Best fighter never to be world champion?

[IronDanHamza]

No it is not a fact and to say that is not to lie. Winning a fight from whence you gained recognition as the champion is winning it in the ring. It is not a ******ed way of thinking, it is perfectly sensible way of thinking in light of the circumstances and certainly fairer than saying to the guy who won the right to fight the champion that he now has to fight and beat another contender to be declared the champion. I mean what sense is it to win an eliminator and then be denied your fight with the champion because he has been stripped for refusing to fight you and then make you fight another contender for the vacant belt? Isn't that more '******ed'? It certainly seems less fair. I'll ask you again, what is a world champion?

It's more sensible than giving the belt to the guy who won the RIGHT to FIGHT the champion?

Yes, you fight the next highest contender for the vacant strap. Whether's that's Ellis again, or another box off, you have to fight someone to win your belt not just be handed which is exactly what happened to Norton.

All it really boils down to is I don't consider you a Champion if you've just won an eliminator and because you've earned a title shot you get given the belt because the Champion fights someone else. Plain, simple, black and white.

A World Champion is a guy who wins a Title belt in the ring. Whether it be Vacant, a box off or off another Champion. I've made that pretty clear.

[Humean]

It's more sensible than giving the belt to the guy who won the RIGHT to FIGHT the champion?

Yes, you fight the next highest contender for the vacant strap. Whether's that's Ellis again, or another box off, you have to fight someone to win your belt not just be handed which is exactly what happened to Norton.

All it really boils down to is I don't consider you a Champion if you've just won an eliminator and because you've earned a title shot you get given the belt because the Champion fights someone else. Plain, simple, black and white.

A World Champion is a guy who wins a Title belt in the ring. Whether it be Vacant, a box off or off another Champion. I've made that pretty clear.

I don't think it is less sensible, I think the way you wanted it to happen is perfectly sensible also and more in keeping with tradition but I cannot see how the way they did it is illegitimate and amounts to what you are saying. When Norton beat Young Muhammad Ali was the WBC (and WBA) champion so Norton had won the right to fight the champion, either Ali or Spinks, because Ali and Spinks were going to fight a few months after the Norton eliminator (i'm not sure if the first Ali-Spinks fight was made before or after the Norton-Young eliminator) but Spinks ends up winning the fight. Spinks gets stripped by the WBC for agreeing to fight Ali again and they end up fighting only for the WBA. The reason I made the analogy earlier in the thread was to highlight the differences between this situation and other typical situations. A typical situation would have a fighter stripped for inactivity, retirement or moving up or down in weight and without an eliminator having taken placed months previously.

Now why does it matter that when Norton defeated Young it was billed as an eliminator rather than a world title fight? It was fought under 15 round championship conditions. Is it because there was already a WBC champion at the moment Norton and Young fought? Whichever way you look at it Norton won the belt for fighting and beating Young. Why is beating Young not legitimate but having to beat yet another contender (Holmes) is? Just because they called it a world title fight? Or is it because there was already a WBC champion when Norton beat Young.

[Ben Bolt]

What is a world champion?

I thought I knew the meaning of 'world champion'. But ...

... if I'm to rely upon what WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO say, there are currently 62 world champions in professional boxing . Could be 61 or 63, I did a quick count.

No, I'm lost. I cannot answer your question.

[IronDanHamza]

I don't think it is less sensible, I think the way you wanted it to happen is perfectly sensible also and more in keeping with tradition but I cannot see how the way they did it is illegitimate and amounts to what you are saying. When Norton beat Young Muhammad Ali was the WBC (and WBA) champion so Norton had won the right to fight the champion, either Ali or Spinks, because Ali and Spinks were going to fight a few months after the Norton eliminator (i'm not sure if the first Ali-Spinks fight was made before or after the Norton-Young eliminator) but Spinks ends up winning the fight. Spinks gets stripped by the WBC for agreeing to fight Ali again and they end up fighting only for the WBA. The reason I made the analogy earlier in the thread was to highlight the differences between this situation and other typical situations. A typical situation would have a fighter stripped for inactivity, retirement or moving up or down in weight and without an eliminator having taken placed months previously.

Now why does it matter that when Norton defeated Young it was billed as an eliminator rather than a world title fight? It was fought under 15 round championship conditions. Is it because there was already a WBC champion at the moment Norton and Young fought? Whichever way you look at it Norton won the belt for fighting and beating Young. Why is beating Young not legitimate but having to beat yet another contender (Holmes) is? Just because they called it a world title fight? Or is it because there was already a WBC champion when Norton beat Young.

It's because neither were a Champion and a belt wasn't on the line.

They were fighting for the right to fight the Champion and in my book, having the right to fight the Champion isn't a reason to give someone a belt. You have to win it.

[toooooool]

I don't believe Jerry Quarry ever became a champion.

[mickey malone]

rocky juarez gets no love i see

Jaurez certainly deserves a mention.. Was'nt that long ago, he was challenging for titles every other fight or so.. Very good fighter imo

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Jaurez certainly deserves a mention.. Was'nt that long ago, he was challenging for titles every other fight or so.. Very good fighter imo

Juarez got alot of hype due to his amateur achievements, plus he was mexican and could draw in texas...
But unless he could get close and unleash his hooks, he basically had no chance vs top level guys, he always stumbles vs movement and jabbing counterpnchers..

He got a gift vs zahir raheem, who is criminally underrated

close fight vs MAB, then a lopsided lose in the rematch

then lost to jmm

Then got a draw vs chris john, lost the rematch

I think he is 0-4-1 in title fights

[Cardinal Buck]

Juarez got alot of hype due to his amateur achievements, plus he was mexican and could draw in texas...
But unless he could get close and unleash his hooks, he basically had no chance vs top level guys, he always stumbles vs movement and jabbing counterpnchers..

He got a gift vs zahir raheem, who is criminally underrated

close fight vs MAB, then a lopsided lose in the rematch

then lost to jmm

Then got a draw vs chris john, lost the rematch

I think he is 0-4-1 in title fights

Raheem still hasn't won a title that I know of. So that's a pick.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Raheem still hasn't won a title that I know of. So that's a pick.

yeah, good call.. Didnt even think about it...

Raheem got screwed vs juarez, and lost a split dec vs freitas, and I think he basically got dodged alot since he had no name value, but great skills

Since 2000 i think he is the best fighter not to win a title

[BennyST]

Along with all the guys mentioned, Harold Brazier was pretty good. Was never able to truly put it all together at the right moment though...a bit like Graham I guess. A couple of very close title fights, particularly his fight with Roger Mayweather. Great stuff that fight.