BoxRec

Who are your pics, now as a known Patterson fan, I am the first to say that Pete Rademacher is most likely at the top of the list. Being un-ranked, a pure amateur and having had NO pro fights.

Leon Spinks next ?

Kym

Marvis Frazier probably deserves mention.

phil jackson

Are we counting the WBO HW title . . . b/c that adds in a whole 'nother crop.

As for the other titles, I'd say Peter Okhello was worse than Spinks or Rademacher . . .at least they had the novelty of being Olympic Gold Medalists.

Presumably he's speaking of the linear title, though he'll have to tell us to be sure. Jose Roman?

Jean Pierre Coopman is the worst title challenger I have seen.

John Galt wrote:Jean Pierre Coopman is the worst title challenger I have seen.

Richard Dunn gives him a run for his money.

Alfredo Evangelista, when he fought Muhammad Ali...now that was possibly the worst heavyweight fight I have ever seen in my entire life, and Evangelista was only into his 16th pro fight I believe, going the 15 round distance.

Wow, four Ali title challengers. That didn't take long. I'll help you guys out, you forgot Brian London and Chuck Wepner. Those guys were just awful, weren't they? Awful.

How about Al McCoy, Tony Musto, Johnny Davis, Buddy Baer... real qualified title challengers. Johnny Paycheck... sounds like a dangerous guy.

I would have to go with Rademacher, though at least he gave Patterson a fight.

Al McCoy to my understanding passed through MW and was a L-HW...

He was a feared and respected contender and when he fought Joe Louis it was a wild card hope at a title, a title he knew he wasn't getting, but at L-HW he had proved himself and just went for 'broke' against Louis.

McCoy was also past his best then!

Yep, he was an amazing title challenger, coming off six losses in his last ten fights. Very deserving. I'm sure there were no black title challengers Louis could have fought instead.

What about Pete Radenmacher. He got his title shot on his pro debut.

Yeah sorry I meant linear and 'un-disputed' as such.

A few Ali one's here i see :) Is Granberry back to posting :)

Marvis Frazier really was a name sake challenger, in the pro ranks he
had only beaten a returning ol Bugner and James Broad. Very green as a challenger.

Kym

I Feel Fine wrote:Wow, four Ali title challengers. That didn't take long. I'll help you guys out, you forgot Brian London and Chuck Wepner. Those guys were just awful, weren't they? Awful.

How about Al McCoy, Tony Musto, Johnny Davis, Buddy Baer... real qualified title challengers. Johnny Paycheck... sounds like a dangerous guy.

I would have to go with Rademacher, though at least he gave Patterson a fight.

Buddy Baer was an extremely respectable contender. Wins over Nathan Mann, Abe Simon, Tony Galento, Lee Savold.

Brian London wasn't near great but he wasn't nearly as bad as some of the others.

Johnny Paycheck was the infamous worst of the Louis title challengers.

i reckon Marvis Frazier was made to progess to quickly.... and almost "insisted" to fight to like Joe Frazier, but he clearly wasn't a Puncher,

I heard Ali say Rudi Lubbers was the worst challenger he ever fought.

Ali beat Lubbers with one hand but I would say London or Coopman or Dunn were Ali's easiest opponents. I think something people miss is that Ali didn't take these fights seriously either. They were tune ups, he would typically fight three or four top contenders and one bum. The last thing you can do is accuse Ali of looking for easy opponents. His tune ups just get more attention than, say, Louis or Larry Holmes', for whatever reason.

I agree that Baer was not the worst challenger Louis could have fought, but he was certainly a pushover... though he did manage to knock Louis threw the ropes in the first fight.

I think Rademacher has to be the choice, though. Who can be more undeserving of a title shot than someone who has never fought professionally? He might not have been the worst guy to fight for a title, but that isn't the question. The question is who is the least deserving.

I Feel Fine wrote:Wow, four Ali title challengers. That didn't take long. I'll help you guys out, you forgot Brian London and Chuck Wepner. Those guys were just awful, weren't they? Awful.

How about Al McCoy, Tony Musto, Johnny Davis, Buddy Baer... real qualified title challengers. Johnny Paycheck... sounds like a dangerous guy.

I would have to go with Rademacher, though at least he gave Patterson a fight.

He's the most famous of all famous fighters, though. He'll get more praise, he'll get more criticism. Fans have to be prepared to take the bad with the good. I mentioned my favourite fighter's worst challenger (Within reason).

Bert Cooper was pretty undeserving, though he earned a lot of respect with his performance.

dagosd2000 wrote:I heard Ali say Rudi Lubbers was the worst challenger he ever fought.

That was a non-title fight.

If we count linear title with no alphabets on the line then how about Crawford 'Who?' Grimsley.

wouter wrote:

dagosd2000 wrote:I heard Ali say Rudi Lubbers was the worst challenger he ever fought.

That was a non-title fight.

What does that matter?

The retards who regurgitate the Religion of Ali talking points think fights their hero had out on the playground in grade school were for the "title."

observer1 wrote:i reckon Marvis Frazier was made to progess to quickly.... and almost "insisted" to fight to like Joe Frazier, but he clearly wasn't a Puncher,

Joe criminally mismanaged Marvis.

He put his son's life at risk IMO; throwing him in with Larry Holmes so early on & also with the rampaging Tyson a few years later.

It was as if Joe was trying to regain the title through his son.

Poor Marvis even had to wear Joe's shorts as well as fight like him, even though Marivis never had the power or the determination of his father.

Syntax Error wrote:

observer1 wrote:i reckon Marvis Frazier was made to progess to quickly.... and almost "insisted" to fight to like Joe Frazier, but he clearly wasn't a Puncher,

Joe criminally mismanaged Marvis.

He put his son's life at risk IMO; throwing him in with Larry Holmes so early on & also with the rampaging Tyson a few years later.

It was as if Joe was trying to regain the title through his son.

Poor Marvis even had to wear Joe's shorts as well as fight like him, even though Marivis never had the power of the determination of his father.

One hundred per cent right.

Marvis was a very nice, good natured kid,

but he was never meant to be a pro fighter.

I actually began my lifelong (some might even say) obsessive love affair with boxing at 14 years old back in early 1976 by watching one of the all time least deserving Heavyweight Championship challengers in "The Lion of Flanders" himself, Jean Pierre Coopman become the second to last man that Muhammad Ali would ever stop inside the distance in his career.

It was totally apparent to even me, someone who'd never watched a boxing match in his life prior to that night, that Coopman was WAY over his head against Ali (even the faded, rather soft version of that night) & had nothing to offer. Other than his face as a target that is!

But still, what I saw was enough to pique my interest & bring me back for Ali's following fight against the far more formidable Jimmy Young a few weeks later.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He's the most famous of all famous fighters, though. He'll get more praise, he'll get more criticism. Fans have to be prepared to take the bad with the good. I mentioned my favourite fighter's worst challenger (Within reason).

Still, the level of scrutiny is a little too much. Like I said before, Holmes fought some real no-hopers, but his no-hopers in title fights don't get anywhere near the same scrutiny as Ali's. You don't hear much about guys like Leroy Jones and Scott Frank and David Bey. They weren't exactly blowing away Coopman and Dunn in quality or in being deserving, and yet you don't hear nearly as much whining about them. Ali had just fought Joe Frazier for the third time, and was about to fight Jimmy Young and Ken Norton, so he took a break inbetween fights and fought Coopman. Holmes never fought that level of opposition in his title reign, besides his own fight with Norton and his Shavers rematch, so where did he get off taking easy fights like Jones, Frank and Bey? Or what about Lorenzo Zanon who was one of the biggest pushovers I've ever seen fighting for a championship? Marvis Frazier wasn't the only weak opponent in Holmes' "great" title run. He also had Witherspoon and Williams, who both beat Holmes in my opinion, and both of them had only around 15 pro fights.

I just think the difference in scrutiny is a bit much. And I'm aiming in on Holmes specifically after hearing Lampley's comments about Holmes and Ali during the Jones-Trinidad replay.