World boxing history challenge Week 3 - Emile Griffith vs Nino Benvenuti

[Kalan]

Griffith told me he's a 3 weight champ. He wouldn't lie... I liked his wins over Dick Tiger... This match-up excited EG because Tiger beat Fullmer twice -- and Fullmer beat Robinson twice.. "I wanted to beat Tiger twice.. Silly I know."

[davie]

Griffith told me he's a 3 weight champ. He wouldn't lie... I liked his wins over Dick Tiger... This match-up excited EG because Tiger beat Fullmer twice -- and Fullmer beat Robinson twice.. "I wanted to beat Tiger twice.. Silly I know."

That's strange, because last time he was round at mine for afternoon tea, he never mentioned it...

[PredatorHayds]

Griffith told me he's a 3 weight champ. He wouldn't lie... I liked his wins over Dick Tiger... This match-up excited EG because Tiger beat Fullmer twice -- and Fullmer beat Robinson twice.. "I wanted to beat Tiger twice.. Silly I know."

That's strange, because last time he was round at mine for afternoon tea, he never mentioned it...

This guys on my ignore list but seeing he reckons he's had conversations with EG made me

[Ambling Alp II]

Boxrec has Denny Moyer winning the WBA title on October 20 1962, and being the first WBA as being the Champ at 154.

I checked three record books: The Encyclopedia of Boxing, The Illustrated History of Boxing, and Boxing Illustrated. All say the same thing. None mention of Griffith ever being the WBA Champion..

According to boxrec Griffth was regarded by the Austrian Board of control (whatever that is) as being the champion at 154. The Ring record book lists him as being the champ at 154 by the EBU, but not by the WBA. Those are not major governing bodies.

Griffith was never a WBA champ or the lineal world champion at 154.

The Encyclopedia of World Boxing circa, 1995, had Emile Griffith as the first world champion of the 154lbs division. He indeed was a triple crown division champion.

It actually says that he was the WBA Super-welterweight champion?

[elmersalsa]

The WBA was before the WBC. It's the original championship. So, yes! Emile Griffith was a triple crown division champion. He wasn't super welterweight champion for a long time, but, he defended the crown just once.

[Ambling Alp II]

That's not what I asked. Did it actually list Emile Griffith as the WBA champion at 154? Yes or no?

[elmersalsa]

After his rubber match with Benny "Kid" Paret, the great Emile Griffith was pulling punches. He wasn't as aggressive after that fight. He only had 25 KOs out of his 85 wins. It destroyed him psychologically. He had death threats from Paret's fans and some of them spit on him.

Ironically, Paret and Griffith were from the same New York City street block. They knew each other before their 3 fights. To me, Griffith was the better fighter. I didn't see him lose to Paret in the second fight. That was a draw in my view at least. There was nothing that indicated me in the second fight that Paret won convincingly. Paret's son forgave him years later after that horrible rubber match.

Ironically, it was American referee Rubin Goldstein last fight as a referee and the last fight on free tv in the United States until the 1970s. Many conscious groups wanted to abolish the sport because of that tragic ending. It was the first tragic ending in a boxing match seen live on American tv. Twenty years later, WBA World lightweight champion Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini stopped challenger Duk Koo Kim in 14. That fight happened the day after the first Aaron Pryor vs Alexis Arguello classic. Kim also died. It changed Boom Boom's life forever. The fight was also broadcast live on national television. That is why WBC President Jose Sulaiman dropped championship bouts from 15 to 12 rounds. Which was bogus in my view. No matter how many rounds you fight, either less or more, a man can die in a boxing ring. Title fights should be 15 rounds again.

[elmersalsa]

That's not what I asked. Did it actually list Emile Griffith as the WBA champion at 154? Yes or no?

Yes he was. The World title was originally the World Boxing Association. Then, in 1963, the World Boxing Council was created/founded.

[Ambling Alp II]

The book doesn't actually specifically say WBA champion, as you kept claiming earlier does it?
It may list Griffith as a champion at 154. That doesn't mean he was actually considered a real world champion at that weight. Denny Moyer won the WBA title just three days later. Moyer was the champion, not Griffith.

Lee Savold was regarded as the world heavyweight champion by the British Board of Control shortly after Joe Louis retired with the title. Everyone ignores that.
It's the same thing with Griffith and the Austrian Board of Control and the EBU. Or someone today who is the WBF champion.

Of course you want to count the title for Griffith simply because you like Griffith.

[elmersalsa]

The book doesn't actually specifically say WBA champion, as you kept claiming earlier does it?
It may list Griffith as a champion at 154. That doesn't mean he was actually considered a real world champion at that weight. Denny Moyer won the WBA title just three days later. Moyer was the champion, not Griffith.

Lee Savold was regarded as the world heavyweight champion by the British Board of Control shortly after Joe Louis retired with the title. Everyone ignores that.
It's the same thing with Griffith and the Austrian Board of Control and the EBU. Or someone today who is the WBF champion.

Of course you want to count the title for Griffith simply because you like Griffith.

Not because I liked Griffith I say that he was a triple crown division champion. He EARNED IT. Just like Larry Holmes changed his status as the IBF World Heavyweight Champion in 1984 when he abandoned the WBC belt. Or when Tommy Hearns became the WBO Super Middleweight Champion when he defeated James Kinchen in 1988. I valued the title reigns. They earned it. Even though I don't consider the WBO as a true boxing association, I recognized Tommy as champion in 5 weight classes.

[Ambling Alp II]

Interesting that you have backed off your claim that Griffith was the WBA titleholder at 154. Now apparently you have moved on to any title will do.

You have to use commonsense. Often these "titles" are just something to promote a fight. Griffith wasn't considered the Super-welterweight champion. This isn't a gray area where you have to decide if a WBO title holder was really the champ or not. This is the Austrian Boxing Board of control. Can you name other Austrian Boxing Board of Control champions? Have you even heard of this before?

Peter Maher was awarded the heavyweight title after beating Steve O'Donnell. Do you count Peter Maher as a heavyweight champion?
Andy Ganigan won the World Athletic Association tile after beating Sean O'Grady. Do you consider Andy Ganigan a lightweight champion?

If call myself the RCBA (Really Cool Boxing Association) light heavyweight champion, does that make me a world champion?

Please answer the questions. Don't go off on some tangent.

[elmersalsa]

Interesting that you have backed off your claim that Griffith was the WBA titleholder at 154. Now apparently you have moved on to any title will do.

You have to use commonsense. Often these "titles" are just something to promote a fight. Griffith wasn't considered the Super-welterweight champion. This isn't a gray area where you have to decide if a WBO title holder was really the champ or not. This is the Austrian Boxing Board of control. Can you name other Austrian Boxing Board of Control champions? Have you even heard of this before?

Peter Maher was awarded the heavyweight title after beating Steve O'Donnell. Do you count Peter Maher as a heavyweight champion?
Andy Ganigan won the World Athletic Association tile after beating Sean O'Grady. Do you consider Andy Ganigan a lightweight champion?

If call myself the RCBA (Really Cool Boxing Association) light heavyweight champion, does that make me a world champion?

Please answer the questions. Don't go off on some tangent.

The great Emile Griffith was indeed a triple crown division champion. That is enough for me. Whether it was WBC, WBA, WBO, EBU or WTF, he was the first champion of the world in the 154lb division history. That is all that matters.

[davie]

Interesting that you have backed off your claim that Griffith was the WBA titleholder at 154. Now apparently you have moved on to any title will do.

You have to use commonsense. Often these "titles" are just something to promote a fight. Griffith wasn't considered the Super-welterweight champion. This isn't a gray area where you have to decide if a WBO title holder was really the champ or not. This is the Austrian Boxing Board of control. Can you name other Austrian Boxing Board of Control champions? Have you even heard of this before?

Peter Maher was awarded the heavyweight title after beating Steve O'Donnell. Do you count Peter Maher as a heavyweight champion?
Andy Ganigan won the World Athletic Association tile after beating Sean O'Grady. Do you consider Andy Ganigan a lightweight champion?

If call myself the RCBA (Really Cool Boxing Association) light heavyweight champion, does that make me a world champion?

Please answer the questions. Don't go off on some tangent.

The great Emile Griffith was indeed a triple crown division champion. That is enough for me. Whether it was WBC, WBA, WBO, EBU or WTF, he was the first champion of the world in the 154lb division history. That is all that matters.

Was there another 154lb chamion at the time he won it?
No?
So he was the undisputed champion!

Was there a better fighter at 154lbs at that time?
No?
So he was the best super welterweight on the planet!

Had there been a fighter to win a SWW title before him?
No?
So not only was he lineal champion, he started the lineage!

That'll do for me

If we can call Jermell Charlo SWW champion because he lifted a vacant version of one of 4 'major' title against John Jackson, then Emile gets my vote

[Ambling Alp II]

You have got to be kidding. OK then. I decree myself the RCBA (Really Cool Boxing Association) light heavyweight champion. That means that I am the light heavyweight champion of the world.

[elmersalsa]

Interesting that you have backed off your claim that Griffith was the WBA titleholder at 154. Now apparently you have moved on to any title will do.

You have to use commonsense. Often these "titles" are just something to promote a fight. Griffith wasn't considered the Super-welterweight champion. This isn't a gray area where you have to decide if a WBO title holder was really the champ or not. This is the Austrian Boxing Board of control. Can you name other Austrian Boxing Board of Control champions? Have you even heard of this before?

Peter Maher was awarded the heavyweight title after beating Steve O'Donnell. Do you count Peter Maher as a heavyweight champion?
Andy Ganigan won the World Athletic Association tile after beating Sean O'Grady. Do you consider Andy Ganigan a lightweight champion?

If call myself the RCBA (Really Cool Boxing Association) light heavyweight champion, does that make me a world champion?

Please answer the questions. Don't go off on some tangent.

To your questions above:

Peter Maher beating Steve O'Donnell does not make him a world champion. His title wasn't a linear title. And it was also discontinued. It didn't have no value. It would have a Value if the champ was the great Jack Johnson or Jess Willard or Jack Dempsey or any great boxing champion of the times. Sometimes the champion is valued as champion no matter the organization because the organization felt at the time that he was the real deal. He had a REPUTATION by beating the most boxers. Example: The great Larry Holmes. He switched to the IBF from the WBC. Everyone knew at the time that Larry was the man of the division. No matter what bogus organization would have recognized him as champion. This ain't nothing new. For years it had been like that. Smokin' Joe was recognized as the world champion NY state version. Nobody dishonored that claim. He later earned the recognition of the real world champion when he beat The Greatest in FOTC.

Andy Ganigan in a way was a world champion. He at least can claim that he was the lineal lightweight champion when he beat Sean O'Grady. He wasn't recognized as the champion by no organization, but he beat the man that beat the man. The great Alexis Arguello took care of that when he brutally KO'd Ganigan and became the lineal champion.

In Griffith's case, the boxing organizations were creating a new weight class. Well, Griffith became the champion by default in '62. Somebody needed to add color to the class. That is how organizations work. They got to attract the paying customer the best way possible. And he was awarded as the ORIGINAL CHAMPION of the 154lbs. What version? The WBA and World version of Austria recognized him. Nothing new there. It happens many times. He defended once and relinquished it.

If you had a great reputation as a great boxer that won titles and beat good opposition, you are the man even if the title is RCBA, Ambling Alp. Ask The Hitman. Sometimes the fighters make the titles valid. Sometimes the organization does that. It's really for the people to decide that.

[Ambling Alp II]

1. O'Grady was never the lineal Champion, so Ganigan can't be. The question is whether winning the WAA title makes you a world champion?

2. Griffith's title had no more value than Maher. He beat Tod Wright. That has no more value than beating Steve "O'Donnell.

3. The WBA did not recognize Griffith as the champion at 154. Stop saying that. That is false. Moyer won the WBA title three days after Grffith-Wright fight.

4. It's not the man, it's the validity of the title. Just because Griffith was involved doesn't make it a title fight. Nobody considered Griffith the champion at 154. If they would have, then it would be constantly mentioned. It's not.[/b] Have you read the book "In This Corner"? Different champions can talk about whatever they want. They weren't asked questions. Griffith mentioned fights against Rodriquez, Paret, Tiger, Benvenuti. He never even mentioned Tod Wright or being the champion at 154.

You are grasping at straws again elmer. Just trying to prop up a guy that you like again. He had great enough of a career without you making it to be something it was not.
So I assume you consider Lee Savold is a world heavyweight champion? The British Board of Control rules that he was.
How about Arthur Pelkey, great White Hope Champion?
All the colored heavyweight champions?


Promoters and organizations come up with BS titles to hook in fans. They have been doing this for over 100 years. Doesn't mean someone is a champion iof they awarded a title. They are titleholders. There is a huge difference.
You don't really understand that you diminish the importance of being a champion if you consider everyone who some sort of lame title to be one.

[elmersalsa]

1. O'Grady was never the lineal Champion, so Ganigan can't be. The question is whether winning the WAA title makes you a world champion?

2. Griffith's title had no more value than Maher. He beat Tod Wright. That has no more value than beating Steve "O'Donnell.

3. The WBA did not recognize Griffith as the champion at 154. Stop saying that. That is false. Moyer won the WBA title three days after Grffith-Wright fight.

4. It's not the man, it's the validity of the title. Just because Griffith was involved doesn't make it a title fight. Nobody considered Griffith the champion at 154. If they would have, then it would be constantly mentioned. It's not.[/b] Have you read the book "In This Corner"? Different champions can talk about whatever they want. They weren't asked questions. Griffith mentioned fights against Rodriquez, Paret, Tiger, Benvenuti. He never even mentioned Tod Wright or being the champion at 154.

You are grasping at straws again elmer. Just trying to prop up a guy that you like again. He had great enough of a career without you making it to be something it was not.
So I assume you consider Lee Savold is a world heavyweight champion? The British Board of Control rules that he was.
How about Arthur Pelkey, great White Hope Champion?
All the colored heavyweight champions?


Promoters and organizations come up with BS titles to hook in fans. They have been doing this for over 100 years. Doesn't mean someone is a champion iof they awarded a title. They are titleholders. There is a huge difference.
You don't really understand that you diminish the importance of being a champion if you consider everyone who some sort of lame title to be one.

1. It doesn't necessarily makes you the world champion. But, Andy Ganigan beat the man that beat the man. Like I said before, the great Alexis Arguello took care of that confusion when he destroyed Ganigan. So, Arguello became the lineal lightweight champion. It's just like Shannon Briggs beat Big George in '98. I don't see Briggs as a champion of no major organization (WBA, WBC nor IBF), but, he beat the man that beat the man. Lennox Lewis then beat Briggs. Then, Hasim Rahman beat Lewis. Then Lewis beat him in the rematch.

2. You maybe right on that. Beating Teddy Wright doesn't make it better nor more valuable than Jeff Maier beating Steve O'Donnell. But, Griffith is more valuable than Maier. He was more established as a champion. The Austrian Board of Control needed a BIG NAME to inaugurate the new champion of a new class. Whether he was a paper champion or not, he was recognized as world champion of the class. The first champion of the division.

3. The WBA is the original title in all divisions. As a matter of fact, THERE IT IS, ALP! THE ORGANIZATION PREFERRED GRIFFITH OVER Denny Moyer. Ain't Griffith won the trilogy between them? And YOU'RE RIGHT about Denny Moyer was champion 3 days later. The bottom line was that Griffith was THE ORIGINAL CHAMPION OF THE DIVISION.

4. Sometimes the champion makes the title. Sometimes the organization makes the champion. Just like The Ring Championship Belt. The Ring recognizes the real champion by awarding the Ring Belt. Some people go for it, some don't. But, I guess the majority goes by what The Ring says. I do. You're right. Emile Griffith was a great fighter. To add him another title it doesn't enhanced nor diminish his greatness. If someone says that he was only a two division titlist, fine. If someone says he was a triple crown division champion, be it, too. I believe the latter. Why? Because it happened. They recognized it. And he confirmed it by winning the fight against Teddy Wright.

[elmersalsa]

1. O'Grady was never the lineal Champion, so Ganigan can't be. The question is whether winning the WAA title makes you a world champion?

2. Griffith's title had no more value than Maher. He beat Tod Wright. That has no more value than beating Steve "O'Donnell.

3. The WBA did not recognize Griffith as the champion at 154. Stop saying that. That is false. Moyer won the WBA title three days after Grffith-Wright fight.

4. It's not the man, it's the validity of the title. Just because Griffith was involved doesn't make it a title fight. Nobody considered Griffith the champion at 154. If they would have, then it would be constantly mentioned. It's not.[/b] Have you read the book "In This Corner"? Different champions can talk about whatever they want. They weren't asked questions. Griffith mentioned fights against Rodriquez, Paret, Tiger, Benvenuti. He never even mentioned Tod Wright or being the champion at 154.

You are grasping at straws again elmer. Just trying to prop up a guy that you like again. He had great enough of a career without you making it to be something it was not.
So I assume you consider Lee Savold is a world heavyweight champion? The British Board of Control rules that he was.
How about Arthur Pelkey, great White Hope Champion?
All the colored heavyweight champions?


Promoters and organizations come up with BS titles to hook in fans. They have been doing this for over 100 years. Doesn't mean someone is a champion iof they awarded a title. They are titleholders. There is a huge difference.
You don't really understand that you diminish the importance of being a champion if you consider everyone who some sort of lame title to be one.

I could see your point, Ambling Alp. Some guys are champions by default. Some because an organization started it off. And some because they were real champions. This is not something that happened now. It's been going on for years. As one time, there was the EBU (European Boxing Union) recognizing some fighters as champions. An example was Johnny Caldwell when he faced the great Eder Jofre for the Undisputed World Bantamweight Championship in 1962. Jofre thrashed him and took away the confusion of who was the real champion of the bantamweights.

But, today, it's kind of hard to tell who is the real champion since we got 4 per division and about 4 more alphabet titles. I ONLY RECOGNIZE 3 CHAMPIONSHIP BELTS: WBC, WBA AND IBF. The rest of them, were never champions in my view. It's been ridiculous to say the least in the past 20 years. Boxing needs some reforms. Badly!

[Ambling Alp II]

1. O'Grady was never the lineal Champion, so Ganigan can't be. The question is whether winning the WAA title makes you a world champion?

2. Griffith's title had no more value than Maher. He beat Tod Wright. That has no more value than beating Steve "O'Donnell.

3. The WBA did not recognize Griffith as the champion at 154. Stop saying that. That is false. Moyer won the WBA title three days after Grffith-Wright fight.

4. It's not the man, it's the validity of the title. Just because Griffith was involved doesn't make it a title fight. Nobody considered Griffith the champion at 154. If they would have, then it would be constantly mentioned. It's not.[/b] Have you read the book "In This Corner"? Different champions can talk about whatever they want. They weren't asked questions. Griffith mentioned fights against Rodriquez, Paret, Tiger, Benvenuti. He never even mentioned Tod Wright or being the champion at 154.

You are grasping at straws again elmer. Just trying to prop up a guy that you like again. He had great enough of a career without you making it to be something it was not.
So I assume you consider Lee Savold is a world heavyweight champion? The British Board of Control rules that he was.
How about Arthur Pelkey, great White Hope Champion?
All the colored heavyweight champions?


Promoters and organizations come up with BS titles to hook in fans. They have been doing this for over 100 years. Doesn't mean someone is a champion iof they awarded a title. They are titleholders. There is a huge difference.
You don't really understand that you diminish the importance of being a champion if you consider everyone who some sort of lame title to be one.

1. It doesn't necessarily makes you the world champion. But, Andy Ganigan beat the man that beat the man. Like I said before, the great Alexis Arguello took care of that confusion when he destroyed Ganigan. So, Arguello became the lineal lightweight champion. It's just like Shannon Briggs beat Big George in '98. I don't see Briggs as a champion of no major organization (WBA, WBC nor IBF), but, he beat the man that beat the man. Lennox Lewis then beat Briggs. Then, Hasim Rahman beat Lewis. Then Lewis beat him in the rematch.

2. You maybe right on that. Beating Teddy Wright doesn't make it better nor more valuable than Jeff Maier beating Steve O'Donnell. But, Griffith is more valuable than Maier. He was more established as a champion. The Austrian Board of Control needed a BIG NAME to inaugurate the new champion of a new class. Whether he was a paper champion or not, he was recognized as world champion of the class. The first champion of the division.

3. The WBA is the original title in all divisions. As a matter of fact, THERE IT IS, ALP! THE ORGANIZATION PREFERRED GRIFFITH OVER Denny Moyer. Ain't Griffith won the trilogy between them? And YOU'RE RIGHT about Denny Moyer was champion 3 days later. The bottom line was that Griffith was THE ORIGINAL CHAMPION OF THE DIVISION.

4. Sometimes the champion makes the title. Sometimes the organization makes the champion. Just like The Ring Championship Belt. The Ring recognizes the real champion by awarding the Ring Belt. Some people go for it, some don't. But, I guess the majority goes by what The Ring says. I do. You're right. Emile Griffith was a great fighter. To add him another title it doesn't enhanced nor diminish his greatness. If someone says that he was only a two division titlist, fine. If someone says he was a triple crown division champion, be it, too. I believe the latter. Why? Because it happened. They recognized it. And he confirmed it by winning the fight against Teddy Wright.

1. Andy Ganigan did not beat the man. He beat Sean O'Grady, who was never the lineal champion. He was the WAA champion at the time Ganigan beat him. So we are back to the question that you keep ducking; does winning the WAA make you a world champion. I say only a fool would bleieve that.
2. It doesn't matter if Griffith was a bigger name. Being a bigger name doesn't make you champion. The only reason this was hyped as a title fight was lure in suckers to pay for this fight who fall for this crap.
3. The WBA was not the orginal of all divisions. It's poredecessor, the National Boxing Association was around 40 years before that. The IBU was around before that. The NYSAC and other organizations were also around before the WBA.
Do you really not get this? The WBA didn't recognize Griffith as their champion. You can keep saying that, but it;s not true. They did call Griffith the champion and trhen three days later call Moyer the champion. I can't believe you can't understand this.
4. The champion doesn't make the title. Period.

elmer, what in the world is your problem? You are ignoring basic facts. You also aren't being consistent at all.