Best fighter never to be world champion?

[IronDanHamza]

He didn't beat Spinks but Spinks was no longer the WBC champion. Norton was upgraded because he beat the guy who vowed with him for the shot at Spinks. They could have went a different way and said the WBC belt is still vacant and Norton-Holmes were fighting for the vacant belt but why would that be any more legitimate the way they did it? It wasn't like Norton was some nobody who just got lucky.

It makes it more legitimate because that way, the winner of the fight would have earned their belt and not just given it.

Being good isn't a legitimate reason to hand someone a belt.

[Humean]

It makes it more legitimate because that way, the winner of the fight would have earned their belt and not just given it.

Being good isn't a legitimate reason to hand someone a belt.

But he did earn it, he beat Jimmy Young in the eliminator to fight Spinks and Spinks was stripped because he agreed to fight Ali instead. Besides who won the Norton-Holmes fight? Officially Holmes did but it could have went either way. Anyway whether you agree with it or not Norton is officially a former WBC champion so he isn't a credible candidate for the best fighter never to be a world champion.

[IronDanHamza]

But he did earn it, he beat Jimmy Young in the eliminator to fight Spinks and Spinks was stripped because he agreed to fight Ali instead. Besides who won the Norton-Holmes fight? Officially Holmes did but it could have went either way. Anyway whether you agree with it or not Norton is officially a former WBC champion so he isn't a credible candidate for the best fighter never to be a world champion.

How does beating someone in a fight to become the #1 contender equal to earning a title belt? He earned the right to be the #1 contender or not the right to be Champion.

What difference does Spinks being stripped make? Being handed a belt is not legitimate to me. You're not a Champion in my eyes until you earn the right.

He is a credible candidate in my eyes. I don't consider anyone to be handed a belt than losing it in their next fight to be a Champion.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

langford
burley
holman
wills
for the old school guys

in the more modern era, it seems everyone gets at least one title reign but i would say david Tua is probably the best fighter to not win one

[fight_professor]

Oh yes.

Being totally honest that even happening had slipped my mind.

And to answer your question no I don't even consider that.

They cover it in Champions Forever.

Kenny was a good fighter.

[Anthony342]

Well even though he later became heavyweight champion, I'll say Ezzard Charles as light heavyweight, who I understand never even got a title shot and is considered by many the best light heavyweight of all time.

[NearHypnos]

How does beating someone in a fight to become the #1 contender equal to earning a title belt? He earned the right to be the #1 contender or not the right to be Champion.

What difference does Spinks being stripped make? Being handed a belt is not legitimate to me. You're not a Champion in my eyes until you earn the right.

He is a credible candidate in my eyes. I don't consider anyone to be handed a belt than losing it in their next fight to be a Champion.

But Spinks wasnt the champ so it kind of defaulted to him. How could he? He earned it in the eliminator. That eliminator ended up being a title fight. If that title would have been "vacant" and he had to fight a new fight for it hed have been fighting a guy who isnt champion (which is what happened with that eliminator). Thats a legitimate title.

[StarshipTrooper]

Well even though he later became heavyweight champion, I'll say Ezzard Charles as light heavyweight, who I understand never even got a title shot and is considered by many the best light heavyweight of all time.

Gene Tunney too. Regarded as the best Light-Heavy of his era but never held the Light-Heavy belt despite spending 90% of career in that weight class.

[IronDanHamza]

But Spinks wasnt the champ so it kind of defaulted to him. How could he? He earned it in the eliminator. That eliminator ended up being a title fight. If that title would have been "vacant" and he had to fight a new fight for it hed have been fighting a guy who isnt champion (which is what happened with that eliminator). Thats a legitimate title.

I don't consider you a champion by default.

Looking back in hindsight and saying "well really the eliminator should have been for the title because Spinks got stripped in the end" is just that, hindsight.

Fact is he didn't win the belt it was handed the him for being the #1 contender.

[Sugarj]

langford
burley
holman
wills
for the old school guys

in the more modern era, it seems everyone gets at least one title reign but i would say david Tua is probably the best fighter to not win one

Who lost his unbeaten record to Ike Ibeabuchi, who then went on to KO Chris Byrd. He'd be my recent heavyweight choice.

I think Herol Graham was more than talented enough to win a world title, almost strange that he didn't!