Most Unfairly Treated Fighters Of All Time?

Well, Pernell Whitaker has lost more fights in the books than in reality.
Barbados Joe Walcott is very often overlooked.
But i think Schmeling takes it when it comes down to have the public against him in his second fight with Louis - Johnson should be second there imo.

 

To be fair Johnson was probably in more genuine physical danger than Schmeling.

There were at least two atempts on his life.

 

Larry Holmes coming in after Ali couldn't have been fun.

 

Whitaker had a couple of robbery decisions that are things of legend.

Today we remember Hagler as one of the greatest middleweights of all time, but he was laboring in obscurity for a long, long time, and had a hard time getting credit for a lot of what he did. Suffered from a couple of robberies too, got pelted with beer cans when he beat Alan Minter for the title, etc.

Holmes had a rough time of it, and only some of it was stuff that he created for himself.

Jack Johnson had at least half a country wanting to kill him.

Joe Louis eventually got treated ok in the ring, (although people tend to forget that for a long time there were articles being written like "Why Joe Louis must never become heavyweight champion") but no one has ever been more epically been screwed out of the ring. Not even Joe could beat the US government.

Frazier suffered as a result of being Ali's foil.

Those are the biggest ones that leap to mind.

 

Emmanuel Augustus is the epitome of this mold.

 

Whitaker was a great, great fighter but how was he unfairly treated?

He had all the resources of the most powerful amateur program in the world (at that time) and then the benefits of huge financial backers, the best trainers, the best conditioners, the best matchmakers, all looking out for his development. And he was almost always the house fighter on major, high profile networks.

Compare/Contrast to some poor South or Central American, African or Asian kid with no amateur program, who turns pro at 15 to feed his family, fights on two days notice against some opponent he has never seen and has to work a full time job.

Pernell Whitaker, my heart pumps **** for you.

 

and oh, heard of Glen Johnson?

 

sure but that´s not what was asked. Read the first post in the threa. He asked for guys that were robbed often. Well, Whitaker is a good choice, isn´t he?

You´re with the rest though with the excpetion of the most powerful amatuer program. I think the amateur programs of Cuba and the Soviet Union were better then.

 

Well that's all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that Whitaker was still treated unfairly on the judges' scorecards in some big fights. He earned a victories over Ramirez, Chavez and De la Hoya but those were stolen from him which just isn't right.

 

I say bull**** to the DLH fight; there was no robbery only sore Whitaker honks. DHL physically dominated the action. And also that the Chavez fight- scored round by round as the ten point must is designed- the fight is close enough that a draw is not entirely out of the scope of reason. Sure, Whitaker won the war, had the more emphatic rounds, but I still only had him winning 7-5. Many of those rounds were dull, tedious affairs. And hell, he got the Rivera decision to his way later on.

Injustice? Not really. Underappreciated? Sure.

 

Sam Langford had it awful.Total bull**** dished out to probably the greatest fighter that ever lived

 

Gerry Cooney, Harry Wills, and Mike Weaver.

 

In the modern era it has to be Peter Buckley. I suspect there are 40+ losses on his record, where he deserved at least a draw. And of his 12 draws, I wonder how many of them he should of won?