ron stander question.....

Aw Shommel, he deserved the shot more than Terry Daniels, Jean Pierre Coopman, Richard Dunn, Scott Frank, and scores of others...lighten up on Frazier, he deserved an easy fight like all the champions did once in a while. Stander did have a pelt under his belt named Earnie Shavers, to his credit.

 

Stander was 23-1-1 (numerically decent), & had a KO win against Shavers, who some people wrongly claim Frazier ducked.

 

He would rule the division today. He was from the 70's.

 

He deserved to be fighting for the title as much as Terry Daniels ,Dave Zyglewicz,or Buster Mathis ,all of whom were unranked when Frazier fought them.

 

stander was a limited handfull. Strong and always game. The effort he put in meant he was always competative so you cant knock him too much. just no quit in him at all.

 

He also jolted Frazier with a pretty nice right hand, hung tough even as he was taking a pasting, and remained on his feet throughout the entire fight. All things considered, he gave it as best a shot as he could, and produced a better and more courageous effort than many of the challengers that have vied for the crown.

 

Stander was a big hearted brawler, he would have shamed some of the recent challengers imo.

 

aint that the truth! no way he would stand off, back up and let a klitchko punch him. Hed keep trying till it was over.

 

Stander is underrated despite being from the 1970s .
As was previously stated he stopped Shavers .
His sole loss to that point was a SD btw and he proved a worthy challenger (to Frazier at least) by losing only due to cuts .
Stander was better than his record looks like , tough and game .
Stander deserved the shot almost as much as Quarry deserved it.

 

I think this speaks more to Shaver's being overrated than Stander being underrated.

 

Also kept on his feet against prime Norton, although his face let him down again. Doggedly determined, always trying to press forward. But defeating both Joe and Ken entailed more than simply putting them on the back foot and conceding territory.

Ramos and Spencer still retained some credibility at the time Stander won decisions over them, and the huge O'Halloran immediately followed up his decision loss to Ron by knocking out future challenger Daniels, then outscoring a still competent Big Cat (who was very good, even when pushing 40). O'Halloran had also taken the then 24-1 Norton the limit two months prior to Stander's challenge of Smoke, so that was a common opponent of Ron and Ken's which Stander compared favorably with at the time. (And of course nobody had decked or stopped Ron yet, as had happened to Kenny.)

Joe was candid at this stage about defending against anybody who could offer a decent payday. I suspect the compensation for taking the title to Big Ron's Omaha was deemed well worth the minimal risk involved. Really, I think Joe was just biding his time until Ali could work his way back to another massive payoff title challenge.

 

Shavers has 3 good stoppage wins to his credit as well as a draw which should have been a decision win in his favor as well , and guess against who.

 

Stander did not deserve a title shot, he had no meaningful wins on his resume except for Shavers ,who exhausted himself trying to ko Ron.
As Stander's own wife said "You dont enter a Volkswagen in the Indiannapolis 500".
The fact that he was competitive for a while ,says more about Frazier at that point in his career ,[and also about Standers guts ], than it does about his eligibility for a title shot.

 

I don't think anybody here is saying he truly deserved a shot, just formulating the pretext behind his being granted one.

At the time Ron challenged Joe, Shavers had racked up a record of 40-2-0, with all 40 wins by knockout. There was little substance behind it at this point (Gullick probably the best name before Rondon-Vincente being Earnie's first match after Frazier-Stander), but the sheer numbers were impressive.