Which heavyweight champions were just contenders who got lucky?

Dilian Whyte smashed by an old arse Povetkin, AJ washed by an obese stumper. Man sized HWs are overrated. I’d favour Archie Moore at his best over anyone here today. They’re clowns.

 

You might find a precious few (like Briggs) who you could argue were ‘lucky’ champions, but for the most part luck is where opportunity meets preparation.

A fighter has to do some things to get himself into that position, and he has to do some things on the night (or day) the opportunity presents itself to take advantage of that opportunity.

That’s how it works.

 

Briggs, Seldon, Bentt....Dokes

 

Hasim Rahman.

 

Jimmy Ellis, Gerrie Coetzee, Trevor Berbick

 

Buster during the Holyfield fight looked like someone's drunk uncle

 

Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

 

That’s an excellent qualification.

A relatively ideal opportunity might present but, as we know, many have still failed to make good on such opportunities.

The fighters in this discussion took full advantage of their opportunities - the opportunities in themselves perhaps reasonably viewed as relatively fortunate in “potential” - but the fighter had to fulfil all the other variables involved in the equation to translate the opportunity into success.

I guess one way to look at it might be - what other fighters (and how many) would’ve necessarily made good on the same opportunities?

Someone like Braddock might’ve been seen as contextually fortunate (though he was deemed a heavy underdog) to have engaged the ill prepared and complacent version of Max Baer that turned up on the night.

Braddock however did have a hot streak leading into the title shot. He also gave The Bomber quite the fight in his first defence and attempt to retain his title against Joe Louis.

Tough gig for a newbie Champ, similar to Norton’s first defence of his title being against none other than 28 yo Holmes or Liston’s second defence against 22 yo Ali. Their successors being ATGs who went on to achieve long and illustrious reigns.

Anyway, I totally get it. Suggesting a fighter to be flat out lucky improperly ignores all the positive attributes the given fighter brought to the table in their own right to seize the day.

 

Yeah to me Leon Spinks is a prime example.

He’s given a shot as a relatively green pro based mostly off his Olympic medal. But he worked his fanny off, had a great game plan and executed it against an old Ali who showed up ill prepared. He made the most of his opportunity.

He had the chance to keep the belt but couldn’t handle the fame and partied away and his camp was a mess (they literally had I think it was three cornermen/trainers who had to take turns giving advice between rounds, so each got to talk to him every fourth round … a mess someone should hace straightened out and fired two of the trainers and let them come in with one game plan). He was physically capable of beating Ali again but not mentally or physically prepared to do so — his preparation didn’t meet his opportunity the second time around.

 

No body gets lucky. Everyone has a game plan going into a fight and anyone who wins a title deserves the highest respect regardless of how the win came about.

 

Very very surprised Johannson hasn't gotten a mention,

"While his victory over Floyd Patterson was a huge upset at the time, Johansson's standing within heavyweight history is fairly poor. Considered to be an ordinary fighter with a very good right hand, the Swede was perhaps fortunate to have met Patterson, one of history's more vulnerable heavyweight champions, for the title. Patterson also likely took the challenge of Johansson lightly, given the Swede's apparently lackadaisical approach to training. This was also at a time when it was considered a virtual impossibility that a European heavyweight could inflict a defeat on an American champion on U.S. soil. Furthermore, Patterson had defended the title just 56 days previously, against Britain's Brian London, and likely considered Johansson to be another inept challenger from Europe."

While I don't necessarily think Patterson was as vulnerable as indicated, I do think their are many valid points here.