Best fighter never to be world champion?

[billeau2]

Very true, its just the basic principles of public relations, the more accessible and familiar you are to your public, the better known and recieved you will be. The greats of yesteryear were on normal tv almost monthly or whatever, cereal boxes, ****zine covers etc, nowadays we pay $50 to see them fight twice a year ?

Funny thing is....Even Floyd was not a draw until after he fought Oscar. Oscar had the juice because of crossover (not cross dress haha) appeal to Latin & American audiences, he also had *** appeal, for example my wife would always ask "when is that cute guy fighting again"? When Floyd went into that match he was faced with a dilemna: he had no juice to draw a crowd.

So even Floyd, the guy who defines bringing down the house today needed a cross over fighter to get him in that stratosphere.

[billeau2]

Although I will say the one thing I like about watching boxing on premium cable now is hearing what the corner men say more often, rather than cutting to a commercial. Ann Wolfe had some good quotes last weekend working the corner for James Kirkland with lines like "you took his nuts, now take his heart" and "this is YOUR time n***a" or hearing strategy in between rounds has become commonplace the last few decades.

NBC and NBC Sports Network still feature some boxing from time to time on weekends though. Just wish they did it more often.

Amen to that Anthony!

[Scott9945]

Although I will say the one thing I like about watching boxing on premium cable now is hearing what the corner men say more often, rather than cutting to a commercial. Ann Wolfe had some good quotes last weekend working the corner for James Kirkland with lines like "you took his nuts, now take his heart" and "this is YOUR time n***a" or hearing strategy in between rounds has become commonplace the last few decades.

NBC and NBC Sports Network still feature some boxing from time to time on weekends though. Just wish they did it more often.

NBC Sports Network has a card on this Saturday at the same time the Showtime card will be on.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Funny thing is....Even Floyd was not a draw until after he fought Oscar. Oscar had the juice because of crossover (not cross dress haha) appeal to Latin & American audiences, he also had *** appeal, for example my wife would always ask "when is that cute guy fighting again"? When Floyd went into that match he was faced with a dilemna: he had no juice to draw a crowd.

So even Floyd, the guy who defines bringing down the house today needed a cross over fighter to get him in that stratosphere.

yes, oscar passed the torch to floyd,, just like oscar needed chavez to land his first ppv and make him a household name,, Chavez passed the torch to oscar

[Bodyshot3]

Herol Graham rightly gets mentioned from the UK because he was exceptionally gifted and could make elite fighters look clueless.

But going back a little bit further you've got the Welsh puncher Colin Jones, an exceptional welterweight who knocked-out Kirkland Laing twice and had two superb and very close welterweight fights with Milton McCrory. First fight was a draw in Reno and McRory edged the second in Vegas. Sadly, that was Colin's best shot because he then got unravelled by a prime Don Curry.

I was too young to see Jones at the time but looking at his fights now he was dogged, super-fit like Calzaghe and packed a proper bomb. He was really unlucky against McCrory first tie round. He also had Laing's number big time...and Laing often gets mentioned as someone who could and should have won a world title.

[Humean]

Except it's not like that.

It's not like the fight was signed and he turned up and Spinks didn't show up that's a completely different scenario.

He was handed a title. That's literally what happened.

It doesn't matter what the circumstances were to him not getting his title shot the fact is he was given the belt for being the #1 contender. That's not a champion in my book.

And they're just as illegitimate, like I said.

I don't understand how you can think that's it's the same as that A fight wasn't signed. It's nothing like that analogy.

The correct thing to do was have Norton fight the next highest contender for a Vacant belt. Not just hand him one because he earned a shot at the title. Since when is earning a shot at a title a reason to give someone a belt and that being legitimate?

In effect it was like that, I don't know how you and Sugar Adam Ali cannot see that. The eliminator was fought with the intention that the champ would fight the winner of this fight but the champ got stripped because he refused the fight. Now there were two approaches that the WBC could have taken, the approach they did take and the approach that you two think would have been more 'legitimate' but surely your approach is not only less fair but is no more legitimate for it. Norton won it in the ring, he won it beating Young, it made perfect sense with the circumstances to claim it was for the title in retrospect, it is just that they didn't have the interim title in those days like they do now. Saying that you have won the right to fight the champ and then have the champ stripped for choosing not to fight you and then saying sorry but you have to fight this other contender for the vacate title is hardly more legitimate and is certainly less fair. The claim that Norton was 'handed the title' is nonsense, he won it in a fight. The fact he got it retroactively doesn't make it illegitimate like you guys are claiming.

In the early 1900’s when boxing was banned in several places, the so-called 'exhibition fights' had no official scoring. It was up to the journalists at ringside to decide the winners, the NWS (newspapers? decision era.

Sadly, boxing ?with its multiple sanction bodies ?is back at that stage today. With four or more 'world champs' in most weight classes, it’s up to the boxing journalists and the fans to decide who the true world champ in each weight class really is.

When most other sports have progressed over the last century, reaching the state when ONE independent international federation set the rules, boxing has declined to 'ancient' times.
Our sport is yet again dependent on NWS verdicts (who is world champ?).
Why do we wonder why boxing has dropped its status and popularity?

You seem to know your history pretty well so I'm not sure why you think this about the state of multiple champions today. The reason I say that is because the period where there was routinely only one 'true' champion in each division only comprised a very short period in the history of professional boxing, roughly late fourties to late sixties or early seventies depending on the weight class and it was not exactly strange to have two champions at a weight class during this time for certain periods.

There are a number of reasons why boxing as a business and a sport seems to work on a very different model from your typical sport but one point i'd like to make about a specific point you made is that do you or anyone else really think that even if there was only one 'true' or 'legitimate' champion in each weight class that we'd all be in agreement about who is the champion? Even people who have a lot of knowledge and aren't the typical poster in the other parts of this forum will disagree about who the 'real' champion is. In fact the hardcore fan would be more likely to challenge the claims of legitimacy of whomever is the champ at whatever weight.

[Daddy T]

ken norton may have been "champ"

but he is still one of the greatest fighters never to WIN a world title

If he was in a different era do you think he would have won it and held it for a few years ... u know not just getting a win over someone like Jim Braddock and then losing to Louis in his next fight? I wonder sometimes was Norton a victim of his era or a beneficiary of it.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

[QUOTE]

In effect it was like that, I don't know how you and Sugar Adam Ali cannot see that. The eliminator was fought with the intention that the champ would fight the winner of this fight but the champ got stripped because he refused the fight. Now there were two approaches that the WBC could have taken, the approach they did take and the approach that you two think would have been more 'legitimate' but surely your approach is not only less fair but is no more legitimate for it. Norton won it in the ring, he won it beating Young, it made perfect sense with the circumstances to claim it was for the title in retrospect, it is just that they didn't have the interim title in those days like they do now. Saying that you have won the right to fight the champ and then have the champ stripped for choosing not to fight you and then saying sorry but you have to fight this other contender for the vacate title is hardly more legitimate and is certainly less fair. The claim that Norton was 'handed the title' is nonsense, he won it in a fight. The fact he got it retroactively doesn't make it illegitimate like you guys are claiming.

All im saying is that the dude never WON a title,, he was handed it... The one thing sanctioning bodies do good now is that they just dont proclaim a guy champ, they make him at least fight for the vacant title,,

Yes i agree that fighting for a vacant belt isnt much better, but at least you can say i WON the belt,,,
Norton can never say he won a belt,, he may have been a titlist, but he can never say he WON a belt

If he was in a different era do you think he would have won it and held it for a few years ... u know not just getting a win over someone like Jim Braddock and then losing to Louis in his next fight? I wonder sometimes was Norton a victim of his era or a beneficiary of it.

Yeah, i think if norton was in a different era, he def would have gotten a belt,, He def would have won one in the past 30 years with all the random belts and vacant title fights,, but then again he might not ever be as famous if he didnt get those fights with ali and foreman,, he may be another oliver mccall or michael moorer that slips thru the cracks of history and he might not be as well known as he is today, as the guy that gave ali hell

[IronDanHamza]

In effect it was like that, I don't know how you and Sugar Adam Ali cannot see that. The eliminator was fought with the intention that the champ would fight the winner of this fight but the champ got stripped because he refused the fight. Now there were two approaches that the WBC could have taken, the approach they did take and the approach that you two think would have been more 'legitimate' but surely your approach is not only less fair but is no more legitimate for it. Norton won it in the ring, he won it beating Young, it made perfect sense with the circumstances to claim it was for the title in retrospect, it is just that they didn't have the interim title in those days like they do now. Saying that you have won the right to fight the champ and then have the champ stripped for choosing not to fight you and then saying sorry but you have to fight this other contender for the vacate title is hardly more legitimate and is certainly less fair. The claim that Norton was 'handed the title' is nonsense, he won it in a fight. The fact he got it retroactively doesn't make it illegitimate like you guys are claiming.

That is just ridiculous.

How did he "win it in the ring" by winning an eliminator? Eliminator=Winning a Championship belt in a ring?

It's really as simple as this, being the #1 contender isn't winning a belt or earning a belt. It's earning a title shot. Just because the Champion fights someone else instead doesn't mean you earned and it definitely doesn't mean you won it in the ring.

To me that's as basic as common sense can get.

Like I've said multiple times, I don't consider being "upgraded" to champion from being "Interim" Champion a legitimate Champion either.

Which effectively is exactly what happened to Norton except make belief, bull**** interim titles didn't exist then so they couldn't "upgrade" him so instead they handed him one for being the #1 contender.

[Scott9945]

That is just ridiculous.

How did he "win it in the ring" by winning an eliminator? Eliminator=Winning a Championship belt in a ring?

It's really as simple as this, being the #1 contender isn't winning a belt or earning a belt. It's earning a title shot. Just because the Champion fights someone else instead doesn't mean you earned and it definitely doesn't mean you won it in the ring.

To me that's as basic as common sense can get.

Like I've said multiple times, I don't consider being "upgraded" to champion from being "Interim" Champion a legitimate Champion either.

Which effectively is exactly what happened to Norton except make belief, bull**** interim titles didn't exist then so they couldn't "upgrade" him so instead they handed him one for being the #1 contender.

This should be obvious to everyone. To win a title you should have to win a title fight. Seems simple enough. If Spinks was stripped then Norton should have fought Young again (and their fight was close) or another designated #2 contender.

That being said, the WBC recognized Norton as their champion, so it can't be disputed that he was the WBC heavyweight champion. But most historians connect the title from Spinks to Ali to Holmes.