Fragile fighters who won titles after they looked like they were done?

I know. My issue is always with the modern distinction of "title". A guy like the aforemention Larkin (not to be confused with Hedren) was never a champion, but could've been a 'champion' X number of times over in these days.

 

True, but I thought that as this is in general you're looking for more modern examples than what you'd be looking for in classic. Either way, there's certainly trawling I can do to find interesting boxers that I haven't looked into before like Eric Lucas who I've just written a whimsical take on.

 

Didn't so much mean to be pedantic. I guess I'm just a stickler for quality, friend.

 

Michael Moorer. Huge character to comeback and win the IBF belt against Schultz after the Foreman KO.

 

You know what, winning that in his final fight is so badass. That's the way you wanna go out. Guys like Sturm and Taylor leave the game feeling like long awaited elder kings returning to the throne before they eventually call it quits with all the trinkets in their trophy cases.

 

Not really being pedantic, just an assumption on what you seek depending on where you post. There are countless older fighters who have come back from terrible losses to become the champs of their division. The sole champs mind you, so it meant that much more of course. Needless to say it was more notable an occurrence then but it was obviously more common for fighters with multiple stoppage losses, even seeming over the hill, to make a comeback like that. The titles just seem to be going to the younger more durable guy more often which checks out I guess. It seems that today not taking losses is very important in even getting a title shot of even a shot against notable contenders. The risk taking has decreased therefore the upsets have too.

 

Hasim Rahman, when he was elevated from interim to WBC Heavyweight Champion in 2005. He looked shot by that point in time, losing to Lennox Lewis in the rematch, Evander Holyfield, John Ruiz and drawing with David Tua. He didn't win the belt in a title fight, so I doubt he has fond memories.

 

I know. What I really meant, if one reads between the lines, is that it's a shame a guy like Larkin, who rather fits the bill outlined in the OP (fragile mandible, but able to operate on a high level, having beaten top contenders like the guy in my avatar), can't quite fit into this thread (due to having come up short in his title tilt against very good comp), while a guy like Linares can.

I don't like to completely seperate my 'old boxing' and 'new boxing' chat.

 

Fair enough, but Linares is clearly good enough to have beaten men for three significant belts and a position at the top of the pile at lightweight for a while. He would probably have been a good contender at the least back in the day did to his frightening athleticism and speed. That is still rather evident in him and a threat to many at the weight class.

 

Well, two of those titles were acquired before he got wrecked the first time. His claim to a championship bounceback hinges on his 135 title win. All things are relative to some degree, of course; as a win streak in general, putting aside the matter of the green strap, he did decent enough work at lightweight. But as a truly credible title victory/run? Pardon me if I say that Linares' work at lightweight kinda stinks in that context. I think people tend to over-credit what Linares did at 135 because many had really liked him, had really rated him and really wanted him to bounce back and validate their belief in him. Kellerman was still trotting out the dreadful Ray Robinson comparisons in 2018 after wins over Mitchell, Crolla and a semi-seasoned Campbell who was still a year out from reversing his loss to Yvan Mendy. That kinda sums up the inordinate goodwill that is out there for Linares.

Guy was officially a LW titlist, of course, but Courtney Burton holds an official win over Emanuel Augustus. I get that Linares is eligible for the thread, I just don't think that his LW run consists of proven world quality enough to deem him a legitimate case from a substantive point of view. It's just a talking point, my 2¢.


I'll add that I accept Linares as a three-weight world champion about as much as I accept Adrien Broner as a four-weight world champion. Which is to say, not at all. And even stodgy meat and 'tatoes Broner managed to beat Tony DeMarco. Linares never wrested a title from a quality titleholder, instead picking off vacant belts against the faded, the fringe and the fruit of a low-hanging variety. A kudos to him for getting back on his feet and putting a lengthy unbeaten run together at 135, but, as I suggested already, he didn't exactly face a murderers' row in that time.

Linares seems like a nice guy and he was very talented, but he never really had it *that* way for whatever reason. Some cite his fragility, but I don't think he had a really strong ring IQ to compensate for it around the world level; one would think that combination would've held back Khan, too, but Khan was tougher, despite his vulnerability to a clean shot on the button (we can refer to the way he endured the late surge of Chino, the kind of situation that would've folded Linares).

 

How about Englands Steve Robinson.

 

Young Pac, IsrVazquez, Larios, JLCastillo, Salido, RafaMarquez, Nishioka etc. Very green KO losses are common among unprotected tiny ppl. You wouldn't even give a damn about these unnamed losses, then they become great.

 

Linares isn't as good as a Khan but he was a worthy champ who beat some of the best in the division at the time. It wasn't very deep and Linares was it's king.

 

Junior Jones
Hilario Zapata

 

Sugar Nicolai Valuev. He is a gentle giant.