Best fighter never to win a world title?

[J !]

bert gilroy was scots, unbeaten at middle weight for 6 years at one point frozen out due to politics he never even got a british title shot.

record was won 87 lost 25 drew 8.

hastne to add most the losses were at light heavy at the end of his career to people like freddie mills and some very dubious decisions.

unbeaten scots middleweight champ for six years.
they did everything to keep mcavoy away from gilroy.

[pinkpanther]

morrison beat foreman to be WBO champ

heavwyweights you gotta look at "the acorn" Ernie shavers never winning it.
he woudl have a field day if he was around today.

In fact I can't actually believe that Shavers only had two shots at a world title, lost to Holmes after having Holmes down and then took Ali all the way to 15, he also beat Ken Norton, can't believe there are many others who could lay claim to being the best not to be a World Champion.

[J !]

yip he was pretty darn good, hois chin let him down occasionally but **** he could whack.

no doubt he would clean up now.

(cue relentless attacks from vitali fans)

[cple]

Sam Langford isn't only the greatest fighter to never win a title, but he's alos possibly the greatest fighter period. Him and Charlie Burley easily head this class, but still, Burley isn't on Langford's level. Sam belongs with the likes of Robinson, Greb, Duran, and Ali; the elite of the elite. This is no disrespect to Burley, he is easily an all-time great.

Other notable fighters to never win a title: Holman Williams, Jerry Quarry, and Jimmy Bivins.

[LuKahnLi]

cple

How many fights did you see of Langford's?

[cple]

One against Fireman Jim Flynn.

[LuKahnLi]

I know Langford was good. But if that is all you have seen of him. With just his wins on paper, he is an unknown commodity. There are tapes of Burley. We know what he did to Moore. I think we know more about him than Langford wouldn't you agree?

[cple]

I know Langford was good. But if that is all you have seen of him. With just his wins on paper, he is an unknown commodity. There are tapes of Burley. We know what he did to Moore. I think we know more about him than Langford wouldn't you agree?

Not necessarily. Is there really that much of an abundance of Burley fights? The few that do exist are hard to find and rarely show the full fight. Does a handful of highlights really help evaluation that much? Yes, it is helpful, but not that much. Even if we did have a lot of footage of these early century fighters, it really wouldn't be too accurate. Many of them have missing frames, so the speed is distorted. I think Burely is just as much an "unknown commodity" as Burley is.

However, i do think that one can adequately assess a fighter, or more specifically, his body of work with in-depth research. Learning more about their opponents and reading fight descriptions can give a lot of insight on a fighter. Footage is important in deciphering a fighter's style, but you can see his greatness or accomplishments on paper.

And by looking at Langford's resume, you can see that not many boxers in the history of the sport have accomplished as much as he has. Fighting lightweights to heavyweights, he beat every viable opponent: Joe Gans, Jack Blackburn, Joe Jeannette, Jim Flynn, Stanley Ketchel, Sam McVea, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Harry Wills, Kid Norfolk, Tiger Flowers, and list goes on. His body of work is simply astounding and possibly exceeds that of Greb and Robinson. And the fact that many of these fighters had a significant size advantage makes these accomplishments even more amazing.

[Mr. Ryan]

I used to think that Bronco McKart and Angel Manfredy were going to win titles, but apparently not. I would have to go with Ike Ibeabuchi, David Tua, and Tony Ayala, Jr. Benny Briscoe has to be up there.

[KJ]

Herol 'Bomber' Graham for sure.