Historical Precedents for Title Holders

Post Reply
KiwiRider
Super Lightweight
Posts: 26629
Joined: 11 Feb 2017, 22:25

Historical Precedents for Title Holders

Post by KiwiRider »

To our esteemed boxing history buffs:
Are there historical precedents in times of war- WW2, Vietnam etc-where belts have been shelved or held aside while title holders have been pressed into military service?
Just wondering because of the Uysk situation?
Champion in recess? :maybe:
Riddick Bowie
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 990
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 07:25

Re: Historical Precedents for Title Holders

Post by Riddick Bowie »

Yeah Joe Louis didn't defend several years while WWII was on. He was boxing exhibitions for the soldiers. When he came back for a fight proper, his rematch with Billy Conn, he had lost his edge.

Ali wouldn't serve in Vietnam so lost his title and licence.

This Ukraine thing won't go on very long. Russia's on course to take it quicker than the yanks took Iraq. Shouldn't affect Usyk's next defence.
gregregegg
Lightweight
Posts: 9188
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 04:08

Re: Historical Precedents for Title Holders

Post by gregregegg »

Depends on how much support Ukraine get and if usyk stays and fights a gorrila style war once city's get toppled. That can go for ages... I'm no history/war buff, but have watched a lot of news this week and my general vibe is the experts can't really figure out a timeline. Some are guessing quick, some guessing long some not willing to guess.

As to it not effecting usyks defence, even if he gets out unscathed it doesn't have to go long to effect the title defence. Not in camp, not sparrig, highly doubt he is eating his usual diet (probably 6000+Cals/week at heavyweight)... Few weeks of that takes ages to recover from in terms of getting to heavyweight title fight condition..
Post Reply