Name least deserving world titleholders in boxing history

Hard to claim Ellis as undeserving. He won one of the best elimination tournaments ever staged to be crowned and then defended against Patterson who many felt should have risen above quarry in the tournament but for a controversial decision. While he did blatantly try to duck Frazier he eventually did defend against him unsuccessfully. His run up to the championship etc is actually better than most despite the glaring omission of Frazier in that Tournament, which was Fraziers choice (a choice I agree with btw).

 

Woodcock was nearly blind in his left eye a legacy of the Baksi fight when it was badly cut again in the 2nd Savold fight his corner turned it in.I'd cut him a bit of slack for that.I agree he was never world class and Savold was an old warhorse past prime.

 

Charles Martin gets my vote.

In the past I've referred to him as the absolute worst heavyweight belt holder in the history of boxing. I stand by that.

I wouldn't pick him to beat anyone who has ever held a heavyweight title. Not anyone. In fact, I'd pick him to lose to most of the men who "unsuccessfully" challenged for a heavyweight title in history.

Hell, any person on this board could stand in the ring with gloves on while Czar Glazkov twisted his knee attempting to hit them. Martin did nothing to earn a title shot or a title. A punch of Martin's didn't even inflict the freak injury. Glazkov was hitting Martin when his knee collapsed.

It's difficult to even get riled up about the guy because he poses no threat to any heavyweight with a pulse.

Jean Pierre Coopman or Joe King Roman or a Pat Valentino could've been in the ring with Glazkov that night and Coopman or Valentino or Roman would've become the IBF Heavyweight champ after Czar blew out his knee throwing a punch.

Just one of those right place at the right time kind of situations. Martin will never win anything of significance at heavyweight ever again. Most people have kind of forgotten him already.

 

No , he deserved it by bombing out Morrison.

Ricky Burns recently is a good candidate imo.

 

This is true but thats kinda my point, the fact that either of those guys got close to even a paper title at that point was a joke perpetrated by the promoters and commission.

That being said it wasnt his eye that prompted him to quit and milk a dq in their first fight and thats what led to the rematch. The trajectory of both fights was similar with woodcock looking the quicker and more slick early but savold rapidly closing the distance and catching him with more and more right hands which really appeared to discourage woodcock and take his heart in both fights very quickly.

I dont know this for a fact but woodcock looked to me like a guy who didnt fancy his chances against a well travelled vet like savold and copped out the instant savold started to come on in both fights. I think he could have lasted a lot longer with more confidence in his ability because he certainly looked the quicker, more athletic man in there.

 

Whenever these discussions come up, one Eddie Gazo usually gets his name pulled out of the hat. Won a 154lb belt on sheer workrate and lost the title immediately and then descended into a slow survival based pudgy journeyman with zero hint he was ever a contender much less champ.

Not sure that William Guthrie shouldn't get a mention. I thought Reggie Johnson killed him.

 

Just on Jimmy Ellis.

A decent fighter, but the tournament was because they illegally stripped Ali of the crown, with not only Frazier, but Sonny Liston not included in the box-off. I think it probable Liston would have won a 1967 to 1968 tournament.

Whatever, though, I just can't get on board with Ellis getting a title which was so unfairly taken from the legit champ.

 

If Liston couldnt beat Leotis Martin he isnt winning the WBA tourney. In addition to Martin Id favor Quarry and Bonavena over him and give some of the other guys at least a 50/50 chance against him. I wont even go into what Frazier would have done to him. Liston wasnt **** at that point and knew it which is why he was fighting journeymen.

You can debate the merits of Ali being stripped all you want but the fact remains that he was and the result was a very impressive tourney lineup that Ellis won. Thats hardly fodder for a least deserving title holder discussion.

 

Well, Liston was in the lead and floored Martin until Martin knocked him cold late.

I'd pick Liston, even the older and slower version over Ellis based on how they matched up.

The reason Liston was fighting journeyman, was because he was avoided. Which fight if any was offered to Liston offered by a top ten opponent from 1967-1970 that he did not take?

 

Ricardo Torres is up there for his win over Kendall Holt in Colombia that was aided the crowd pelting Holt with beer cans.

 

I don't buy into the legitimacy of the "Jimmy and the Seven Dwarfs" WBA tournament.

"If Liston couldn't beat Leotis Martin"

In December of 1969, two and one-half years after Ellis beat Martin. A long time for a fighter in his late thirties. I don't think the result in Dec 1969 proves what would have happened to Liston if he had taken part in the tournament. Two and one-half years before he defeated Martin, in October of 1964, Ellis was losing a decision to Don Fullmer in his hometown, Louisville, Kentucky. I don't know why anyone would consider a loser to Don Fullmer as a likely winner of a heavyweight tournament unless the heavyweights weren't all that good.

Liston might have been fighting journeymen, but he scored 11 KO's in 11 fights between 1966 and 1968.

As for Martin, he followed his loss to Ellis with a loss to Roger Russell (career 12-18). He did defeat Spencer and Mildenberger, participants in the tourney, but lost to Henry Clark in between those two fights. Clark was stopped by Liston in his next fight, making it a hard sell that Martin was already better than Liston in 1967 or 1968.

In the end, the three best in the tourney were Ellis, Quarry, and probably Patterson. Their combined record against Ali, Frazier, and Liston was 0-11 with 11 KO defeats and none of the fights were particularly competitive. Hype aside, these guys just weren't up to competing with the top echelon heavyweights.

Patterson couldn't get out of the 1st round in two tries against Liston in 1962 and 1963. An aging Patterson fought Quarry and Ellis on more or less even terms in 1967 and 1968, and actually defeated Bonavena in 1972.
None of this points to Liston being a likely loser to anyone in the tournament.

The question mark with Liston is when did he get into drugs and how heavily? This issue certainly clouds his possible performance in 1967, but I would still rate him the strong favorite if he had been included in this tourney.

 

He had a 11-1 record going into the Morrison fight with no fights against anyone anywhere near world class and retired with a 12-2 record,how was he ever deserving of a shot let alone a worthy belt holder.
Burns has held titles in 3 divisions and has mixed at world level for years win or lose You couldn't be any more wrong

 

Nonsense.

Burns won a vacant belt against some bum who wasn't ranked in the top 10. . He didn't deserve to call himself a champion.

Bentt beat Morrison who beat ATG Foreman. For that shot time he deserved to be a title holder.

 

Sorry I thought u was being serious

 

Andre Ward, the most overrated boxer of all times......