Best fighter never to be world champion?

[StarshipTrooper]

Remind me.

I don't recall Norton ever winning the Title although I'm going completely off memory here.

Which fight did he win the title in because the first Ali fight wasn't for the Title and he came up short in his attempts against Foreman and Holmes and for the life of me I can't think of another time.

Norton was a awarded a belt when Ali fought Spinks. Completely bogus of course. Norton was never a real champion just an alphabelt holder who didn't win it in the ring.

[Humean]

Remind me.

I don't recall Norton ever winning the Title although I'm going completely off memory here.

Which fight did he win the title in because the first Ali fight wasn't for the Title and he came up short in his attempts against Foreman and Holmes and for the life of me I can't think of another time.

The WBC gave Norton the title for beating Young retroactively after they stripped Spinks for agreeing to fight Ali rather than Norton. In fact I think the day after Norton's death I saw his WBC belt (or what claimed to be his belt) for sale on ebay.

[IronDanHamza]

The WBC gave Norton the title for beating Young retroactively after they stripped Spinks for agreeing to fight Ali rather than Norton. In fact I think the day after Norton's death I saw his WBC belt (or what claimed to be his belt) for sale on ebay.

Norton was a awarded a belt when Ali fought Spinks. Completely bogus of course. Norton was never a real champion just an alphabelt holder who didn't win it in the ring.

Oh yes.

Being totally honest that even happening had slipped my mind.

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

[Humean]

Oh yes.

Being totally honest that even happening had slipped my mind.

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

Well I do, they were perhaps correct to strip Spinks and besides Norton more than showed he was a champion, both in the Ali fights and in his first defence against Holmes, even though he didn't get either of those decisions in the two (of three) world title fights he had.

[IronDanHamza]

Well I do, they were perhaps correct to strip Spinks and besides Norton more than showed he was a champion, both in the Ali fights and in his first defence against Holmes, even though he didn't get either of those decisions in the two (of three) world title fights he had.

Norton might have been good enough to be Champion (Beating Ali in 73) and I thought he won 2 out of 3 of those fights and other good performances but the fact is he didn't win one.

I don't consider you to be a Champion by literally being handed one.

Just like I don't consider Marquez to be a Champion at Jr Welterweight either for example and any other fighter who was "Upgraded" to being Champion.

In Norton's case that wasn't even the case he was literally given it for being the #1 contender. As far as I'm concerned being the #1 contender isn't a reason to be given a Title belt and I don't consider that legitimate in any way.

[Humean]

Norton might have been good enough to be Champion (Beating Ali in 73) and I thought he won 2 out of 3 of those fights and other good performances but the fact is he didn't win one.

I don't consider you to be a Champion by literally being handed one.

Just like I don't consider Marquez to be a Champion at Jr Welterweight either for example and any other fighter who was "Upgraded" to being Champion.

In Norton's case that wasn't even the case he was literally given it for being the #1 contender. As far as I'm concerned being the #1 contender isn't a reason to be given a Title belt and I don't consider that legitimate in any way.

Does it not perhaps depend on the legitimacy of Spinks being stripped of the WBC belt? Spinks decided to fight Ali again and they fought only for the WBA, that left the WBC vacant but Norton had already fought the eliminator for the right to fight Spinks but Spinks essentially moved aside therefore Norton got the belt because he had beaten the other guy (Jimmy Young) in what was billed, at the time, as an eliminator. That doesn't seem illegitimate to me, especially in light of what happens these days with interim champs and being upgraded and such like. So to me Norton was a champ unlike someone like Burley or Papp.

[IronDanHamza]

Does it not perhaps depend on the legitimacy of Spinks being stripped of the WBC belt? Spinks decided to fight Ali again and they fought only for the WBA, that left the WBC vacant but Norton had already fought the eliminator for the right to fight Spinks but Spinks essentially moved aside therefore Norton got the belt because he had beaten the other guy (Jimmy Young) in what was billed, at the time, as an eliminator. That doesn't seem illegitimate to me, especially in light of what happens these days with interim champs and being upgraded and such like. So to me Norton was a champ unlike someone like Burley or Papp.

I don't understand how that makes it legitimate.

How does winning an eliminator make handing out a belt that's vacant to the #1 contender legitimate?

It's completely illegitimate, just because Spinks didn't fight him doesn't mean he beat him. You can't get given a title in my book.

Like I said in my post, just like I don't consider Marquez a Champion at 140 and all the other champions who were "upgraded" to Champion I don't consider Norton to be Champion considering, you know, he never actually won a belt and was literally given one.

Once reminded I remembered that whole fiasco but due how ridiculous it was, over time, I forgot it even happened.

[LacedUp]

Norton might have been good enough to be Champion (Beating Ali in 73) and I thought he won 2 out of 3 of those fights and other good performances but the fact is he didn't win one.

I don't consider you to be a Champion by literally being handed one.

Just like I don't consider Marquez to be a Champion at Jr Welterweight either for example and any other fighter who was "Upgraded" to being Champion.

In Norton's case that wasn't even the case he was literally given it for being the #1 contender. As far as I'm concerned being the #1 contender isn't a reason to be given a Title belt and I don't consider that legitimate in any way.

Whilst I agree in this case - I wouldn't really call Norton a former champion per se. As far as memory goes he lost it in his first fight against Holmes or something like that anyway?

However, what's your take on Lennox Lewis first championship reign?

[Humean]

I don't understand how that makes it legitimate.

How does winning an eliminator make handing out a belt that's vacant to the #1 contender legitimate?

It's completely illegitimate, just because Spinks didn't fight him doesn't mean he beat him. You can't get given a title in my book.

Like I said in my post, just like I don't consider Marquez a Champion at 140 and all the other champions who were "upgraded" to Champion I don't consider Norton to be Champion considering, you know, he never actually won a belt and was literally given one.

Once reminded I remembered that whole fiasco but due how ridiculous it was, over time, I forgot it even happened.

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.

[IronDanHamza]

Whilst I agree in this case - I wouldn't really call Norton a former champion per se. As far as memory goes he lost it in his first fight against Holmes or something like that anyway?

However, what's your take on Lennox Lewis first championship reign?

Didn't consider it when it was first handed.

I considered the Tucker fight as more of a box off for it. They were two of the top fighters at the time so made sense in my mind to declare the winner of that fight the new WBC Champion, considering.

Handing out belts is just plain ****** IMO and always has been. I don't consider you a champion until you earn it.