know also...especially how one year and 12 days = almost two years!

woe31 · Post by **woe31** » 18 Jan 2006, 01:04

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Decagon wrote:Spinks wasn't in his prime. He'd had one fight in almost two years, and he was wearing braces on both knees.

in almost 2 years? once again check ur facts

spinx hadnt fought a fight in 1 year and 12 days. does that sound like almost 2 years to you?

And his fight before that was on 6 September 1986. The gap in between is close to two years, and he'd only had one fight in that span.

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 01:06

In all honesty...it would not have made a difference if three prime Michael Spinks entered the ring that night...Tyson would have destroyed him just as he did!

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 01:10

>>>I'm glad someone understood what I was talking about.<<<

Maybe you would not have as many problems if you would explain your comments a little better...you have to remember this is the internet and people cannot tell some things unless they are better explained, or better stated.

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 01:30

Trust me...you don't have to dumb anything down...you need to get it right to start with instead of later trying to make new meanings after you have been called on things...that's all you have managed to do...try to cover up your intial incorrect statements after someone else says the correct thing, like woe31...and then you try to pretend like that was what you meant to start with, but we all know that's not the case as you have demonstrated that same cover-up a dumb statement mode all day! It's like you say, no I didn't mean it the way one person took it, I meant it the way that other guy said it...that's all you have done...how about trying to own up to your errors instead of trying to hide the fact that you made a ignorant comment by saying that you didn't really mean it one way!

woe31 · Post by **woe31** » 18 Jan 2006, 01:38

Decagon said Spinks had only had one fight in nearly two years. That someone misinterpreted that as him not having fought in two years isn't his fault. It's not even ambiguous if you actually read it!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jan 2006, 01:40

woe31 wrote:Decagon said Spinks had only had one fight in nearly two years. That someone misinterpreted that as him not having fought in two years isn't his fault. It's not even ambiguous if you actually read it!

the way he said it, it made u think he mean "spinx had had only one fight in nearly two years before fighting tyson"

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 18 Jan 2006, 01:55

I love John L. about as much as anyone, but I have to admit that he probably fought the weakest batch of opponents in heavyweight championship history.

This is not completely Sullivan's fault, as he did challenge anyone in America for years to fight him and he never did back down from a challenge, but the fact remains that he fought, for the most part, amateurs and vastly undersized pugilists. Most of this can be attributed to the time period in which he fought, as prizefighting was illegal in most areas during the 1880s, and the big cities New York, Boston, and Philadelphia did not allow him to fight at all after his tour of the country in 1883-1884.

No matter how legitimate the excuses, the fact remains that most of Sullivan's opponents had little or no prizefighting experience and the ones that did usually were outweighed by 50 pounds (or more if he was on one of his many, many binges).

That, and the fact that he never fought Peter Jackson, lead me to believe that Sullivan fought a weaker batch of opponents that any other champion with a lengthy title reign.

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 18 Jan 2006, 02:17

BB,

Let me break down Holmes' entire reign how I see it.

Undeserving bums

Alfredo Evangelista - This guy never recorded a significant win in his entire career.

Lorenzo Zanon - Terrible excuse for a heavyweight title challenger.

Leroy Jones - Beat Mike Weaver before Weaver was good then did absolutely nothing else. Yet he gets a title shot???

Scott LeDoux - Nothing more than a glorified journeyman. And an old one at that.

Leon Spinks - 10-2-2 at the time and was never turned out to be a good pro.

Tex Cobb - Another glorified journeyman. Just a tough guy with no skill. One win over a badly faded Shavers does not make you a contender.

Lucien Rodriguez - Terrible heavyweight. European cream puff.

Scott Frank - The guy never beat ANYONE

Fighters who were too green

Ossie Ocasio - 13-0 plus he was a natural Cruiserweight

Tim Witherspoon - 15-0 had never been in a 12 round fight.

Marvis Frazier - 10-0 that few of fights is a joke.

Trevor Berbick - 18-1 had never gone past 10 rounds before. The Tate fight was his only fight of note.

David Bey - 14-0 just a baby with only 14 fights.

Carl Williams - 16-0 and a very limited resume coming in.

James Bonecrusher Smith - 14-1 and turned out to be more of a trial horse than a contender.

Yes, they may have beaten a contender or two but no heavyweight is ready to fight for the heavyweight championship of the world with less than 25 fights against competitive opposition, I don't care what you say. Experience is such an important element at the championship level. All of these guys had little or no big fight experience. They are at a huge disadvantage against a wily veteran champion who was in his prime. Shame on their managers for rushing them along too soon. Homles got to these guys before they had a chance to develop into their best form. None of these guys were in their primes.

Please name me a fighter who is ready to fight the best guy in his weight class that only has 13 or 14 fights. You can't do it because there is no one. It is simply not enough time and rounds to develop and learn the things that you need to learn as a pro.

So that leaves Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Ali, Renaldo Snipes (barely), and Gerry Cooney as respectable title defenses. That is 5 out of 20 defenses overall. I would say that is a very weak list of opponents, possibly the worst of all time.

barry · Post by **barry** » 18 Jan 2006, 02:18

woe31---Decagon has done this time and again, over and over over the last couple of months, so I find hard to believe that he doesn't mean things a certain way until someone points out that the previous way was wrong...then he turn-coats and says he meant this, or he meant that, but never what he actual said to start with and this is not a one time incident...he does it a lot!

>>>We REALLY need one of those emoticons where the smiley face bangs its head against the brick wall.<<<

Why...you wouldn't use it until someone called you on something that you failed to say correctly in the beginning!

By the way, you said you were a teacher...what kind of teacher are you? You have spent just as much time online as I have the past couple of days, which I would think would be a little difficult for a teacher. Now yesterday there was an excuse being Dr. King's b-day, but today, were you playing hookey...plus staying up all hours of the night...were you being honest about being a teacher, or is it that you were a teacher, or you're thinking about becoming a teacher?

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 18 Jan 2006, 03:57

Decagon wrote:
perrycarter wrote:Please name me a fighter who is ready to fight the best guy in his weight class that only has 13 or 14 fights. You can't do it because there is no one. It is simply not enough time and rounds to develop and learn the things that you need to learn as a pro.
Not to be a dick, or anything, because I really liked your post, but here are a few:

-Jim Jeffries
-Floyd Patterson (at 175)
-Michael Spinks
-Leon Spinks
-Evander Holyfield
-Jeff Fenech
-Chang Jung-koo
-Hector Camacho
-Veeraphol Sahaprom
-Oscar de la Hoya
-Kostya Tszyu
-Floyd Mayweather
-Roy Jones

That is true that over the entire course of boxing history there have been the exceptions who were ready with that amount of fights. However, when I said that I had in mind today's current heavyweight landscape which is very similar to that of the 80's. The names of young prospects that Holmes fought for the title is roughly equivalent to him fighting guys like Shane Cameron, Travis Walker, Alexander Dimitrenko, or Yanqui Diaz. Nobody can argue that those guys are ready for a title shot.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 18 Jan 2006, 06:16

I think Holmes does not deserve this at all. He did fight some weak opponents but he also fought his fair share of top challengers. I'd only really question towards the end of his reign when he wanted that 50-0 and was trying to find soft touches.

You can't really compare the old-timers who were often on sabatical for parts of their reigns (Johnson, Dempsey). The guy I'd pick would be Patterson. He ducked all the capable fighters whilst he was champion until he met Liston.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 18 Jan 2006, 07:55

perrycarter wrote:
Decagon wrote:
perrycarter wrote:Please name me a fighter who is ready to fight the best guy in his weight class that only has 13 or 14 fights. You can't do it because there is no one. It is simply not enough time and rounds to develop and learn the things that you need to learn as a pro.
Not to be a dick, or anything, because I really liked your post, but here are a few:

-Jim Jeffries
-Floyd Patterson (at 175)
-Michael Spinks
-Leon Spinks
-Evander Holyfield
-Jeff Fenech
-Chang Jung-koo
-Hector Camacho
-Veeraphol Sahaprom
-Oscar de la Hoya
-Kostya Tszyu
-Floyd Mayweather
-Roy Jones
That is true that over the entire course of boxing history there have been the exceptions who were ready with that amount of fights. However, when I said that I had in mind today's current heavyweight landscape which is very similar to that of the 80's. The names of young prospects that Holmes fought for the title is roughly equivalent to him fighting guys like Shane Cameron, Travis Walker, Alexander Dimitrenko, or Yanqui Diaz. Nobody can argue that those guys are ready for a title shot.

Today's HW division is nothing like that of the 80's. While many of Holmes opponents were a bit green, most of them had fought and beatne at least one or two pretty good fighters. Todays HW's usually have at least 20-25 fights before getting in the ring with someone who might make them work a little.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 18 Jan 2006, 08:14

I REALLY hate to agree with Decagon on anything, but there are rare posts where he kind of makes sense. And I have to agree that Pinklon Thomas was on the downside of his career when he fought Tyson. After Tyson, he lost 4 of his next 5 fights, and hadn't beaten a contender in nearly two years. And he hadn't really looked sharp since the Weaver fight nearly two years earlier.

And if most HW's are still in their prime at 29, what's your excuse again for Tyson getting his whuppin from Douglas at 24? Because ALL Tyson fans ignore reality and have him as a completely shot, over the hill shell of himself, even though he had two very good performances in the 12 months prior to being exposed by Buster. Excuse me, I meant prior to aging 12 years in the 7 months after the Williams fight.