Best fighter never to be world champion?

[Ben Bolt]

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

Actually, with few exceptions, you can find a lineal champ – or an undisputed champ – in every division from the early 1900s and into the 1980s, champs that were worldwide recognized. When WBC and WBA came into the picture, and tried to write their own versions of the boxing history, no one bothered.

When IBF was introduced in 1983, it was welcomed at first, as it promised to – unlike the WBC or WBA – be an unbiased org., acting on the grounds of sportsmanship.
But we soon learned that IBF was as crooked as its bros. Unfortunately, when Larry Holmes accepted the IBF belt, IBF made a name of itself in some circles, and that’s when the real mess started.
Now we were stuck with three orgs. whose primary interest were based on how to feed themselves and not on what would be best for the sport.

Similar to the Norton-Young elimination for the WBC title, WBA stripped Ali of the title for signing to fight Liston in a rematch and made Ernie Terrell its champion in 1965. We can agree on that both Norton and Terrell were very good fighters, but just because WBC or WBA claim they were ‘world’ champs, we don’t have to accept that ****.

And as I mentioned before, if WBC was to write our boxing history, Wlad Klitschko would been left out of the list of heavyweight champions.

Humean, you’re under heavy artillery here, not just from me. But I like the way you fight for your views, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you threw a counter punch and knocked me out

[Daddy T]

Actually, with few exceptions, you can find a lineal champ – or an undisputed champ – in every division from the early 1900s and into the 1980s, champs that were worldwide recognized. When WBC and WBA came into the picture, and tried to write their own versions of the boxing history, no one bothered.

When IBF was introduced in 1983, it was welcomed at first, as it promised to – unlike the WBC or WBA – be an unbiased org., acting on the grounds of sportsmanship.
But we soon learned that IBF was as crooked as its bros. Unfortunately, when Larry Holmes accepted the IBF belt, IBF made a name of itself in some circles, and that’s when the real mess started.
Now we were stuck with three orgs. whose primary interest were based on how to feed themselves and not on what would be best for the sport.

Similar to the Norton-Young elimination for the WBC title, WBA stripped Ali of the title for signing to fight Liston in a rematch and made Ernie Terrell its champion in 1965. We can agree on that both Norton and Terrell were very good fighters, but just because WBC or WBA claim they were ‘world’ champs, we don’t have to accept that ****.

And as I mentioned before, if WBC was to write our boxing history, Wlad Klitschko would been left out of the list of heavyweight champions.

Humean, you’re under heavy artillery here, not just from me. But I like the way you fight for your views, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you threw a counter punch and knocked me out

sums things up nicely

[Humean]

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.

The reason you and others are wrong on this is because the claim that Norton only won an eliminator and therefore cannot be considered a champion is an incomplete understanding because you are leaving out the crucial details. It is perfectly fine to say you think it would have been better for the WBC then, and the sanctioning bodies now, to never to do what the WBC did and instead make the belt vacant but in light of the specific circumstances that arose here I fail to see how it is illegitimate, indeed it is surely as sensible an approach as the alternative and probably fairer. I know we always want one champion to be replaced by another champion by the previous champion being defeated in the ring but that just cannot always happen.

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

This distinction doesn't work, Norton won the belt in the Young fight it just wasn't called a WBC world title fight when he fought, the subsequent events turned it into such a fight rather than a mere eliminator. Like all champions he was 'handed' the belt at a later date.

Anyway we're going around in circles here, if we haven't convinced each other of our different opinions with what we have already written then I doubt we will by saying anything else.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

The reason you and others are wrong on this is because the claim that Norton only won an eliminator and therefore cannot be considered a champion is an incomplete understanding because you are leaving out the crucial details. It is perfectly fine to say you think it would have been better for the WBC then, and the sanctioning bodies now, to never to do what the WBC did and instead make the belt vacant but in light of the specific circumstances that arose here I fail to see how it is illegitimate, indeed it is surely as sensible an approach as the alternative and probably fairer. I know we always want one champion to be replaced by another champion by the previous champion being defeated in the ring but that just cannot always happen.



This distinction doesn't work, Norton won the belt in the Young fight it just wasn't called a WBC world title fight when he fought, the subsequent events turned it into such a fight rather than a mere eliminator. Like all champions he was 'handed' the belt at a later date.

Anyway we're going around in circles here, if we haven't convinced each other of our different opinions with what we have already written then I doubt we will by saying anything else.

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

[Humean]

Actually, with few exceptions, you can find a lineal champ – or an undisputed champ – in every division from the early 1900s and into the 1980s, champs that were worldwide recognized. When WBC and WBA came into the picture, and tried to write their own versions of the boxing history, no one bothered.

When IBF was introduced in 1983, it was welcomed at first, as it promised to – unlike the WBC or WBA – be an unbiased org., acting on the grounds of sportsmanship.
But we soon learned that IBF was as crooked as its bros. Unfortunately, when Larry Holmes accepted the IBF belt, IBF made a name of itself in some circles, and that’s when the real mess started.
Now we were stuck with three orgs. whose primary interest were based on how to feed themselves and not on what would be best for the sport.

Similar to the Norton-Young elimination for the WBC title, WBA stripped Ali of the title for signing to fight Liston in a rematch and made Ernie Terrell its champion in 1965. We can agree on that both Norton and Terrell were very good fighters, but just because WBC or WBA claim they were ‘world’ champs, we don’t have to accept that ****.

And as I mentioned before, if WBC was to write our boxing history, Wlad Klitschko would been left out of the list of heavyweight champions.

Humean, you’re under heavy artillery here, not just from me. But I like the way you fight for your views, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you threw a counter punch and knocked me out

I'd say the early few decades there were routinely competing claims for who was the legitimate champion. Take the middleweight division as an example, the lineage is usually recorded as going back to Nonpareil Jack Dempsey from 1886 onwards, the story of the heavyweight division follows a similar pattern of going back to whomever was recognized from popular opinion as the champion in the United States. There were of course always rival claimants from other countries, usually British and Ireland, France and Australia. Fairly routinely when those rival claimants fought the American recognized champ the American won and therefore legitimized their claim to be the universal and therefore world champion. However for periods of time it was always in dispute and indeed it is only really from an American perspective, and the history of boxing has been written largely from an American perspective, that there has been this notion of some crystalized legitimate champion from whence we can draw lineage. However if you reach past this American-centric viewpoint then you can go farther back than Nonpareil Jack Dempsey and to the British champions. In essence where you start a lineage is often fairly arbitrary. Anyway here are some examples of the disputed nature of who was middleweight champion through the decades:

In 1910 Ketchel's title vacated upon his death.

In 1912 Frank Klaus recorded as middleweight champion of the world for beating Sailor Ed Petroskey in February however in the same month as Klaus became champion Georges Carpentier won the EBU middleweight crown and this was as legitimate a claim as Klaus's was. A few months later Klaus and Carpentier fought and Klaus won so we can claim lineage from here onwards however why is Klaus so routinely listed as the middleweight champion from the Petroskey win? Either both Klaus and Carpentier should be listed as the two champions for the few months before they fought or only Klaus should be listed as the champion but only from the moment he defeated Carpentier.

This lineage passes to George Chip and then Al McCoy, however McCoy keeps losing world title fights by newspaper decision but doesn't lose the title because he wasn't getting knocked out, therefore the lineage has really become somewhat tainted very quickly. At the same time as Al McCoy keeps losing his way to maintaining his status as world middleweight champion Les Darcy is winning and successfully defending his Australian version of the world middleweight crown. So who really was the middleweight champ between the years of 1915-1917? Darcy is probably the best shout as he defeated Chip in 1916 and Chip had beaten McCoy again in 1915 although he didn't get the knockout and therefore didn't get the title.

So seven years since Ketchel's death Darcy dies and the lineage needs to start again. It is debatable whether it really should start from Mike O'Dowd just because he knocked out Al McCoy in 1917 but he certainly achieved the newspaper wins over probably the best possible rival claimants, such as Kid Ted Lewis.

Then you get the New York State Athletic Commision (NYSAC) forming in 1920 and the National Boxing Association (NBA) in 1921. The true champion was again in dispute in the very early 1920s because of the decisions of the NYSAC. When it is finally settled on Johnny Wilson as champ you can then follow the lineage from Wilson to Greb, to Flowers, to Walker but then things go very much awry again after Walker vacates. The 1930s routinely had more than one champion, indeed it usually had two or three (NBA, NYSAC, IBU).

Only from Zale in 1941 can we start the lineage again and only really to about 1960 when it was split between Fullmer and Pender. NBA turns into WBA in 1961 and Pender retires in early to mid 1962. The Fullmer Tiger fights starting in 1962 kickstart the lineage and that lineage takes you up until the WBA and WBC split with the WBC recognizing Valdez as the champ in 1974. Monzon unifies them again by beating Valdez twice in 76 and 77 and then Monzon retires. The Lineage starts again from Valdez in 1977 and that lineage takes you up to 1987.

So much for my potted history of the middleweight division, I think it shows we had about 46 years of fairly continuous legitimate middleweight champions but with the odd split for a brief couple of years in between. However the period before this was very contentious. One of the reasons I used the middleweight example, besides the fact that I know more about this division than any other, is because I think it might be the strongest example of the longest continuous lineages in the original eight divisions in the twentieth century and yet I think it still adds a fair amount of evidence to counter the claims about how bad things are now with the multiple champs. The period where there was only one legitimate champ was a lot shorter than boxing fans wish to believe and even this period was more contentious than it seems. What I mean by that was the question I posed in a previous post about how I think we'd all be dis*****g who the champion was even if there was technically only one recognized champion. I think the importance of having only one recognized champion is less significant than people claim. There are others reasons to think that only having one champion would not work and also reasons why the eras with one champ had there undesirable elements to them.

[Humean]

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

What is it to be the champ other than to win a fight in which the recognizing body says you won the title from that fight?

[rsf]

Benny valger

[Sugar Adam Ali]

What is it to be the champ other than to win a fight in which the recognizing body says you won the title from that fight?

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????

[IronDanHamza]

The reason you and others are wrong on this is because the claim that Norton only won an eliminator and therefore cannot be considered a champion is an incomplete understanding because you are leaving out the crucial details. It is perfectly fine to say you think it would have been better for the WBC then, and the sanctioning bodies now, to never to do what the WBC did and instead make the belt vacant but in light of the specific circumstances that arose here I fail to see how it is illegitimate, indeed it is surely as sensible an approach as the alternative and probably fairer. I know we always want one champion to be replaced by another champion by the previous champion being defeated in the ring but that just cannot always happen.



This distinction doesn't work, Norton won the belt in the Young fight it just wasn't called a WBC world title fight when he fought, the subsequent events turned it into such a fight rather than a mere eliminator. Like all champions he was 'handed' the belt at a later date.

Anyway we're going around in circles here, if we haven't convinced each other of our different opinions with what we have already written then I doubt we will by saying anything else.

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.

[Ben Bolt]

I I think the importance of having only one recognized champion is less significant than people claim.

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 Magazine 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.