Most Unfairly Treated Fighters Of All Time?

How about Jorge Fernandez?

Was robbed in his first fight with Emile Griffith, lost another close fight (which I haven't seen) to Emile Griffith in the second bout (you know what a close loss to Griffith means) and then was winning their third fight boxing beutifully before getting punched in the balls by Griffith and being declared 'technically knocked out'.

Everyone goes on about the Duran-Buchanan ball punch, which was utterly irrelevant because Duran was well ahead, but Fernandez basically got robbed out of what looked to be a title winning effort when Griffith low-balled him.

Thereafter no one wanted a piece of him, and he mainly fought in Argentina. He moved up to middleweight and at 5'5 basically gave Carlos Monzon all he could handle (albeit a youngish version that was just hitting his straps).

Jorge Fernandez is a fighter that could easily have been a champ had he been dealt the right cards, and really, he's no lesser talent than guys like Forrest, Quartey, Brown etc, yet you'll hardly ever here anyone mention him. A shame.

Anyone that wants to call me out for talking him up, please watch his first and third fights with Emile Griffith, Isaac Logart and Charley Scott, which are all available, and tell me I'm wrong. :good

 

never heard of the guy to be honest but i'll check him out, thanks man :good

 

Cheers, give him a look and let me know what you think.

I wonder what the Argentinians think of him as a fighter?

That guys like Carlos Baldomir have been champ and Jorge Fernandez never was is beyond an absolute joke.

Whilst I'm at it, Fernandez > Sergio Martinez. No doubt :good

 

i'm big on martinez right now and that speaks volumes about fernandez to me. it's an excuse to watch more griffith fights anyway :smoke

 

Georgie Benton.

 

Whitaker/Oscar is one that could've gone either way. No problem with people having DLH winning. I had Pete edging it as i think he control the pace, temp and was the better ring general, he also competely nullfied some of Oscar's best weapons like the jab and left hook and the pom pom waving HBO was pathetic but it's one of those. Certainly no robbery standard. Understanding the situation and Oscar being the young Golden goose you can see why he was favoured.

"DHL physically dominated the action."

What the f*ck does that mean? What did he physically dominate? hitting air with his combinations and being made to look a amateurish? Truth is no one dominated anything. It was a close fight.


"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".

Complete nonsense. That was NOT that close at all. Pete put on a clinic and beat Chavez at his own game. The most one could give Chavez was 3 or 4 rounds and that's being extremely generous. It WAS a robbery no doubt about it. You had a judge taking off a point for things the ref didn't call FFS. lol Complete jobbing and to say you can justify a draw is just so off base.

Lets not also forget the Ramirez first fight where he won 10 rounds clear and was also jobbed. One of the worst decision i've EVER seen.

Whitaker could have a good case for not having lost a fight untill he met a young Tito Trinidad. He was shitted on and ridiculed by commentators and fans alike. Definitely NOT mister popular.

They criticised him for 'showboating' and not being able to punch or 'fight'. lol Even though he could dig when he wanted to and was one of the most well rounded fighters. Unfairly labelled boring when he actually was anything but. Had a mean streak and took it to many an opponent on the inside.

 

for my answer, i gotta echo sam langford (many said it before me). arguably the first (probably second best) fighter ever lived. beat all time greats at welter, middleweight, light heavy and heavy and yet only received one title shot in his life (was walcott for the title??). spent far too long in poverty but at least lived his last years in relative dignity

 

Yes, and by most accounts he was even robbed there.

He's the first fighter that really comes to mind. Followed by Burley and Liston. Burley was shutout of any title shot at both 147 and 160 despite being more than qualified. Liston's opportunity was a prolonged delay for a period of time in which he would've reigned uncontested. He was also the subject of public loathing.

Ezzard Charles, arguably the greatest LHW of all-time never got an opportunity for the world title. By the time it was a possibility, he was already past his peak and competing (as well as reigning) as HW champ.

 

Joe Frazier. By Ali, by his country, by his own fkin home city. Bull****.

 

he wasn't past his peak, he was past the L-HW limit, he was a proper HW from this point.

 

Yeah, I'd be most interested to find out about those losses.

 

for me the chavez draw and (according to the consensus) the first ramirez fight were robberies and he got screwed over

his record though pretty accurately reflects his brilliance and almost no one puts much stock in these results

pernell is regarded by many as a top 20 all time great. a couple of shitty decisions to be sure but on the whole he gets his due

 

Fights ? I barely remember Whitaker losing rounds through out his pre-De La Hoya career ... he was that dominant ... not always that exciting but simply exceptional .... a better Floyd.

 

To be fair he did lost some rounds pre-Oscar.

Mayweather, Pendleton, Mcgirt gave him some relative trouble.

 

mayweather did ok at times, same as mcgirt but the better version of floyd analogy is pretty accurately