Most losses for a boxer winning the world title?

[keithmoonhangover]

Who had the most losses when they won the world title?'

Freddie Pendleton had 17 losses when he beat Tracy Spann.

Any more?

[tiny_acres]

James Braddock 25 losses before he won the belt

[keithmoonhangover]

James Braddock 25 losses before he won the belt

Great call. Can anyone raise the bar?

[Kalan]

On March 6, 1918 Jack Britton had 33 losses when he won the World Welterweight Title from Ted "Kid" Lewis.

They traded the Welterweight Title back and forth a few times and were closely matched... They fought each other 20 times in 100's of fights.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

How about Freddie Cochrane.

[Ossyrules]

Jonny Nelson lost a load before winning even a fight. Went on to have a share of the cruiserweight titles

[Counter-puncher]

kelvin Seabrooks?

[scartissue]

Legitimate losses and not some reporter saying someone lost, thus a newspaper decision, brings Jack Britton's losses down to 7 when he beat Mike O'Dowd for the title. Also, it brings Jimmy Braddock's log to 23 losses when he beat Max Baer. But Fritzie Zivic had 24 legitimate losses when he beat Armstrong for the crown.

[Kalan]

I would argue that newspaper decisions are often more honest and accurate than paid off judges. Those judges often get their assignments (referees as well) based on their history -- and who the promoters believe they'll favor in the fight.. Everybody has biases, but not everyone's paychecks are dependent on the consistency of boxing promotions and main event headliners doing well.

[Tomasino]

I would argue that newspaper decisions are often more honest and accurate than paid off judges. Those judges often get their assignments (referees as well) based on their history -- and who the promoters believe they'll favor in the fight.. Everybody has biases, but not everyone's paychecks are dependent on the consistency of boxing promotions and main event headliners doing well.

Get with the programme and name a fûcking boxer you boring little bastard

[Tomasino]

Archie Moore - 20 losses

[gilgamesh]

Tony Zale has 14 losses prior to winning the NBA Middleweight Title. Another one, making it 15 before he picked up the World Title, and the NYSAC Championship.

In the current era Orlando Salido had 10 losses before he ever won his first World Title.

[Kalan]

I would argue that newspaper decisions are often more honest and accurate than paid off judges. Those judges often get their assignments (referees as well) based on their history -- and who the promoters believe they'll favor in the fight.. Everybody has biases, but not everyone's paychecks are dependent on the consistency of boxing promotions and main event headliners doing well.

Get with the programme and name a fûcking boxer you boring little bastard

I named one with 33 losses listed, when he won the World Welterweight Title -- you ignorant little piece of turd.

[scartissue]

I would argue that newspaper decisions are often more honest and accurate than paid off judges. Those judges often get their assignments (referees as well) based on their history -- and who the promoters believe they'll favor in the fight.. Everybody has biases, but not everyone's paychecks are dependent on the consistency of boxing promotions and main event headliners doing well.

Kalan, I would disagree with you on newspaper decisions being honest. When a decision was not rendered and bets were paid off by the newspaper decision, it opened a can of worms for the gamblers. And they met that problem by paying off the reporters. It was well known that many sports writers were on the take in order to ensure a favorable decision. They could not be held accountable like an official could, because it was stated that it was just their opinion. A good case in point is the Harry Greb - Lou Bogash fight. Check it out on boxrec. Two completely different newspaper accounts. I'll give you another one. The Vicente Saldivar - Ismael Laguna fight. Again, check it out on boxrec. The UPI had Saldivar a very close winner (5-4-1). The LA Times states that Laguna was robbed blind. Unlike the Greb-Bogash fight, film exists on Saldivar-Laguna and I watched the fight and scored it. I had Laguna the winner 5-4-1. So in my opinion, no robbery. A very close fight that could have gone either way. This is why reporters are not the best judges. No accountability and easy to bribe.

[Tomasino]

I would argue that newspaper decisions are often more honest and accurate than paid off judges. Those judges often get their assignments (referees as well) based on their history -- and who the promoters believe they'll favor in the fight.. Everybody has biases, but not everyone's paychecks are dependent on the consistency of boxing promotions and main event headliners doing well.

Get with the programme and name a fûcking boxer you boring little bastard

I named one with 33 losses listed, when he won the World Welterweight Title -- you ignorant little piece of poop.

Like most posters, I have you on ignore so didnt notice your meagre contribution.

[Kalan]

FO creep

[Kalan]

I would argue that newspaper decisions are often more honest and accurate than paid off judges. Those judges often get their assignments (referees as well) based on their history -- and who the promoters believe they'll favor in the fight.. Everybody has biases, but not everyone's paychecks are dependent on the consistency of boxing promotions and main event headliners doing well.

Kalan, I would disagree with you on newspaper decisions being honest. When a decision was not rendered and bets were paid off by the newspaper decision, it opened a can of worms for the gamblers. And they met that problem by paying off the reporters. It was well known that many sports writers were on the take in order to ensure a favorable decision. They could not be held accountable like an official could, because it was stated that it was just their opinion. A good case in point is the Harry Greb - Lou Bogash fight. Check it out on boxrec. Two completely different newspaper accounts. I'll give you another one. The Vicente Saldivar - Ismael Laguna fight. Again, check it out on boxrec. The UPI had Saldivar a very close winner (5-4-1). The LA Times states that Laguna was robbed blind. Unlike the Greb-Bogash fight, film exists on Saldivar-Laguna and I watched the fight and scored it. I had Laguna the winner 5-4-1. So in my opinion, no robbery. A very close fight that could have gone either way. This is why reporters are not the best judges. No accountability and easy to bribe.

You're totally wrong about this and you haven't thought it through.

Promoters don't even bother offering bribes to reporters to tilt stories... There's too damned many of them... They'd be crazy to offer bribes to several reporters who write stories for major newspapers with big circulations... The writers could easily report the bribes in a major story.. Other reporters could collaborate the bribery attempts.. The promoter's reputation would be sh!t.. Insider influence often determines who gets those cush jobs as ringside judges.. Influence from boxing insiders DOESN'T determine who gets jobs as newspaper reporters -- talent does.

There's so many press people that they will often poll the sportswriters so see who the majority thought won the fight..

For instance, ALL 11 newspaper reporters had 19-year-old, 168-pound, 13-fight rookie, Floyd Patterson beating Joey Maxim.. But Maxim was a more important and famous boxer at that time.. Maxim beat Danny Nardico the year before and Sugar Ray Robinson the year before that.. He just came off of 3 fights with ATG Archie Moore who he fought previously that year.. The veteran judges gifted Maxim with the decision.

Business decision by 3 biased judges... Here's the story. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Floyd ... Joey_Maxim

[scartissue]

I would argue that newspaper decisions are often more honest and accurate than paid off judges. Those judges often get their assignments (referees as well) based on their history -- and who the promoters believe they'll favor in the fight.. Everybody has biases, but not everyone's paychecks are dependent on the consistency of boxing promotions and main event headliners doing well.

Kalan, I would disagree with you on newspaper decisions being honest. When a decision was not rendered and bets were paid off by the newspaper decision, it opened a can of worms for the gamblers. And they met that problem by paying off the reporters. It was well known that many sports writers were on the take in order to ensure a favorable decision. They could not be held accountable like an official could, because it was stated that it was just their opinion. A good case in point is the Harry Greb - Lou Bogash fight. Check it out on boxrec. Two completely different newspaper accounts. I'll give you another one. The Vicente Saldivar - Ismael Laguna fight. Again, check it out on boxrec. The UPI had Saldivar a very close winner (5-4-1). The LA Times states that Laguna was robbed blind. Unlike the Greb-Bogash fight, film exists on Saldivar-Laguna and I watched the fight and scored it. I had Laguna the winner 5-4-1. So in my opinion, no robbery. A very close fight that could have gone either way. This is why reporters are not the best judges. No accountability and easy to bribe.

You're totally wrong about this and you haven't thought it through.

Promoters don't even bother offering bribes to reporters to tilt stories... There's too damned many of them... They'd be crazy to offer bribes to several reporters who write stories for major newspapers with big circulations... The writers could easily report the bribes in a major story.. Other reporters could collaborate the bribery attempts.. The promoter's reputation would be sh!t.. Insider influence often determines who gets those cush jobs as ringside judges.. Influence from boxing insiders DOESN'T determine who gets jobs as newspaper reporters -- talent does.

There's so many press people that they will often poll the sportswriters so see who the majority thought won the fight..

For instance, ALL 11 newspaper reporters had 19-year-old, 168-pound, 13-fight rookie, Floyd Patterson beating Joey Maxim.. But Maxim was a more important and famous boxer at that time.. Maxim beat Danny Nardico the year before and Sugar Ray Robinson the year before that.. He just came off of 3 fights with ATG Archie Moore who he fought previously that year.. The veteran judges gifted Maxim with the decision.

Business decision by 3 biased judges... Here's the story. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Floyd ... Joey_Maxim

Kalan, you clearly did not read what I wrote. I am not talking about any recent era, I was referencing the newspaper decision era of the 20s as when reporters were on the take. This was a well known fact not something someone recently dreamed up. If you don't know about it I suggest you read up on it. I also referenced Saldivar-Laguna because - although no longer in the corrupt newspaper decision era - it can show how often skewed reporters can report a bout. Again, reporters could get away with this sort of thing in the '20s because they held no official status and could lay claim that they were simply reporting how they read the fight with no sort of retribution coming their way. Even though bets were settled via their report.

[Kalan]

Kalan, I would disagree with you on newspaper decisions being honest. When a decision was not rendered and bets were paid off by the newspaper decision, it opened a can of worms for the gamblers. And they met that problem by paying off the reporters. It was well known that many sports writers were on the take in order to ensure a favorable decision. They could not be held accountable like an official could, because it was stated that it was just their opinion. A good case in point is the Harry Greb - Lou Bogash fight. Check it out on boxrec. Two completely different newspaper accounts. I'll give you another one. The Vicente Saldivar - Ismael Laguna fight. Again, check it out on boxrec. The UPI had Saldivar a very close winner (5-4-1). The LA Times states that Laguna was robbed blind. Unlike the Greb-Bogash fight, film exists on Saldivar-Laguna and I watched the fight and scored it. I had Laguna the winner 5-4-1. So in my opinion, no robbery. A very close fight that could have gone either way. This is why reporters are not the best judges. No accountability and easy to bribe.

You're totally wrong about this and you haven't thought it through.

Promoters don't even bother offering bribes to reporters to tilt stories... There's too damned many of them... They'd be crazy to offer bribes to several reporters who write stories for major newspapers with big circulations... The writers could easily report the bribes in a major story.. Other reporters could collaborate the bribery attempts.. The promoter's reputation would be sh!t.. Insider influence often determines who gets those cush jobs as ringside judges.. Influence from boxing insiders DOESN'T determine who gets jobs as newspaper reporters -- talent does.

There's so many press people that they will often poll the sportswriters so see who the majority thought won the fight..

For instance, ALL 11 newspaper reporters had 19-year-old, 168-pound, 13-fight rookie, Floyd Patterson beating Joey Maxim.. But Maxim was a more important and famous boxer at that time.. Maxim beat Danny Nardico the year before and Sugar Ray Robinson the year before that.. He just came off of 3 fights with ATG Archie Moore who he fought previously that year.. The veteran judges gifted Maxim with the decision.

Business decision by 3 biased judges... Here's the story. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Floyd ... Joey_Maxim

Kalan, you clearly did not read what I wrote. I am not talking about any recent era, I was referencing the newspaper decision era of the 20s as when reporters were on the take. This was a well known fact not something someone recently dreamed up. If you don't know about it I suggest you read up on it. I also referenced Saldivar-Laguna because - although no longer in the corrupt newspaper decision era - it can show how often skewed reporters can report a bout. Again, reporters could get away with this sort of thing in the '20s because they held no official status and could lay claim that they were simply reporting how they read the fight with no sort of retribution coming their way. Even though bets were settled via their report.

Reporters had plenty of retribution coming their way.. They could easily be fired for writing BS stories -- which frequently happens when disgruntled readers dispatch letters to the editor or shower the editors with phone calls about biased and misleading stories.. How the Hell are you going to bribe 6 or 7 newspaper reporters whose assignments might be changed??? More than one story was written by a paper for an important fight. And if a guy gets well out-boxed and beaten up -- do you want to look like a public idiot by describing how the loser won???

It's much easier to payoff the judges -- who can make their way out of the arena before the ringside reporters even get done with the first paragraph of their stories or the extremely unpopular decision is announced.. The judges are gone.. They''re out of sight and out of mind.. Even judges who get horrific reputations -- such as CJ Ross, Duane Ford, Ken Morita, and Adalaide Byrd seldom go away until they're about 70 or 80 years old.. They're protected by corrupt commissions and and promoters who get them appointed to the fights.. They did their crooked job.

I'm not saying reporters never peddle their influence to the rich... I'm sure entire new organizations peddle their influence to the rich at times. We certainly have Fox News which is a band of crooks on the take.. but that is more in the arena of politics and public policy where it's easier to shape public opinion.. It's much harder to sound credible when a boxer landed more and better punches than his opponent and you're writing a story trying to explain to the public how he actually lost the fight -- when you think he won the fight. That's not a good feeling.. A boxing judge doesn't have to go through those mental gymnastics.. All he has to do is mark up a dubious scorecard, hand it in, and collect his money.

[Counter-puncher]

Newspaper decisions being preferable to judges, is somewhere up there with Wilt Chamberlain being able to beat Ali on his pro debut. It's in that region, sometimes it's hard to differentiate between stupidities of roughy equal scale.

[scartissue]

You're totally wrong about this and you haven't thought it through.

Promoters don't even bother offering bribes to reporters to tilt stories... There's too damned many of them... They'd be crazy to offer bribes to several reporters who write stories for major newspapers with big circulations... The writers could easily report the bribes in a major story.. Other reporters could collaborate the bribery attempts.. The promoter's reputation would be sh!t.. Insider influence often determines who gets those cush jobs as ringside judges.. Influence from boxing insiders DOESN'T determine who gets jobs as newspaper reporters -- talent does.

There's so many press people that they will often poll the sportswriters so see who the majority thought won the fight..

For instance, ALL 11 newspaper reporters had 19-year-old, 168-pound, 13-fight rookie, Floyd Patterson beating Joey Maxim.. But Maxim was a more important and famous boxer at that time.. Maxim beat Danny Nardico the year before and Sugar Ray Robinson the year before that.. He just came off of 3 fights with ATG Archie Moore who he fought previously that year.. The veteran judges gifted Maxim with the decision.

Business decision by 3 biased judges... Here's the story. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Floyd ... Joey_Maxim

Kalan, you clearly did not read what I wrote. I am not talking about any recent era, I was referencing the newspaper decision era of the 20s as when reporters were on the take. This was a well known fact not something someone recently dreamed up. If you don't know about it I suggest you read up on it. I also referenced Saldivar-Laguna because - although no longer in the corrupt newspaper decision era - it can show how often skewed reporters can report a bout. Again, reporters could get away with this sort of thing in the '20s because they held no official status and could lay claim that they were simply reporting how they read the fight with no sort of retribution coming their way. Even though bets were settled via their report.

Reporters had plenty of retribution coming their way.. They could easily be fired for writing BS stories -- which frequently happens when disgruntled readers dispatch letters to the editor or shower the editors with phone calls about biased and misleading stories.. How the Hell are you going to bribe 6 or 7 newspaper reporters whose assignments might be changed??? More than one story was written by a paper for an important fight. And if a guy gets well out-boxed and beaten up -- do you want to look like a public idiot by describing how the loser won???

It's much easier to payoff the judges -- who can make their way out of the arena before the ringside reporters even get done with the first paragraph of their stories or the extremely unpopular decision is announced.. The judges are gone.. They''re out of sight and out of mind.. Even judges who get horrific reputations -- such as CJ Ross, Duane Ford, Ken Morita, and Adalaide Byrd seldom go away until they're about 70 or 80 years old.. They're protected by corrupt commissions and and promoters who get them appointed to the fights.. They did their crooked job.

I'm not saying reporters never peddle their influence to the rich... I'm sure entire new organizations peddle their influence to the rich at times. We certainly have Fox News which is a band of crooks on the take.. but that is more in the arena of politics and public policy where it's easier to shape public opinion.. It's much harder to sound credible when a boxer landed more and better punches than his opponent and you're writing a story trying to explain to the public how he actually lost the fight -- when you think he won the fight. That's not a good feeling.. A boxing judge doesn't have to go through those mental gymnastics.. All he has to do is mark up a dubious scorecard, hand it in, and collect his money.

Kalan, I don't know why you're not grasping this. I am talking about the no-decision era. I have said it 3 times now and you keep bringing up about the judges. Don't you understand why a fight was called a no-decision? Because a decision was not allowed to be rendered. There were no judges to pay off. A fight was determined by a KO or from the newspaper, which is why newsmen were on the take. Don't bring up judges anymore. The only official was the referee.

[Bodyshot3]

Steve Robinson from Wales had already hit double figures in the L column before winning a portion of the FW world crown.
Not many fancied Steve to hang around for more than a few months but he actually put together a tidy reign before meeting Hamed.

Good little fighter Robinson.... and a lot of those early defeats was because he was a travelling fighter, semi-pro and taking stuff at short notice.