Lionel Butler when he fought Lewis

Yeah some of those alpha champions and fringe contenders of the 80's weren't that impressive for multiple reasons. Mike Weaver is one of the few who actually stayed in shape and usually showed up to give his best effort though.

 

if u r talking about Miske well, he was atleast more deserving then Wepner or Roper yeah?

 

He sure was. Difference is that Miske is put forward was one of Dempsey's best title wins whereas no one talks about Wepner or Roper for Ali or Louis.

 

so according top your theory if Dempsey does not give a rematch to a fighter who troubled him earlier it's his fault, and when he gives a rematch to someone who troubled him earlier it's still his fault? Had Dempsey not fought Miske for the title you'd still blame him, and you still blame him for giving Miske a shot. How pathetic

 

:good

 

Larry Holmes defended against the woefully flabby Leroy Jones, but the others turned up in decent shape.
Bey perhaps was out-of-shape, I cant remember but he usually was out-of-shape. LeDoux ?

I dont seem to remember Holmes opponents being that bad conditioned.
It was Page-Witherspoon (POST-Holmes)-Tubbs in all combinations who really gave the 1980s the flabby look.
And fringe guys like James Broad, Buster Douglas.

As for cocaine, it's difficult to ascertain who was doing what before which fight. I mean, it doesn't take much to get tip-top if you quit using for a few months.
Cocaine use - partying - was just a symptom or not being bothered to train, rather than a root cause.
Muhammad Ali never drank or touched drugs but he knew how to come in the ring like a slob and use training camp to exercise his dick only.

 

Well it was my understanding that he beat Miske before, but i didn't know it was that close. Tell me more.

 

Where do we draw a line tho. Lets say fighter A struggles with fighter X bigtime. In the next 12 months A gets a title shot after two more victories and wins via impressive KO. He then takes an easy defense and then wins his mandatory impressively. In the mean fighter X has lost 3 or 4 fights in a row, or with one meaningless win sandwiched. I for one wouldn't think fighter A had to fight fighter X again.

 

it wasn't that close the second time. But Miske did challenege him for the title , if he'd have refused it would have been labelled as "ducking", right? I mean there is nothing wrong with a rubber match. And even if u think Miske was a "soft" defense or something, he sure as hell wasn't as soft as some other fighters who recieved title shots. I mean come on, if one out of five defenses is "soft", is it really that bad?

 

Lewis fought Butler in a WBC Eliminater so Butler must have been ranked.

 

Doesn't each have to lose one for a rubber match? Miske never ever beat Dempsey that i know of. I'd hardly say anyone would have accused Dempsey of ducking Miske given he was doing nothing results wise, how can you be ducking a guy that can't seem to win a fight vs a decent oppoent and is on a miserable record at the time of challenging.

 

How can you duck someone whose only recent win came against a tomato can and has just lost a few in a row to lightheavyweights? No, that wouldn't have been ducking.

Right.. a comparison would be if Mercer were to lose to lightheavyweight Tiger Darius Michalchesky and another light heavyweight after that in 1999, then beat McNeely, get a terminal disease and then get a title shot at Lewis in 2000.