Top 10 worst Heavyweight title decisions..........

1. Joe Louis w15 Jersey Joe Walcott ...........Apparently Louis had to be stopped from leaving the ring such was walcott's dominance.....Fans booed the decision....

2. Jack Sharkey w12 Max Schmelling..........The German boy robbed according to scribes...

3. Michael Spinks W15 Larry Holmes...........if anyone can tell me how Spinks won this fight..I'm interested to know....

4. Lennox Lewis D12 Evander Holyfield........Lewis won 8 rounds for me...Thought the fight he won was closer.......

5. Jim Jeffries w25 tom Sharkey.........Some scribes had it 17-8 apparently....

6. Jersey Joe walcott W15 Ezzard Charles.....Ring magazine screamed disgrace.........So did many others...

7. Muhammad Ali w 15 Kenny Norton........Ali got lucky with the judges late on in his career...Never more so than this..

8.Michael Dokes D15 Mike Weaver.......I had it 9-5-1......Weaver as did the scribes..

9. Larry Holmes w12 Tim Witherspoon......Tim 7-5........I'm struggling now....

10 Creed vs Balboa...........It was a split decision the first fight...Italian judges...

Check them out they are all on youtube..

Haye Valuev.


Nah just kidding, but I can see an argument for a Valuev win.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Haye Valuev.


Nah just kidding, but I can see an argument for a Valuev win.

I can see an argument for euthanasia..

When you look in the mirror.

The decision to let the Haye vs Harrison fight for a world title has to be up there!!

Herman Jaggery wrote:Haye Valuev.


Nah just kidding, but I can see an argument for a Valuev win.

How, he hardly landed a glove on Haye. Haye constantly had the big lad hitting fresh air whilst Haye was nicking the rounds with his own scoring shots. Haye landed a big shot on Valuev in about the third round and broke his hand which is why whenever Valuev pushed him back to the corner but Haye spun out and had the opportunity to throw something he didn't risk it (look at the pictures of his hand post fight and you'll see it's badly swollen...I've broken metacarpals myself...it's not fun).

It wasn't until the final round that Haye decided to let his hands go and he had Valuev on jelly legs (something no-one had even done before) It's not a great fight and one which won't get viewed over and over (perhaps not even in Haye's house) but there was nothing that Valuev did that would have had him winning that fight in any sane world. Haye fought smart off the back foot, didn't allow Valuev to land anything of note and whilst his own punch output was low, the ratio of landed punches was very much in Haye's favour. Ring generalship was what won Haye that fight.

Anyway, worst HW title decisions...the decision to allow Audley to fight for the HW title. (**bhb001...you make me sick)

But Wlad and 40 year old slobby Mormeck is okay..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But Wlad and 40 year old slobby Mormeck is okay..

Oh yeah, Wlad beat the gobby classless fraudster David Haye by a country mile and even though I wrote an article on the old 606 saying that the Mormeck fight was the equivalent of Wlad taking a massive dump on his legacy, I was quickly corrected by everyone else saying it was fine as there wasn't anyone else available (whatever happened to waiting a bit?) Then Wlad went and made it official by saying that it would be a good fight as Mormeck was going to be like Mike Tyson...at that point I lay down in the road hoping for a passing truck to put me out of my misery

Did anyone ever see Compubox stats for the Haye-Valuev fight?

Had a feeling they flashed up at the half way point but were so embarassing (think Valuev hadn't landed a punch in 6 rounds or something silly like that) that they were never released for the full fight.

Are you agreeing with me or what..I can't tell..

TopHat24/7 wrote:Did anyone ever see Compubox stats for the Haye-Valuev fight?

Had a feeling they flashed up at the half way point but were so embarassing (think Valuev hadn't landed a punch in 6 rounds or something silly like that) that they were never released for the full fight.

If kneecap punching was legal.....I'd have bet most flyweights could have beaten Valuev that night..

This thread won't go very far as you have asked us to name the worst H/W title decisions yet you name most if not all youreslf.

My first thought was Lewis v Holyfield but nope you have that, then I thought Ali v Norton but once again you have got there before me. Wher do you expect this thread to go?

I doubt it will reach 30 replys unless it goes drastically off topic. You need to learn how to construct a thread properly.

A few tips.....

1)Title - gets peoples attention
2)Topic - Intoduce your thread with a few words decribing your thoughts on the topic at hand
3)Questions - Submit a question to the board surrounding your chosen topic which will garner replys

What you have done is provided a title, asked a question and then answered the question....very frustrating.

Patterson against Quarry and Ellis, three of his finest performances that didn't get the rewards they deserved.

Both close fights.......Contentious perhaps..

I think Patterson-Ellis tipped over from 'contentious' in to the 'robbery' category personally, Truss.

Had it been a twelve rounder then there'd have been virtually nothing in it, but for the final three rounds Patterson mopped the floor with Ellis, for me. Three additional rounds in the bag, along with the knockdown, should have made it a sure thing, in my opinion (admittedly, the version available online has the final 80 seconds of the fifteenth round missing as they lost the signal, but up until that point it'd been Floyd's round all the way).

Anyway, not much to grumble about in your list although as you know, I'm not as sure as most others that 'Spoon beat Larry. I had Holmes a point up the last time I watched it, which was about two years back. Might need to have another look, but I remember feeling that Witherspoon threw the fight away by not doing enough down the stretch.

Ali and Norton were given gifts against Jimmy Young.

Good list , one big ommission for me.

Axel Schulz v big George , the German was certainly jobbed.

Cheers Rodders

Heavyweight fights must be easier to score -- the only decision I can remember from the modern era that was termed a "robbery" was Foreman-Briggs.

Foreman, though, was given his own gifts against Alex Stewart and Axel Schulz

Channelling the ghost of the later Sir 'enry, he's saying "It's wasn't a world title fight but I was robbed against Bugner and NOTHING has even been more blatant, ever....FACKT! (at this point, I'm not sure it IS Sir 'enry that is speaking through me, though)

Heard about Cooper-Bugner...Didn't Carpenter call it for Henry ??

Couldn't have been a robbery then..

Rodders, Haz, can't believe I forgot Schulz-Foreman! Definitely a shocker of a decision and you only have to look at George when the final bell goes. He knows he's lost the fight and his post-fight interview smacked of relief.

Not a highway job by any means, but I do think that Ruiz was unlucky not to get the nod against Valuev first time out. Ruiz's fighting style was as boring as his 'Quiet Man' nickname suggested, as we all know, but he gave it a bit of a go in fairness against Valuev and won the fight by a couple of points for me. Valuev was absolutely abysmal and his performance didn't warrant taking home a title in my opinion.

Not that I'll be re-watching it any time soon, mind you!

If you're talking Ruiz-Valuev, what about Holyfield-Valuev? If there was ever a reason to see a fight where the wrong fighter won...

Agree with all your picks Truss but which Spinks Holmes fight are you talking about? The first fight Holmes hardly threw a right all night and deserved to lose. The second fight I didn't see but from all accounts he was robbed but due to his arrogance most people thought he got what he deserved. Lewis v Holyfield was the biggest robbery I've seen in boxing, the rematch was a lot closer and I could have lived with a draw for that.Agree with you Rodders,Axel Schulz should have got the decision against Big George and Ali was gifted the win against Norton 3. Patterson was on the receiving end of some bad decisions as well.

rapidringsroad wrote:  Agree with all your picks Truss but which Spinks Holmes fight are you talking about? The first fight   Holmes hardly threw a right all night and deserved to lose. The second fight I didn't see but from all accounts he was robbed but due to his arrogance most people thought he got what he deserved. Lewis v Holyfield was the biggest robbery I've seen in boxing, the rematch was a lot closer and I could have lived with a draw for that.Agree with you Rodders,Axel Schulz should have got the decision against Big George and Ali was gifted the win against Norton 3. Patterson was on the receiving end of some bad decisions as well.

No one deserves to get robbed Mate..Boxing is too hard a business..........

Mr Bounce wrote:If you're talking Ruiz-Valuev, what about Holyfield-Valuev? If there was ever a reason to see a fight where the wrong fighter won...

It's an unpopular opinion I guess, but to be honest I really wasn't fussed about that one.

Watching it live, tanked up in London celebrating a mate's twenty-first, I thought Holyfield had won it by a slither. When I saw it again, however, I ended up with Valuev a single point up at the end and I'd view it more as one of those fights where you could have Commander Vander up by a point or so at the end, Valuev up by a point or so at the end or have it dead even and still be 'right' in all three cases, so to speak.

It was a disgracefully dreadful fight, without question the most appalling Heavyweight title bout of recent times in my eyes, and while Valuev retaining a world title on that kind of performance was a joke, Holyfield winning a world title on that kind of performance would have been a joke, too. I think Ruiz's first stand against the giant Russian was more impressive, if you can call it that.

It's a shame that Valuev-Vitali fight which was mooted for 2009 was never made. Vitali would have carved him up like a Christmas dinner.

88Chris05 wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:If you're talking Ruiz-Valuev, what about Holyfield-Valuev? If there was ever a reason to see a fight where the wrong fighter won...

It's an unpopular opinion I guess, but to be honest I really wasn't fussed about that one.

Watching it live, tanked up in London celebrating a mate's twenty-first, I thought Holyfield had won it by a slither. When I saw it again, however, I ended up with Valuev a single point up at the end and I'd view it more as one of those fights where you could have Commander Vander up by a point or so at the end, Valuev up by a point or so at the end or have it dead even and still be 'right' in all three cases, so to speak.

It was a disgracefully dreadful fight, without question the most appalling Heavyweight title bout of recent times in my eyes, and while Valuev retaining a world title on that kind of performance was a joke, Holyfield winning a world title on that kind of performance would have been a joke, too. I think Ruiz's first stand against the giant Russian was more impressive, if you can call it that.

It's a shame that Valuev-Vitali fight which was mooted for 2009 was never made. Vitali would have carved him up like a Christmas dinner.

I'd have to say Valuev is the worst heavyweight chamoin of alltime..

Helenius vs Chisora was a robbery.

Most exciting heavyweight fight I have watched in recent years would probably be Povetkin vs Rahman. Complete barnstormer if we are all honest! Was a great show.

The most dire was Haye vs Harrison, especially when mooted as "Box Office"

Load of cack.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'd have to say Valuev is the worst heavyweight chamoin of alltime..

Depends how you look at it, really. In terms of record there are a few who'd be ahead of him in the queue. Liakhovich won the WBO belt and was widely outscored by Valuev as well as having a few more defeats on his CV, so by default he has to be closer to that unwanted title, and there are a few other WBO titlists who would be ahead of Valuev too in the shape of Akinwande, Bentt, Damiani etc. Guys such as Seldon and Maskaev would have to be considered, too.

I would say, however, that in terms of Heavyweight champions with the fewest skills and lowest levels of talent, Valuev would be right near the top. He had size and absolutely nothing else - he was a total sham of a boxer. To me, he had no more skill than the names above. In fact, he probably had less. He was just an immovable object who stood up straight, making it hard for opponents to reach his head and land eye catching punches (and none of his opponents were from the top drawer of Heavyweights, either!).

He seldom threw more than one shot at a time (and was probably totally incapable of throwing more than two), had a lousy jab which was easily negated by a decent mover, wasn't much of a puncher (who was the most notable opponent he knocked out?) and, almost incredibly for a man of his size and weight, wasn't even particularly dominant in clinches or up close. He had absolutely zero inside game, and even when the likes of Ruiz and an ancient Holyfield, merely converted 190 / 200 pounders, got in close to him he'd hold on as soon as he could and look to complain to the referee.

Not the worst Heavyweight champion in history, all things considered, but probably the most embarrassing.

I didn't realise you were such a fan of his Chris. I bet his career DVD boxset is on your Christmas list.

http://boxingwholesale.com/boxingwebsite28_074.htm

It depends what criteria you base the worst champion on but Valuev will be near the top with any method.

Cheers for that, Cheesy! Might be a worthwhile investment if I draw someone who I really don't like in this year's secret Santa at work.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

I doubt it will reach 30 replys unless it goes drastically off topic. You need to learn how to construct a thread properly.

A few tips.....

1)Title - gets peoples attention
2)Topic - Intoduce your thread with a few words decribing your thoughts on the topic at hand
3)Questions - Submit a question to the board surrounding your chosen topic which will garner replys

What you have done is provided a title, asked a question and then answered the question....very frustrating.

In your face......