THE 10 WORST HW BOXING CHAMPS.

theres always a list of whos amoung the best.top 5-10 n-15 or 20..how about the worst ever.im talking real lineal champs not the phoney ones..ill list my choices without going into long details why but i will conceede every one of these guys had a momment or two of glory in there careers..1.leaon spinks2.johanson 3 and 4 are a toss up but canera had heart buster had none.3.dougles 4.canera5.willard6.braddock7.marvin hart8.rahman9.burns 10.moorer.

Hammer Head Rahman is probably the worst



Luckiest punch EVER

dmar5143 wrote:theres always a list of whos amoung the best.top 5-10 n-15 or 20..how about the worst ever.im talking real lineal champs not the phoney ones..ill list my choices without going into long details why but i will conceede every one of these guys had a momment or two of glory in there careers..1.leaon spinks2.johanson 3 and 4 are a toss up but canera had heart buster had none.3.dougles 4.canera5.willard6.braddock7.marvin hart8.rahman9.burns 10.moorer.

dmar, interesting topic. It depends how you look at it. Who was worse as champion or a fighter? How good were they at their peak?

For me, I wouldn't put Spinks at the top. Gold medal winner who could fight like a SOB before the streets got him. Really a good fighter who went on to become a mockery. His terrible career can certainly justify it, though.

It's hard to put Burns on the list. His reign as champion is really underrated, including holding the record for the most consecutive KO's of a reigning champ with 8.

Rahman, Douglas, Johansson, and Moorer were all one-hit wonders. That's a good way to get on this list, but no one's going to convince me they were worse heavyweights that Marvin Hart and Jim Braddock or Jess Willard. And all 4 own a win that is pretty big.

But since you're choosing linear champs, there aren't many duds to choose from. My list would be something like: 1)Hart, 2)Willard ,3)Carnera, 4)Spinks, 5)Braddock, 6)Rahman, 7)Moorer 8)Douglas, 9)Johansson,10)Sharkey

Not an easy list to compile. Good job, d mar.

Briggs, Moorer, Douglas, Spinks, Braddock, Sharkey, Primo.

scott good list also.i like the one hit wonder type of thing.sharkey is my honorable mention..good choice for tenth.

could we mention james corbett? i know that was a while ago but his record was 11-4-3. he got his name only because he beat sullivan and then lost to every good fighter he fought after that. maybe he doesnt really count in this though. but if he does, he probably gets my vote as #1.

1. corbett
2. spinks
3. willard
4. hart
5. carnera
6. douglas
7. willard
8. rahman
9. johanson
10. braddock

Powerpuncher, I see where you're coming from with your stance on Corbett. He looks like a wuss. He was 11-4-3 as you said. But the guy was a semi-revolutionary fighter, a sort of heavyweight forerunner of the moving/boxing style. He beat some leading heavyweights of the time where trying to make sense of w-l records is a futile undertaking.

He beat Choynsky (hof), the undefeated Kilrain, and knocked out what at the time was a beast in John L.

I might not pick him to beat Darnell Wilson, but at the time he was the man. He's from an era where it was almost a different sport compared to modern times, but a man can only be measured against his peers. In that sense, he's far from the worst.

No way you can exlude Briggs from the list.

powerpuncher you got willard twice.on corbett scott makes some good points.i understand what your trying to get across for ive always felt corbetts name does not belong in any disgussion of the greats..in his era though he did fight the best and thats a plus.lets say hes been a fighter blessed by overestimating in reality what he realy brought to the table..non the less in the infancy of the division he was one of the elites or top fighters.

briggs overall warrants at least an honrable mention and yes could deserve recognition by being in the top ten..

ScottLevinson wrote:Powerpuncher, I see where you're coming from with your stance on Corbett. He looks like a wuss. He was 11-4-3 as you said. But the guy was a semi-revolutionary fighter, a sort of heavyweight forerunner of the moving/boxing style. He beat some leading heavyweights of the time where trying to make sense of w-l records is a futile undertaking.

He beat Choynsky (hof), the undefeated Kilrain, and knocked out what at the time was a beast in John L.

I might not pick him to beat Darnell Wilson, but at the time he was the man. He's from an era where it was almost a different sport compared to modern times, but a man can only be measured against his peers. In that sense, he's far from the worst.

he fought choynsky in his second and third fights so its not like it was a prime choynsky. but as i said, it may not be fair game putting him on there since he was a revolutionary to the HW division and you cant compare.