Best fighter never to be world champion?

[Scott9945]

But he didnt win the belt in the young fight,, was he handed the belt and walked out of the ring after the fight.. No,, it was sometime later he got awarded the belt because he was the #1 contender.. The young fight only won him the right to be #1 contender, nothing more.

He may have been viewed as a champ, but he never WON the belt, all he has ever done was win #1 contender, then he got awarded the belt later on. The young fight had nothing to do with winning a belt, if it had, norton would have walked out with a belt that night but he didnt

Of course. You can't win a title without winning a title fight. Norton's career record in world title fights was 0-3. Boxrec and the Ring Record Book will verify this. And nobody really considered him a champion while Leon and Ali held the title. Fans did start to consider Holmes the champion after Ali's temporary retirement after beating Spinks.

[Anthony342]

The history of boxing was British-based at first. And the unique tail of it: we can (almost) trace a lineal champ of THE title, from James Figg in 1719 until Lennox Lewis?retirement.

Boxing historians are pretty consistent about how the lineal titles have changed hands in earlier days, and they do it on the grounds of what was accepted at the times. And also, they usually agree on the periods where titles were to be considered vacant, when title claimants didn’t had a claim that was strong enough.

I just don’t understand why you are so eager to write your own version of boxing history.

And I don’t understand why you are so eager in backing up the alphabet organizations. The people behind them are plainly business men, and they don’t care about fairness.

If you, Humean, were the best fighter in a weight class, you should be crowned the champion of the world. Without having to give some (well, quite a lot) of your purse to any sanctioning body. Why should you? If you’re the best, you are.
That’s why I still find the Ring ****zine belts the most precious. You don’t pay for it, you get it for free if you are worth it.

Apparently, you don’t have a problem accepting four or more ‘world?champs in every weight division.
And nothing wrong with that. We’re all entitled to our opinions.
But in my opinion, there is only room for one world champ at the time. Something that is taken for granted in every other sport. So it puzzles me why fans of boxing ain’t protesting louder against the ways the bodies are allowed to mock boxing.

Well I'm not sure why in other countries, but in the US it's because boxing isn't that popular here anymore. When it comes to combat sports, there's a lot more MMA fans than boxing fans. Most people around these parts are more interested in who the champions are in the UFC and One FC then they are in who are the champions of boxing.

[Humean]

So after he beat young, the promoters came up and put a belt around his waist, and he walked out of the ring that night with a belt, right????

No but just because that is the way it usually works doesn't mean that is the only way it can or should work.

He did only win an eliminator. That's not a claim that's a fact.

What's also a fact is he didn't win the belt in the ring. He won the Eliminator in the ring.

The fact that the Champion didn't fight him doesn't make the #1 contender at the time the Champion.

An obvious example of illegitimacy from where I'm sitting.

You call a guy being given a title because he won the Eliminator and the Champion fought someone else a legit reason to be handed a title. I don't.

I'm not denying that Norton won an eliminator but you are deliberately leaving out the rest of the reasoning for why he was 'given' the belt. I call a fighter a champion who the credible (even if you think that word is a stretch) bodies say is the champion and their reasoning for saying Norton was their champ was certainly new but it wasn't at all a strange way of thinking to me in light of the particular circumstances. If you really want to strive for finding real legitimacy in the history of boxing world champions you could probably find quite considerably more illegitimacy even before the four champions era. In light of the topic of this thread I don't think that it is necessary to weed out all the recognized champions that you or I think were illegitimate.

[Humean]

The history of boxing was British-based at first. And the unique tail of it: we can (almost) trace a lineal champ of THE title, from James Figg in 1719 until Lennox Lewis?retirement.

Boxing historians are pretty consistent about how the lineal titles have changed hands in earlier days, and they do it on the grounds of what was accepted at the times. And also, they usually agree on the periods where titles were to be considered vacant, when title claimants didn’t had a claim that was strong enough.

I just don’t understand why you are so eager to write your own version of boxing history.

And I don’t understand why you are so eager in backing up the alphabet organizations. The people behind them are plainly business men, and they don’t care about fairness.

If you, Humean, were the best fighter in a weight class, you should be crowned the champion of the world. Without having to give some (well, quite a lot) of your purse to any sanctioning body. Why should you? If you’re the best, you are.
That’s why I still find the Ring ****zine belts the most precious. You don’t pay for it, you get it for free if you are worth it.

Apparently, you don’t have a problem accepting four or more ‘world?champs in every weight division.
And nothing wrong with that. We’re all entitled to our opinions.
But in my opinion, there is only room for one world champ at the time. Something that is taken for granted in every other sport. So it puzzles me why fans of boxing ain’t protesting louder against the ways the bodies are allowed to mock boxing.

I just don't think the history of this has been as accurate or as objective as it could or should be. There has clearly been a lot of dispute about who was the 'real' or 'legitimate' champion throughout history, something that really is not unique to this era. Lineage has great appeal to the hardcore boxing fan, especially one with a real interest in the history of the sport but when you look closer at it it really breaks down a lot.

Surely the question you need to ask and answer is why fighters actually do pay the sanctioning fees. Boxing is a business and I certainly agree that the sanctioning bodies, despite being non-profits, run their affairs with 'fairness' pretty far down the list, if there at all, of their priorities. However it is clear that this system has clear benefits for the fighters, indeed this situation of four recognized world champions wouldn't have arisen if not. The sanctioning bodies need money to sustain them, they get that from the sanctioning fees, the ring ****zine gets that through the sale of their ****zine. If fighters only wanted one world champion then they could very easily only recognize the ring ****zine or some other alternative. Fighters are not being forced to pay the sanctioning fee, it is to their benefit to do so as they are paying for recognition. If you are the best in a division then you don't have to pay the fee, some do that every now and again but usually even the best pay for the the title recognition.

I have no problem with the four champions because not only do the fighters seem to prefer this arrangement but also I can and do have my own opinion of who is the best but ultimately what is important is that I see good fights. Sure this system can most definitely be a hindrence in getting the fights I and others want to see but there is no perfect alternative and the idea of only having one champion is not seemingly practical.

Between 1945-1952 the light heavyweight champions were Gus Lesnevich, Freddie Mills and Joey Maxim but the best two light heavyweights during this time were Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. So much for the one champion era.

[IronDanHamza]

No but just because that is the way it usually works doesn't mean that is the only way it can or should work.



I'm not denying that Norton won an eliminator but you are deliberately leaving out the rest of the reasoning for why he was 'given' the belt. I call a fighter a champion who the credible (even if you think that word is a stretch) bodies say is the champion and their reasoning for saying Norton was their champ was certainly new but it wasn't at all a strange way of thinking to me in light of the particular circumstances. If you really want to strive for finding real legitimacy in the history of boxing world champions you could probably find quite considerably more illegitimacy even before the four champions era. In light of the topic of this thread I don't think that it is necessary to weed out all the recognized champions that you or I think were illegitimate.

I'm not leaving out anything.

You just said it yourself, he was "given" the belt.

The reason why he was given it doesn't change the fact he was given it.

I don't care if he was recognised as a "Champion" he wasn't a Champion in my book thus I listed him in my list.

[Humean]

I'm not leaving out anything.

You just said it yourself, he was "given" the belt.

The reason why he was given it doesn't change the fact he was given it.

I don't care if he was recognised as a "Champion" he wasn't a Champion in my book thus I listed him in my list.

Everyone is 'given' the title in one sense of the term.

Well why stop at Norton?

[IronDanHamza]

Everyone is 'given' the title in one sene.

Well why stop at Norton?

No, they aren't. In a ****** sense, perhaps. I suppose that is one sense.

Every Champion wins their Championship in the ring. Whether it's Vacant, a box off, or against another Champion. They win their title in the ring.

A Champion isn't handed a belt for being the #1 contender when the Champion decides to fight someone else.

[Humean]

No, they aren't. In a ****** sense, perhaps. I suppose that is one sense.

Every Champion wins their Championship in the ring. Whether it's Vacant, a box off, or against another Champion. They win their title in the ring.

A Champion isn't handed a belt for being the #1 contender when the Champion decides to fight someone else.

Norton won the title in the ring, the fact that he did not 'literally' win the belt in the ring and that it was only considered to me an eliminator at the time and only retroactively considered a world title fight does not substantiate the argument that he 'didn't win it in the ring' or that he was 'given' the title. To consider it to be illegitimate because you think the belt should have been declared vacant and Norton should have fought Holmes for it as vacant is fair enough but to say that Norton didn't win it in the ring and that he was merely handed the belt is false.

What is a world champion?

[IronDanHamza]

Norton won the title in the ring, the fact that he did not 'literally' win the belt in the ring and that it was only considered to me an eliminator at the time and only retroactively considered a world title fight does not substantiate the argument that he 'didn't win it in the ring' or that he was 'given' the title. To consider it to be illegitimate because you think the belt should have been declared vacant and Norton should have fought Holmes for it as vacant is fair enough but to say that Norton didn't win it in the ring and that he was merely handed the belt is false.

What is a world champion?

No, that's actually a stone cold, black and white, fact.

No he didn't win it in the ring. How are we going to go in circles on something that's a flat out lie?

Winning an Eliminator is NOT "winning it in the ring".

How can a fight be "retroactively" be considered a world title fight? Just an absolute, flat out, ******ed line of thinking.

You can't win a world title in Hindsight.

[Humean]

No, that's actually a stone cold, black and white, fact.

No he didn't win it in the ring. How are we going to go in circles on something that's a flat out lie?

Winning an Eliminator is NOT "winning it in the ring".

How can a fight be "retroactively" be considered a world title fight? Just an absolute, flat out, ******ed line of thinking.

You can't win a world title in Hindsight.

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?