Yeh.. so you could say Leon Spinks...because he only had a few fights...but he won... So to qualify..do they have to have lost ?
Pete Rademacher is the first who comes to mind. Goodness, he challenged for the HW title in his FIRST professional fight. How much more undeserving can you get??
If we are talking for the lineal world HW title, then the list is: - Terry Daniels (LKO 1 vs Ron Stander) - JP Coopman (lost to Evangelista KO1) - Lucien Rodrigues (was KO'd by Evangelista 3 times) If we add challengers for belts, then there are Owen Back, Damon Reed, Peter Okello.
You can question his heart and chin. But Seldon won the belt, beat some good boxers, and had good skills. He was far better than many challengers for the lineal title of for the belts.
He beat Joe Hipp and an over the hill Tucker. Thats probably more than what Leon accomplished prior to his title shot. But Seldon is still ****. Actually i think he achieved more than Briggs too.
Its their qualifications to fight for the title we are looking at , not their respective performances .
Seldon was on a winning streak and rated no 6,there are far worse challengers to choose from. Forget their performances, it's their qualifications I'm interested in.
I'll have a pop at my fellow Brits, Brian London and Richard Dunn weren't exactly Joe Louis were they?
Tony Ross if you consider his fight against Johnson to be a title shot. Rademacher has to be up there, also.
People have already mentioned Pete Rademacher and I think he is probably the best candidate. That doesn't necessarily mean that he had the worst ability of all past challengers, but going into a title fight in one's debut then never accomplishing anything thereafter pretty much speaks for itself. Even guys like Chuck Wepner, Jack Roper, Lorenzo Zanon, etc, had careers to speak of, even if they were half ass ones.