Challengers that didn't deserve a title shot

I think it's only natural for a fighter who's hurt to clinch. However, clinching used as a defensive tactic, to save stamina, or control the pace of a fight (in other words, repeated clinching round after round), should first be met with a warning, then a penalty, and finally disqualification. Period. The only reason this hasn't happened is politics.

 

Garbage in = Garbage out. You don't understand how it was 'not long ago' so you are coming to a faulty conclusion. Wtf is the difference between it being 'an easy fight for a champ in between more legitimate challenges or as a fill in opponent' or a #13 ranked guy who gets a title shot? It's the same thing. Exactly the same thing. It's not like the ranking changes the guy's worthiness.

 

T.W.I. - TYPING While INTOXICATED...WRONG Thread, Homey...


REED:hammert:

 

Dipshit. I'm not saying he was God or anything, but he was considered decent enough both before Foreman and after.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13461

"In the summer of 1989, Adilson Rodriguez was ranked #2 by the WBC and was the Brazilian heavyweight <NOBR style="FONT-FAMILY: inherit; COLOR: lightgreen; FONT-SIZE: 100%; FONT-WEIGHT: normal" id=itxt_nobr_13_0>champion</NOBR>. His record at that point was around 35-2-0-26. He had a few wins over guys like Boncrusher and Tillis, both of whom were a bit past their primes. Rodiriguez fought Holyfield that summer, and was leading in the second round on points when Evander launched a missile to the forehead of Rodiriguez and left him flat on his back, hitting his head on the canvas. One year later, he fought Foreman. At this point his rating had dropped to roughly #10 by the WBC, and like #12 by the WBA. Once again, he started off winning the first round until Foreman cought him in round two, leading to another KO loss.

Rodriguez's record is a bit padded as some have already mention, but he was actually a pretty good boxer with a fair amount of skill and punching power. I wouldn't call him a great fighter, but he was if nothing else respectable and certainly deserved his rating at the time."

 

Misnaming what I had to say as a "faulty conclusion" doesn't make you any less wrong here. This isn't hard to understand...unless you CHOOSE to make it so. It's not the same thing....not even close. In your current world of lowered standards, fighters who were not in the top ten and needed to get their way into the top ten for to be legitimate candidates for a title shot are now "legitimate" contenders. Why? Not because they got into the top ten to become legitimate , but the criteria for qualifiying has been lowered from 10 to 15.

You are such a contrarian AND an apologist for this time in boxing that you don't even realized that your comment shows the standards have been lowered.

"A legitimate challenger only needs a legitimate claim to being a top 15 fighter these days. I think it may have been top 10 in the 90's and before?"

If the criteria for being "legitimate" has gone down from the Top Ten to the Top 15, that IS a lowering of standards.

This really isn't all that difficult. It really isn't.

And since I have been following boxing for more than a year or two, the 90's and before were not all that long ago to me. What were you watching in the 90's?? Sesame Street?

 

What's WORSE is the CONTRARIAN BULLSHIT ARTIST Makes NO Exception for the FACT that Most Sanctioning Bodies SHILL for the Highest Paying Promoter...

To Call Adilson Rodriguez "Legitimate" is a Fucking JOKE...CLEARLY, he was PLANTED into the Rankings so a Promoter Could JUSTIFY Giving him a Title Shot...Don King & Others have Been Doing this Since the 70's & Even RING Magazine has COMPROMISED their Rankings for the Sake of Money...

mikE's Either IGNORANT, a CLOWN or Probably BOTH...


REED:hammert:

 

Carlos Baldomir, brought in as nothing more than an opponent for Judah. What a win that turned out to be for him. It lead to some serious pay days for baldomir.

How about guys who got undesered title shots and actually won? Baldomir would top that list.

 

Ah, so you're using a quote from another forum as "proof". Nice try. No thanks, I will stick with knowing what actually went on.

Rodriques record was not "a bit padded". It was "a lot padded". He fought in Brazil against a bunch of nobodies, managed to lose to some of them along the way, got past Smith, not all that hard to do because he wasn't all that good, outside of that one night when he faced a Tim Witherspoon who should have been anywhere in the ring that night, and Tillis.

And Tillis wasn't a "bit" past his prime...that is a huge exaggeration...he was firmly in the "opponent" stage of his career...he was brought in to pad the records as a "name opponent"

You, and Eastside Boxing, can try to inflate Rodrigues' worth all you want, but the bottom line is that calling him a good opponent is a major exaggeration. He was a mediocre fighter with a padded record who failed MISERABLY when given his opporunities.

 

Boxing is far more of a world sport these days than it used to be. Rating fighters has always been subjective and it is harder these days with so damn many fighters. Look at boxrec's jr. middleweights for example: http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?sex=m&division=Light Middleweight

Now you pick a legitimate top 10 of that weight class.

I guarantee that I can come up with 10 more fighters that are 'worthy' of a title shot in most people's minds. And even if not, I'm sure others will come up with a total of 10 people easy. Very easy.

This isn't because they are unworthy, it's because ranking fighters is a miserably difficult thing to do. It is complicated and it is subjective. And most people add objective factors to the concept.

And when your #25 ranked guy (but ranked #13 by the wbx) gets a title shot and wins, it probably doesn't mean he was unworthy, it probably means your rankings were incorrect, and maybe the wbx's. Or not.

But what it sure as hell doesn't mean is that 'boxing is dying.'

 

He has two wins over a guy who went on to be a competent and long-reigning cruiserweight champ in Johnny Nelson during this time. And Nelson never lost again.

My point was that the Rodrigues win helps show that Foreman was at least somewhat worthy of a title shot against Moorer. I wasn't trying to say it was conclusive of anything.

 

So, 'unworthy' challengers is a phenomena that began in the 70's when promoters started paying the rankers?

 

Rodrigues was highly ranked by The Ring when Holyfield beat him, but not ranked when Foreman beat him. Regardless, I don't think Foreman's win should come into play when discussing his title shot at Moorer. Foreman's title shot at Holyfield, that's another thing, since that was 10 months after Foreman beat Rodriguez. Obviously both title shots were due to Foreman's appeal rather than the opposition he was beating, but Foreman hadn't fought in almost a year and a half when he fought Moorer. And his previous fight, he had lost.

 

Richard Frazier, Glen Kelly and David Telesco pretty much had earned jack shit between them.

They are not representative of Roy Jones reign in any division, but they are there, and are not a bad reflection on Jones per se, but on the nature of the sport.

Telesco basically got a fight with Jones by running his mouth. He had one or two useful wins, over Tate for example, but precious little else.

Frazier got it because somebody threatened a Law Suit. He may well be the worst WBC #1 contender ever, even worse than JCC Junior.

I mean, how often does Sulaiman apologize for the uselessness of a fighter? He did it with Frazier.

 

Richard Frazier: 18-3-1 (7) going into the RJJ fight in Jan of 1999. Lost 2nd fight of career; drew 5th fight (but won re in 6th fight); Lost 14th fight via KO4 to William Guthrie (17-0); Lost 16th fight via SD10 to Eric Lucas. Beat Anthony Hembrick a couple of times. Beat 11-1-1 Darrel Johnson in 1997. MW8 over 13-5 Tyler Hughes in his fight prior to RJJ, but 2 judges had it wide. Looks pretty bad on paper; looked worse on tv.

Glen Kelly: 28-0-1 going into RJJ fight in Feb 2002. Right off the bat a guy who hasn't lost in 29 fights is not worth mentioning in this thread. He might not be worthy, but undefeated guys are usually hard to gauge coming into a fight so the benefit of the doubt usually goes to the ranker. Also, there is a very strong liklihood that you can find a challenger with similar credentials who actually has lost to the scrubs on his way to a title shot. Draw occurred in 2nd fight. Any worthwhile wins? Beat Mugabi in 1999 (so no there); beat 8-2 Sam Soliman in 1999, beat 37-2-1 Billy Lewis consecutively in 2000-01; beat 15-2-1 Sakeasi Dakua in 2001. Kelly lost via KO4 to Paul Briggs in his next fight. Won a few fights and lost to David Haye in 2005.

David Telesco: You admit he had a useful win. That pretty much takes him off of the list, but I'll look...23-2...2 losses early in career to Earnest Mateen who was middling okay...wins over Mateen later, 41-4 Frank Tate, 22-8-1 Bo James, and 15-2 Will Taylor. Lost all 12 rds to RJJ, but didn't get ko'd. After Jones he beat Julian Letterlough 17-2-1, but that's about it.

Frazier is the bright light here, but not much going for Telesco (except his size) and Kelly (except his record).

 

Yeah, I mean, I think all 3 were pretty undeserving, for different reasons each.

 

I think we need a broader discussion of what it is to be "UNDESERVING".

Is Sosnowski undeserving? Yes, if you look at his recent accomplishments. But boxing is more complex than that.

Sometimes if a guy stays fit and active, and a freak chance comes his way, then he deserves that title shot. Why? Well...because he stayed fit. Because he was in good condition. Because he accepted ridiculous concessions in his fight contract. Because he was prepared to travel. Because he did all of this and some other guy with a better record with more pertinent wins was not prepared to do it.

Sometimes a guy turns in such a gutsy performance against a champion that, there and then, on the night in question, he becomes "deserving".

 

Here's one: Howard Clarke

And he's not perfect because he has a middling win over 30-2-1 Jason Papillon in his fight prior to the title shot against Fernando Vergas, but get this...

Clarke was 26-10-2 going into the Vargas fight. He as a few wins over no-names with decent records, but drew with a 14-10-2 guy before the Papillon fight and lost to a 8-3 Mack Razor in the fight before that. But after the Vargas fight, Clarke went on a bit of a losing streak. He lost his next 16 fights. At least the guys he lost to had a combined record of 194-10-4. Then he had a no contest. Then he beat 6-0 Ross Minter. And then he finished up his career losing his last FIFTY ONE fight in a row.

 

And he has around 3-18 years left to live.

 

First - Crusierweight champion. Second - WBO Cruiserweight "champion", please stop.

Beating Nelson does nothing to prove Rodrigues was a good fighter at heavy. It really doesn't and you are really reaching here.

I'm not disputing that Foreman was or was not worthy, but I am disputing your assertation that beating Rodrigues was a "good" or "worthy" since Rodrigues himself was a complete bust at heavy.

 

I didn't say "boxing is dying" so don't put words in my mouth. What I said is the standards are lower now than they have been in the past, and you've done nothing to disprove that. You seem to want folks to believe that any fighter who can somehow (by fair means or foul) get a ranking then that automatically makes them "worthy" of a title shot. I disagree...maybe I am old school...but i prefer a fighter EARN a title shot by fighting and beating good opposition.

 

(1) Any fighter beats a champion from the weight class below him and it is a very decent win. To cut on Nelson because he was the WBO champion is just being ignorant. It's a simpleton's response. Nelson ended up being a very solid champion and a very good fighter. Do you dispute that? Probably not, but fall back on the WBO line. Please, bet against every WBO champion in unification matches and tell me how it works out for you.

(2) Ranking fighters is tough. To say Foreman wasn't worthy you need to attack his resume, his skills, whatever. I was pointing out a win that indicated that Foreman's win over Rodrigues indicated worth. Imo, it did. Iyo, it didn't. It's easy enough to argue either side of that question, but I think Rodrigues did enough to show that beating him meant something.

(3) So do you think Foreman was a worthy challenger for Moorer or not? Why?

 

http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/blog/_/name/boxing/id/5218342/a-history-heavyweight-no-hopes

 

You said "1. More proof of the decline of boxing standards. What's next? Top 20? Top 30?". If this isn't a version of 'boxing is dying' then my bad. It's certainly an accompanying theme.

And they are both wrong.

Start out with a faulty premise and you end up with faulty conclusions. That's why I said "Garbage in; garbage out." Decline in boxing standards? There have been shitty challengers since boxing began. But now there are 4 champions per weight class so there are going to be more examples. But I really don't believe that there are more examples per capita than there used to be. You made the assertion so you should back it up.

 

The win over Minter was on a cut as well. It's sad he went on so long and didn't just get out with the nice little earner against Vargas. As Irish mentioned, the guy isn't expected to live very long at all.

 

They are not wrong. And you repeating your same inaccurate statements doesn't make them any more correct.

You are nothing more than an apologist trying to build up this current time in boxing which suffers in comparision to other eras. Maybe if I just started watching the sport 5 minutes ago and depended on BoxRec, Eastside and YouTube for my info I might feel the same as you. But I didn't...I actually experienced a lot of of boxing as it happened. Right now is all you know and are defending it like a dog with a bone.

 

PRECISELY



I just posted a link written by Graham Houston over on ESPN. It is a couple of posts back.....we have had crap challengers from the day dot and guys like Sosnowski are just the latest in a long line.

 

(1) In what ways?

(2) Jeepers fuck. If you have seen more boxing than I have then you are way, way off the charts. I know there are people who have, but very few.

(3) Boxrec is arguably the greatest website of all time. If you think I'm going to apologize for using it, you are mistaken. I regularly check out Eastside because it isn't full of--to use your term--apologist yanks. I've seen about 3 fights on Youtube. I don't have time to watch the fights I trade for, I sure don't have time to watch whatever youtube has that I don't have or can't get (which is not much).

(4) You are wrong.

Unlike people in love with their time period, I began watching boxing big time in the early to mid 90's and I think it is one of the worst time periods in the sport in some ways--particularly the lack of tv coverage, the lack of access, and the lack of unification bouts. The 00's kill the 90's, but a lot of crybabies continually bitch and moan about how bad it currently is.

The same crybabies have been doing this for over 12 years now and it is a tiresome, inaccurate, and annoying cliche. And these same crybabies never back it up with enough facts.

And you haven't even tried to back it up. No surprise there.