Heavyweight Champ with Worst Opponents?

vitali klitschko

 

Larry Holmes oppostion was downright disgraceful.

 

Him, and Ali had some bad ones--Richard Dunn, Coopman, Evengelista, Spinks, and Wepner.

 

no, Holmes fought some v good fighters while champ

 

You didnt say championship opponents so i'm assuming all fights. So i go Braddock with Walcott as my backup.

 

My guess is someone like Floyd Patterson. Very protected champ.

 

Patterson, Dempsey (while title holders). Both very shrewdly managed.

 

I agree to an extent, more so with Dempsey (who was without doubt the more unactive Champ).

I definitely believe that Patterson was the more 'willing' of the two regarding wanting to fight the other top men. It was more a case of D'Amatos "lowrisk policy" having the final say which hamstrung Patterson in his early career rather than Patterson himself being the one who actively did all the avoiding. He eventually overruled D'Amato's decision making and in his mid-late career consistently fought a better class of opponent. (''The title is not worth anything if the best fighters can't have a shot at it" ''Liston deserves a shot.")


Some of Foremans pre-title years were permeated by it's fair share of tomato can type opponents.

 

neither Dempsey or Patterson had that bad comp when champ. When Patterson was champ, he gave shots to Jahannson, and Dempsey had Miske, Gibbons, and Brennan who were all legit contenders. Fripo was crude but his power and toughness alone made him a tough contender and while Carpeinter was 15lbs lighter, he was nonetheless worthy of a title shot.

Funny but no one's mentioned Jack Johnson here

 

funny but the question is lowest winning percentage. I bet none of the guys who ever challenged Dempsey and fought him for the title had a lower percentage of 50 percent when they were given title shots. Unlike many bums who recieved title shots later on

 

No way of knowing the combined winning % of most the champs' opponents.
Records are incomplete.
We almost certainly haven't got records of all Jack Dempsey or Jeresy Joe Walcott fights, let alone complete records of their opponents !

 

So we're talking just winning percentages, the pure numbers, not the more debatable level of quality of opponents? Since you can have a 20-0 guy that hasn't really fought anyone of note, compared to a 30-4 guy that could be much more experienced at a top level and more dangerous because of it...

 

Intersting question.