Thad Spencer 'Uncrowned Heavyweight Champion'

[Rover]

Television Interview with Charles Liston's wife Geraldine.

Charles Liston's nickname was 'Sonny Boy' back in the Missouri State Penitentiary System
back between 1950 and 1952.

Actually Mr. Liston preferred 'Top Cat' later on.

I never realised how much Thad looks like Joan Guzman.....lovechild??

Another disappointing career (Guzman). Flamed out after the Soto fight (not another significant win--and I don't count that 9 pound overweight thing v. Funeka).

[Rover]

Really? You have some documentation on Sonny's preference? I wasn't aware, but you can bet if Sonny called me on it in his presence, I'd defer to his better judgment. lol

I have both a long and short version of my name. Buzz and Buzzard.

But I don't care much what people call me as long as they don't call me late for dinner.

....You may be right about the timing of Ali's name. I'm just chimin' in cuz I can.

Okay, I won't call you late for dinner, but can I at least call you late for lunch?
:)
I agree though about calling people what they tell you they want to be called.

[Ambling Alp II]

How about that Thad Spencer? Not only did he last until the 7th round vs Bill McMurray, he went the distance against the great Chuck Leslie.

[Ambling Alp II]

Seriously, you are now saying I am being picky? He lost these fights to less than stellar competition. It's worth mentioning.

You love to cherrypick wins for guys that Ali did not fight, ignore their setbacks,yet only criticize the guys that he did fight.

The truth is that there were a lot of good but not great fighters in the 1960s that were roughly even. Back then a promising fighting did not go 15-0 against 15 sacrificial lambs to start their careers.
A fighter often fought capable experienced fighters and other talented young fighters early in their careers. If they reached contender status, they would fight other (gasp) contenders and fighters just a level behind.
Naturally, you are going to have a lot of guys that have some decent wins but have several losses as well. A guy might be something like 31-7 with some good wins. You can spin it that hey were great or terrible; they were really somewhere in between.

Thad Spencer was a good fighter, and Lincoln and Johnson weren't bad. However, they were not good enough to say that they deserved a title shot. The champion can't fight everyone. If you are the # 1 contender for a while and don't get a shot, you have a legitimate beef. Otherwise you should not complain.

Ali fought the other two great heavyweights of the era (Liston and Patterson.) He fought more of the good heavyweights than one would reasonable expect.
All of his opponents had setbacks in their careers, but all had good results as well, that are conveniently overlooked.

[klompton]

And he got a shot to prove what he could do and failed. More than once actually.

[evrenb]

February 7, 1967

Cassius Clay has only 'mediocre opponents' in front of him.

The 25 year-old Champion, fresh off of his 'one-sided' 15-Round Decision over an awkward
and stumbling - 6' 6" Giant - Ernie Terrell, has announced his next Challengers.

* Zora Folley..................... A scientific but aged 34 year-old veteran who has managed to move up to the #2 Ranking.
* George Chuvalo.............. The tough but limited Canadian strong-man who now ranks as the #9 Heavyweight
* Floyd Patterson............... A rematch in the 'Horror of Horrors', with the now #6 Ranked former two-time Champion.

The best on the Challenging List is the young and #1 Rated - Thad Spencer, but the Champion has not mentioned
the West-Coast Heavyweight in his potential list of Challengers.

Local Reporter, Dan Evans stated that the young and boastful Champion likes his opponents
to be 'old, slow or inept', which will guarantee a certified win'.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... zxJGGtTtCg

Are you seriously suggesting spencer had the beating of Ali.? You make great arguments Il Duce, you are erudite and your research is great....but what is your point? ; that Ali was yellow? That Spencer could beat Ali? You are making a case for discrediting the greatest Heavyweight of all time..? Unfortunately Fraziers resume doesnt match up to Ali's....he won their 1st match against a clearly unready Ali (close) but was soundly defeated in two subsequent matches....Ali Also beat Foreman who destroyed Frazier....Dont get me wrong Frazier was my man....my top three favourite but your educated arguments are hollow as no one cares or takes seriously what you say...as I said before ; you are a comedian.

[klompton]

This is a joke right?

[Rover]

This is a joke right?

Don't think so.

[p4p1]

This is a joke right?

Don't think so.

It isn't

[evrenb]

Mr. Evren B,

To be fair, Thad 'Babe' Spencer did call out Joe Frazer in mid-1967, only to be turned down....

Based upon performances against Ernie Terrell,

I think {know} that Thad Spencer would have given Muhammad Ali his toughest bout
in 1966 or 1967.

I did 'not' say win, or that Muhammad Ali was 'yellow', as the Champion was talented, but smart and calculating.

Hi

Aside from Brian Harper I would consider all of Ali's challengers of 66 and 67 decent and of equal standard of Spencer. I do not wish to put down Spencer at all - he along with others were probably worthy. I do not think for a minute Ali avoided him with the thought that he was unable to beat him..
I know Ali (late on) perhaps avoided Norton but history shows he faced 'all comers'

evren b

[evrenb]

Personally,

Muhammad Ali should have been 'stripped' of the Heavyweight Championship for accepting
Brian London as a Challenger.

Brian was not even a Top 20 Heavyweight, and was considered a 'joke' to 99% of the boxing fans.

A 'boxing exhibition' is one thing, but a World Heavyweight Championship, c'mon. Sparring partner
Dave Bailey gave Muhammad a better tangle in the Ring.

Imagine in Sonny Liston said 'no' to a young Cassius Clay, and skipped over the 'Louisville Lip'
for the 32 year-old "Blackpool Rock".

Although Brian Harper beat Billy Walker who beat Thad Spencer?

[BoxBuzz]

That sir, is an "inconvenient truth".

[evrenb]

That sir, is an "inconvenient truth".

Lol....Thing is Billy Walker was nearer to his prime when he lost to London compared to the end of his career when he beat and stopped Thad...styles make fights though I guess

[evrenb]

That sir, is an "inconvenient truth".

Lol....Thing is Billy Walker was nearer to his prime when he lost to London compared to the end of his career when he beat and stopped Thad...styles make fights though I guess

Thad Spencer was done in 1968, especially after the absolutely 'brutal' fight with Leotis Martin.....

As was Billy Walker after two tough losses to Karl Mildenberger and Ourrr ennnnerey !!!!!!!! - As I said before you can make excuses all day long....

As i said before I respect Thad as a fighter...I am not denigrating his professional legacy...I recently inquired as to the fight with Leotis Martin with the BBC but they confirmed to me it doesnt exist...tho others inc 'Babe' do....

[Ambling Alp II]

Had there been an IBF or WBO Organization in 1967,

Thad Spenccer would have won a version of the Heavyweight Championship, then lost
it in his 'first defense' to Jerry Quarry.

No organization worth their weight-in-salt would have 'sanctioned' Cassius Clay
* vs. George Chuvalo
* vs. Brian London
* vs. Henry Cooper
* vs. Cleveland Williams

Obviously sheer speculation that those organizations would have given Spencer a shot at their prestigious titles, let alone a guarantee that he would have beaten the other fighter.
Spencer lost a fight in 1963 to the great Chuck Leslie (Leslie's 9th career fight) lost to the legendary Amos Lincoln in 1964 and 1965, and lost the phenomenal Bill McMurray in 1966. Of course there has to be a great excuse for these losses, but still...

Chuvalo, London, and Williams were all in the Top 10, and Cooper probably should have been. Doubtful any organization would have refused a sanctioning fee for these fights.

There many roughly even fighters at this time and Ali fought these four as well as Karl Mildenberger that year. All 5 of these title defenses were on the the challenger's home turf. Too bad Ali was not a fighting champion.

[Rover]

Fighting Champion,

Against lower-tier white European guys, and one wounded old 'Cat'.

Activity does not equal Greatness.

Activity equals exposure.

Why bring up race?

[bennie]

Duce is losing the plot. Ali in the 1960s was clearly better than any other heavyweight (including Frazier) and would clearly have picked off the capable but hardly amazing Thad Spencer.

[evrenb]

Thad Spencer 'Battering' Brian London

Thad Spencer battered the veteran Englishman unmercifully through the first
6-Rounds, opening cuts over both eyes, and staggering him several times.

Spencer then backed off a bit, as to not hurt his battered opponent, and then
cruised to a fully dominating 'one-sided' 10 Round Decision.

The 'battering' took everything out of the 32 year-old 'Blackpool Rock', so much
that the British Boxing Press said that Brian should retire.

Evan Patrick, "Whatever boxing life Brian London had left in his 32 year-old body was
pounded out of his body by the American - Thad Spencer. Brian should retire, he has nothing
left to give. I only gave Brian '1-Round' in the fight, and the kid took it easy on him
in the last four-rounds as to not hurt him."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ykAPef0Q_g

Please explain how Brian London 'truly deserved' a Championship Bout 5-Months later.......????

He didnt did he really....Ali was in the Uk and easy match to make...he did beat Amos johnson in between and had some good wins previous but granted Spencer should have had the pick above London....I do not feel Ali avoided Spencer though....what is your point that Ali avoided Spencer????

[Ambling Alp II]

Fighting Champion,

Against lower-tier white European guys, and one wounded old 'Cat'.

Activity does not equal Greatness.

Activity equals exposure.

They weren't lower-tier white European guys.

First Chuvalo was from Canada. He had beaten Doug Jones when that still meant something, was in the Fight of the Year vs Patterson who was better than anyone we are talking about except for Ali himself. He later beat Quarry.

Mildenberger beat Machen,Erksine,later even stopped an Amos. Had a draw with Folley.

Cooper beat Folley, Mildenberger, and London. Well past his best, lost a controversial decision to Bugner who gave Frazier a tough fight.

Williams won his last four fights since being shot. He looked good enough in those fights to be the #3 contender by Ring Magazine. He won his next 5 after losing to Ali. 5 years after losing to Ali, he beat Ted Gullick, who for some reason you think was good.

London was the worst of the bunch, no doubt about it. However, even he had some decent results. He beat Erksine, lasted until the 11th round vs Patterson, and beat Billy Walker, who beat Spencer.

You love to spin things the way that works against a guy you don't like, here is a positive spin of them. There are certainly some negatives, but there also negatives regarding Thad Spencer or anyone else.

Go ahead make your customary excuses. I know how you hate it when those pesky facts get in the way of your cute little stories.

If beating 5 contenders on their home turf in the same year was so easy that many others would have done it.

To state these fights should be sanctioned as title fights is ridiculous.

[Ambling Alp II]

Lets say Ali would have defended the tile against Amos Johnson, Spencer, and Corletti instead? Then what would people have said?

Amos Johnson got ko'd by Chip Johnson.
Spencer lost to Bill McMurray. (Among others.)
Corletti lost to Ray Patterson. (And had several draws.)

Then it would have been that he should have fought Chip Johnson, McMurray, and Ray Patterson.
And of course those guys lost fights as well.

The fact is that no one stood out. There were several fighters that could have got title shots. Most of the guys in the top 10 were roughly even. They all had their positives and negatives. There were of course several other fighters that were capable on a given day of beating many of these guys.

Most champions would have fought a couple of these guys and it would not have been given a second thought. Ali went well beyond that. He gave 5 of them a shot. All of them were on the other guys turf; Cooper and London in England, Mildenberger in Germany, Chuvalo in Toronto and Williams in his hometown of Houston.

[Dart340]

I'm having a hard time understanding how this thread not only reached three pages, but also why the main thesis of Duce's argument is getting everybody so worked up.

From what I can discern, Duce is saying that for a brief period during Ali's first reign that Thad Spencer, known to be a talented and stylistic fighter who could be difficult to look good against, was a somewhat better prospective challenger than Brian London, Chuvalo or Mildenburger. He also believes that Ali's braintrust would rather have had him defend against fighters that would either be easier or that he would look better against for the same money. This is not exactly an earth shattering claim, guys, and not exactly worth getting all worked up over.

Here's the correct reaction to this belief;

"Eh, probably so."

There you go.

[Ambling Alp II]

If that was all he said, I don's think people would make much of it.
However, he also said some total BS things:

Look at the title of the thread: Thad Spencer"The Uncrowned Champion". Please.

Chuvalo, London,Cooper, and Williams fights should not have been sanctioned.

Chuvalo,London, Cooper, and Mildenberger were lower-tier white Eurpopeans.

Ali should have been stripped of his title for fighting Brian London.

[klompton]

The title of the thread "Thad Spencer 'Uncrowned Heavyweight Champion'" implies that Thad Spencer somehow SHOULD have gotten a shot at Liston, Ali, Ellis, or Frazier and that he would have beaten one of those had they not all ducked him.

Your math doesnt work though. Your entire argument seems built around the fact that in May 1966 Spencer beat London (who you say was so bad) yet in August 1966 it was London who got a fight with Ali. You act as if that fight should have gone to Spencer. This completely ignores that fact that the London fight was a gimme fight for a guy who between November 1965 and November 1966 was fighting an average of 2 times a month against 6 opponents. You are completely ignoring the fact that during this period Spencer lost twice to the highly rated duo of Bill McMurray and Amos Lincoln. So Im curious, since Spencer was the uncrowned champion does that mean that McMurray or Lincoln was too since they beat the champion? I realize that stoppages on cuts are meaningless to you but in the rest of the world they count as losses...

[klompton]

Oh, Im sorry I didnt ignore Spencer's loss to McMurrary and arbitrarily dub him the uncrowned champion. Can you sense my sarcasm? A loss is a loss. Losses count, regardless of whether or not a guy was winning at the time of the loss. Spencer, on his best day, never saw the day he was could beat Ali much less be called an uncrowned champion. Im not even sure he could have beaten some of the guys Ali was fighting THAT YEAR. In fact, of the five losses Ali has on his record, all of which came after Spencer was completely washed up, I wouldnt pick him against any of them with the possible exception of Spinks which isnt saying a lot.

[klompton]

Ernie was also a lot more competetive with Thad than he was with Ali. This sport doesnt just boil down to who hits harder (which is debateable here anyway).

Thad Spencer went 10 and 6 with Billy Daniels (both decisions and getting knocked down in the process). Each time they fought Williams was nothing. Ali stopped Daniels when he was undefeated (of course cut stoppages dont count to you).

Spencer went 10 with London. Ali knocked him out easily in 3.

Spencer was dominated and knocked out in 12 by Quarry. Ali Stopped Quarry in 3 and 7.

Spencer was stopped in 1 by Mac Foster. Ali won a lopsided decision over Foster.

See how that little game works?

No, I dont think Spencer had a chance to beat Ali in 1966 or 1967. I dont think 99.9 percent of the people in the world then or now would think he did either.

Furthermore, simply having "a chance" to beat a guy does not equate with being called an uncrowned champion.

Like I said, this thread is a joke.