Worst Title Reign?

I'm going to have to go for Nicky Cook on this one. Cook outpointed Arthur for the title and was handed Roman Martinez as his mandatory and first defence 6 months later.

The fight itself was embarrassingly one sided and ended with Cook crumpled in a heap after round 4. Given Martinez was exposed as a slightly one dimensional fighter thereafter, this seals my vote.

Alfredo Layne........Had a terrible record and was used as a trialhorse (21-9)..

However Gomez studied the top 10 at 130 to find someone he could beat after robbing Lockridge!!! Gomez was well gone..

he picked Layne (He was from the same part of the World as the WBA!!!!)

lost and Layne a couple of months later got trashed off Brain Mitchell.....

He takes some beating.......................

Luis Santana is a close second...................

Buster Douglas.

Won one of the most dramatic and historically important fights ever, then proceeded to eat the entire state of Ohio before capitulating to Holyfield.

I don't care how good Evander was, Buster had no right turning up like that and he surrendered the richest prize in sport in a disgusting fashion.

seanmichaels wrote:I'm going to have to go for Nicky Cook on this one. Cook outpointed Arthur for the title and was handed Roman Martinez as his mandatory and first defence 6 months later.

The fight itself was embarrassingly one sided and ended with Cook crumpled in a heap after round 4. Given Martinez was exposed as a slightly one dimensional fighter thereafter, this seals my vote.

I was at the Nicky Cook defence and remember thinking that despite Cook winning the first three rounds, Martinez was getting very close with his big shots and was suprised how willing Cook was to engage.

Douglas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the best performances seen in years to win the thing......

So Bruno's was better right??...At least Douglas banged Holy with a big right hand in the second...

Frank crapped his load against Tyson......at least one of the first two rounds was a 10-8!!!!....and he was on his last warning before going down in the third....

and he beat a deranged mad man to win it....

That Cook fight was actually a really good scrap I remember, remember Warren throwing a tantrum in his seat after cook was sparked.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Douglas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the best performances seen in years to win the thing......

His title "reign" started after that night, Beefster. Comprehension has never been one of your strong points has it?

Aye. Its not as if he was out of his depth - he had awesome talent but a bit too soft really - wish he'd been as hard as his old man (if the book is accurate on that score). 80s/90 the decades of waste in the Heavyweights.

Leon. Beat a half dead Ali and lost to a three quarter dead one but was stripped immediately

Ken Norton...never won the title in the ring and promptly lost it in his first defence. Not a criticism of Norton as a fighter but in the context of the thread, he must surely rank up there.

Wonder how long until the Haye bashing starts now that we've got his defender on

His reign started when he beat Tyson...........anyway despite my comprehension trouble...he gave Holy a better fight than Frank gave Tyson..

Comprehend that!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:His reign started when he beat Tyson...........anyway despite my comprehension trouble...he gave Holy a better fight than Frank gave Tyson..

Comprehend that!!

OK flower. It's all about opinions, it just so happens mine is better than yours.

Tina

Doesn't matter if I'm here or not it seems Haye gets a pasting anyway. Strange that even though I was highly critical of Haye's non-showing against Wlad and agree that he should earn a shot against either K as opposed to simply shouting loudly for one that I'm still considered to be an unconditional supporter of his

Probably says more about certain posters than me though....

Happy New Year to all by the way

Your opinion is not just better.. but you have stolen my signature shades as well....

Hope I don't arrive home to find you in bed with my Wife!!!!



Because she should be making my supper!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hope I don't arrive home to find you in bed with my Wife!!!!

I couldn't get in there. Dave and rowley locked the door.

Aye, but she was on one side and we were on the other

As long as supper is on time!!!!!

Carlos Maussa was awful.......Harris was a zombie that night....

Antonio Rivera, Trevor Berbick, Billy Backus...

Can Maussa really be blamed for how poor Harris was?

Damiani. Fought the "fearsome" Johnny DuPlooy for a new (and lightly regarded back then) title, defended it against a no-name Argentinian called Daniel Neto then had his nose broken and was decked by Mercer.

No but I guess maussa is a good shout for worst champion in any division ever... A lot of competition for that accolade though.

My obscure shout goes to 'lightning' lonnie smith. Looked like the next ray Leonard in destroying the previously unbeaten lightweltervchampion billy Costello. Barely threw a punch in 5 rounds before being sparked out cold by the big hitting but very limited rene Arredondo. Arredondo was knocked out in the first round in his first defence.

Luis Santana. Surprised he even got a title fight

Thought Arredondo lost to Mayweather in 6...

Can't overlook Ottke really, not sure I would consider fighters who lost in their first defences as it hardly constitutes a reign.

hampo171 wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I'm going to have to go for Nicky Cook on this one. Cook outpointed Arthur for the title and was handed Roman Martinez as his mandatory and first defence 6 months later.

The fight itself was embarrassingly one sided and ended with Cook crumpled in a heap after round 4. Given Martinez was exposed as a slightly one dimensional fighter thereafter, this seals my vote.

I was at the Nicky Cook defence and remember thinking that despite Cook winning the first three rounds, Martinez was getting very close with his big shots and was suprised how willing Cook was to engage.

oh aye, but martinez is turd in world terms.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thought Arredondo lost to Mayweather in 6...

He did, truss, only after he'd been sparked in 1 by some Japanese guy and won the return. That title swapped between some truly unmemorable hands while great fighters battled it out in other divisions.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Can't overlook Ottke really, not sure I would consider fighters who lost in their first defences as it hardly constitutes a reign.

I agree that a fighter has to be there for a while defending his title numerous times for it to constitute a reign. In which case Ottke would have to be near the worst ever in terms of a reign.

Head over to Germany and there are plenty more to think of. Marco Huck for example has had an awful reign, arguably losing yet still keeping his title against average foe for a number of years now.

Chris John is another I can think of. One dodgy win against Marquez and the rest are nobodies. Was never impressed much with Virgil Hill's reign either. Step up in quality and the guy got beat. The crowning turd has to be Alexander Povetkin who's defended his pseudo title a number of times over and shows no signs of ambition whatsoever. I don't even regard him as a champion though.

If cleverly loses against a worthy opponent he becomes the worst of all time

Not sure how a reign as long as Ottke can be a bad one......

Alltime great looking at his record......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Douglas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the best performances seen in years to win the thing......

So Bruno's was better right??...At least Douglas banged Holy with a big right hand in the second...

Frank crapped his load against Tyson......at least one of the first two rounds was a 10-8!!!!....and he was on his last warning before going down in the third....

and he beat a deranged mad man to win it....

Winning a title is not a reign, TRUSS. So forget the winning of the the title.

Already been through this....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not sure how a reign as long as Ottke can be a bad one......

Alltime great looking at his record......

You were ripped apart for it at the time Truss, you will be ripped apart again. I would leave it if I were you.

He has a great record......end of.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He has a great record......end of.

Built on lies.

Ottke most certainly does not have the worst of all time reign... Not sure how anyone can argue that. His record is Calzaghe-esque but is missing a couple of faded greats. Not the greatest for sure, but miles off being the worst.

Built on lies.........for sure.

But it's a great record........

I'm sure the Emperor Augustus record has been built up over time but I'd rather be him than a Galba, Otto, Vitellius or Domitian!!!

No way should Ottke be on here......

Not quite, but he deserves a mention, his reign was a joke delving into it properly.

Could try and do it with David Haye:

Won the title off of the man mountain Nikolay Valuev who was only ever beaten once and defeated all time greats like Holyfield, until David Haye showed him up. He then defended his crown against the 3-time world champion John Ruiz who has incredible wins over the lieks of Hoylfield etc. Then came the crushing power of the former WBF World Champion and olympic gold medalist Audley Harrison, incredibly taking him out in 3 rounds with only allowing Harrison to throw a single punch, onyl to be beaten by one of the most dominant HW champions of the modern era in Wlad.

Bruce Seldon for the Heavyweights, anyone?

Won a vacant WBA belt by scraping past a long in the tooth and flabby Tony Tucker, defended once against the profoundly average Joe Hipp before surrendering his title to Tyson so meekly in 1996 that it made Douglas' stand against Holyfield (as well as Bruno's against Tyson, second time out!) look positively heroic.

According to these guys winning a title doesn't count.......

Hasim Rahman for me Chris. Beat and lost to Lewis, awarded the title for a second time after Klitschko was unable to defend, drew with Toney and then lost to Maskeav plus, I think he was classed as an "undisputed" champion after the Lewis fight. The mind boggles.

CDSPHeron wrote:Hasim Rahman for me Chris. Beat and lost to Lewis, awarded the title for a second time after Klitschko was unable to defend, drew with Toney and then lost to Maskeav plus, I think he was classed as an "undisputed" champion after the Lewis fight. The mind boggles.

Very good.

Lloyd Honeyghan...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He has a great record......end of.

But then a "reign" means it's a good record. If you have some kind of reign to speak of then by definition you have a good record.

However the record is not in question. The reign is. Ottke had a God damn awful reign which constituted many robberies and a highlight which was a unification against a decent but limited Byron Mitchell. Whom he also robbed.

Cleverly

Bruno. seemed to lose his bottle towards the end of the McCall fight and hadnt got it back in time to fight Tyson. practically sold the belt to Tyson, never even pretended to himself he had a chance of keeping it.

David Haye.

worst heavyweight ever.

If you guys will insist on a reign being just one or a small handful of fights at world level then the worst has to be Jason Matthews.

Was interim WBO champ then upgraded to full champ out of the ring. He lost his first defence. So became a world champion without actually winning a world title fight.

Beat that!

Bruno's wasn't much.

gavin rees? mybaye was poor and never conisdered kotelnik anything other than average

Truss mentioned Honeyghan, as usual in this sort of context, but omitted a much more sensible candidate in Jorge Vaca. Won his title from Lloyd on an absurd technical decision and got gutted like a turbot in the return, which was the Mexican's first and only defence.

There we have it - undeserved title-winning effort followed by a third-round stoppage loss in which virtually no blows were landed by the champion. Beat that!

compelling and rich wrote:gavin rees? mybaye was poor and never conisdered kotelnik anything other than average

Kot wasn't so bad. Ran Alexander close and probably beat him in most people's eyes who survived another Alexander turgid affair.