Best fighter never to be world champion?

[Daddy T]

Are we just talking about heavyweights?
from the last 20 years Tua is surely the standout
and from all time obviously it's Langford.

From the period in between it's tough as there a re a lot of very good guys who never got the title. Norton would be the stand out if you don't consider his title legit but if you do I dunno there are a lot of guys on a level ...

[Sugar Adam Ali]

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!

good call and herol graham, but i swear he picked up a belt in the late 80s, i could be wrong,,

Thanks for saying Ike,, I thought about him last night, and was going to post him. Ike has to be the best heavy not to win a title

[ShamrockXpress]

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!

Bomber is at least the best British fighter to never hold a world title. So fluid he was one of the most naturally gifted boxers I have ever seen.

Alan Rudkin from Liverpool was robbed of a world title twice, after that the call of the bar was more alluring than that of the gym and he will forever be renembered in my city for being an old drunk rather than for being a very formidable boxer.

[Sugarj]

good call and herol graham, but i swear he picked up a belt in the late 80s, i could be wrong,,

Thanks for saying Ike,, I thought about him last night, and was going to post him. Ike has to be the best heavy not to win a title

Na, he came perilously close against mike mccallum, but I m sure he never quite got a world belt.....

[Humean]

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.

This is nonsense. The WBC expectation was the winner of Norton-Young would fight Spinks/Ali, Spinks had other ideas and was stripped, it was like Norton walked to the ring to fight the champ but the champ decided not to show up therefore Norton was the champ. You don't have to beat the previous champ to be a champion. He was not just handed to him for being the #1 contender, it was linked to the previous circumstances.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

This is nonsense. The WBC expectation was the winner of Norton-Young would fight Spinks/Ali, Spinks had other ideas and was stripped, it was like Norton walked to the ring to fight the champ but the champ decided not to show up therefore Norton was the champ. You don't have to beat the previous champ to be a champion. He was not just handed to him for being the #1 contender, it was linked to the previous circumstances.

No he was handed it for being #1 contender,, when did he fight for the vacant strap...
He fought a #1 contender elimantor, thats it,, then afterwards they HANDED him the vacant belt,,,

if norton was a champ it should have a huge * by it,,,

He never WON a belt, only awarded a vacant one, and didnt even have to fight a title fight for the vacant belt

[Humean]

No he was handed it for being #1 contender,, when did he fight for the vacant strap...
He fought a #1 contender elimantor, thats it,, then afterwards they HANDED him the vacant belt,,,

if norton was a champ it should have a huge * by it,,,

He never WON a belt, only awarded a vacant one, and didnt even have to fight a title fight for the vacant belt

I don't see how it is illegitimate under these circumstances. The champ essentially moved aside, why is it only legitimate when Norton had then to fight for it as vacant? The understanding of the eliminator was he'd fight the champ, in ordinary eliminator circumstances the organization might allow the champ to fight someone else but in this case decided to strip because they had already had the mandatory guy in the wings for months. Therefore it was like the analogy I gave, that Norton walked into the ring to fight the champion who didn't turn up. At the time the WBC's decision was controversial, in part because it was a new thing to do but surely it was the correct thing to do. Today we have interim champs and they get turned into full champions on similar sorts of circumstances.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I don't see how it is illegitimate under these circumstances. The champ essentially moved aside, why is it only legitimate when Norton had then to fight for it as vacant? The understanding of the eliminator was he'd fight the champ, in ordinary eliminator circumstances the organization might allow the champ to fight someone else but in this case decided to strip because they had already had the mandatory guy in the wings for months. Therefore it was like the analogy I gave, that Norton walked into the ring to fight the champion who didn't turn up. At the time the WBC's decision was controversial, in part because it was a new thing to do but surely it was the correct thing to do. Today we have interim champs and they get turned into full champions on similar sorts of circumstances.

because he never beat anyone for it,, he was handed the belt,, had he fought anyone for the vacant belt then i could see him as a champ, but not when he never won the belt in the ring or even defended it successfully,,,

like i said earlier, if ken norton is champ there needs to be a huge asterik next to it

[Ben Bolt]

if ken norton is champ there needs to be a huge asterik next to it

Like most alphabet champs.

Oh, these corrupt organizations.
Pay 'em and you get their recognition.
Don't pay, and they won't even rank you.

[IronDanHamza]

This is nonsense. The WBC expectation was the winner of Norton-Young would fight Spinks/Ali, Spinks had other ideas and was stripped, it was like Norton walked to the ring to fight the champ but the champ decided not to show up therefore Norton was the champ. You don't have to beat the previous champ to be a champion. He was not just handed to him for being the #1 contender, it was linked to the previous circumstances.

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.