Who is the most undeserving world heavyweight title challenger?

Very true. Had Weaver not had that match and faded into obscurity, we'd have missed out on some of the best heavyweight fights of the '80s, especially Tate-Weaver, which is one of my favorite bouts of all time.

 

Sure, if title shots are for sale like a governor selling pardons out the back door of his office to free criminals.

Floyd and Cus didn’t respect the most prized title in all of sport (at the time) enough to not take a $20 handshake from a customer to get a seat like a waiter in a posh restaurant on the take.

Rademacher takes the cake as by far the least qualified challenger for a championship in boxing history because he literally had ZERO qualifications because he had ZERO pro fights.

I’ll nominate Pablo Baez for dishonorable mention. He was 10-9-2 when he fought Thomas Hearns for the WBA welterweight strap, but at least he had a win over fringe contender Zeferino Gonzalez. (And 21 more pro fights than Pete.)

EDIT: Just realized title says heavyweight so ignore Pablo.

 

On a side note, the legitimately undeserving ones , occasionally shocked the world.

That might make an interesting thread in its own right.

 

I believe you’re thinking of Hank Griffin (not Armstrong) and when Jeff fought Hank, even though Jeff was Champ, the HW Title wasn’t actually on the line.

Also the focus is on title reigns by association - Jeff never defended against a black challenger.

Sure, I understand why there may be a certain degree of deference to an ex champ - but 6 years out is a long time - too long to reactivate any lineal claim and prior to retiring, Jeffries express avoidance of Johnson was already made loud and clear.

Both Jeff, the experts and the public clearly and correctly understood Jeff to be the challenger when he faced Johnson - Jeff goaded out of retirement to win the title “back” for the White Race.

Also, as you highlighted, Jeff did deem the winner of Hart vs Root to be the new Champion - and that was OTT and extremely arrogant on his part, imo.

 

I reckon Weaver would have fought his way up. He'd recently turned the corner via Ken Norton's comments and was training hard and taking boxing seriously unlike previously. That match certainly fast tracked things tho!

 

I love Floyd but Patto’s reign is among the worst.

He didn’t just avoid Machen, he avoided Folley also - his # 1 and # 2 respectively.

Liston was put back and back until it was impossible to put him back any longer without severe damage to Floyd’s rep.

In finally facing Liston, it wasn’t a scenario that either Cus or Floyd should garner any credit for.

Look at the WHOLE picture. A Champ should be put upon to justify his reasonings for who he did fight just as much as the reasonings put forward for who he didn’t fight.

Do the reasonings match and hold up?

WHY did Liston have to literally clear out the HW division before finally getting a shot in 1962 - including not just 1 but 2 fights against The Big Cat?

Meanwhile, as far as fighting truly eligible contenders and proving his material dominance over the division, as compared to Liston’s fighting conduct , the Champ was doing exactly the opposite of Sonny.

Liston’s resume, BEFORE getting his shot, did in fact include Machen, Folley and Williams among others. For a good time, Sonny was literally a Champ by proxy.

Williams might not have had an outstanding claim as an individual but he is part of the mosaic, and lesser challengers were granted a shot. Again, Liston had to go through Cleve twice before getting to Patto.

Cus/Floyd set the standard - their OWN standard - and, like it or not, Williams actually fell within that “standard” as being eligible for a shot.

You can’t reason away who you didn’t face whilst not providing good reason as to who you did face at the same time. The two metrics are relative and inextricable.

So, working down the line of avoidance (Liston, Machen and Folley) it would’ve been more likely that Floyd might well have tripped over and fought a “fringe” contender such as Williams -

That’s IF Williams was viewed as a sufficiently “soft” challenger - but of course he wouldn’t have been viewed thusly.

Look exactly at what Floyd’s challengers did do to deserve whatever rating they might have had as at the time they fought Floyd - certainly not as much as what Liston, for one, was required to do each step of the way even before hitting his rating as outstanding # 1 contender.

Can one question the propriety of the ratings during Floyd’s reign? - yes, I think they can.

Cus was a dictatorial manager/trainer and he often spoke ABOVE the so called powers that be - and apparently he did have some sway.

Did Cus/Floyd duly appreciate who were the truly dangerous and more eligible fighters in the division? Again, yes, I think they did.

 

I think Bokaj makes some good points in his post.

 

The 50th best pro fighter is a pro fighter who has, presumably, beaten other pro fighters. And yes, anyone fighting a guy ranked 50th would be criticized … but that’s still better than fighting a guy who hasn’t even had a single pro fight. If the No. 1-ranked amateur is all that, he can prove it in the pro ranks and get a shot.

Stander had a win over Earnie Shavers. He was basically a tough-man club fighter, but he had beaten a guy who would be one of the best heavyweights of the 1970s. Who had Rademacher beat?

Daniels had been 10 rounds in a loss to Floyd Patterson (something Pete not only had not achieved, but never would achieve) and had a win over Amos Lincoln. In fact, he was fighting some of the same guys Sonny Liston was fighting on the comeback trail and some will argue that Sonny should have gotten back in the title mix … he was certainly ranked.

Loma fighting for titles that early was a joke, but he had a win over a contender type — or at least fringe contender — in his first pro fight so that’s more qualification than Rademacher had.

Pete got a shot because he conned some businessmen to put up a bag for Floyd. That’s his qualication. Amateurs don’t count.

 

Which I addressed in the post above this one.

Case in point: Tyson Fury fought an MMA guy. He was crucified for it. Why? Because the guy had no pro boxing background and no case to make to qualify for a title fight — Ali did an exhibition with a Japanese wrestler, but he didn’t hand the guy a title shot.

So yes, someone doing what Bojak suggested would most definitely be criticized.

 

Sure. Boke and I have done the dance on this one before. We’ll never agree 100% on it but it’s always all good. At the very least, I think Rademacher is THE answer to the question and there is no grounds to wrangle Floyd out of that defence.

 

I think you are right. It just goes to show how clever and resourceful Rademacher was to wrangle a title shot, and the folklore of boxing is all the better for it.

I also agree that Patterson's title reign is the least satisfactory in heavyweight history, at least up until 1980 (after that I lose track). He was a very poor standard bearer during his time as titleholder and the sport suffered as a result. And I am old enough to remember it. After he lost the title and freed himself from the clutches of D'Amato (to whom, it must also be acknowledged, he owes a huge debt of gratitude for leading him to fistic prominence), Floyd matured quite a bit and did a marvelous job of rehabilitating himself in the eyes of his fans, as is evidenced by the high regard for him that most contributors to this forum seem to hold.

 

His ‘second career’ is admirable and really rather remarkable.

His ‘first career’ up to leaving D’Amato was hardly admirably and really rather shameful.

 

No I'm thinking of Bob Armstrong who was Jeffries 1st opponent after beating Sharkey. Wikipedia says retained world title claim and it was a 10 rounder same as the Finnegan fight. The Griffin and Kennedy fights were 4 rounders hence why they were non title bouts. I'd argue Jeffries had a claim ever since the Jackson fight but by this point Jeffries was clearly viewed as a champ.

The deference comes from the new champ(s) wanting to get the lineal champs claim not wanting to do them a favor. The Jeffries situation is a bit different because he was coming out of retirement specifically to fight Johnson but I'm speaking generally. The "Man who beat the man" logic does not have a clear statue of limitations besides retirement.

And yes and then he backtracked and said he didn't do that. But right or wrong the arbitrary selection stuck.

 

This. Rademacher earned the title fight in his own way, so he was definitely deserving of being a title challenger.

 

Great post Kas.

Where there are positives, they should be highlighted also - so as to not be too heavy handed on the negatives - though some threads propose that we do exactly that.

You are perfectly correct, Floyd had a terrific second career imo also.

He also had great courage - and any avoidance as Champ (just as I see it, imo) wasn’t due to a lack of same - the protection was primarily D’Amato driven - which Floyd proved after he got rid of him (Cus).

Floyd was certainly a great P4P’er.