Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 16 Mar 2011, 20:23
For obvious reasons.Ambling Alp wrote:I didn't see Gilroy rated
BoxRec
Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Page 2 of 2
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 07:07
If you look at HIS record of fighters he fought...I can tell you...The Top 10 World Ranked fighters...IN LINE... to fight Joe Louis or Ezzard Charles, Walcott, ETC...I can name a lot of them...yeah... Marciano..well....he came too late... in time... during the BEST years of the fighters... that were in line to fight the BEST!!! THEY WERE ALL THE BEST...IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE NO'T GOOD... THEY PAVED THE WAY FOR LOUIS, MARCIANO, CHARLES, WALCOTT, eTC...ETC... that had to go through Lee Savold, Bivins, MUSCATO BROTHERS....AND ALL THE FIGHTERS IN LOUIS'S AND MARCIANO'S RECORD....TIGER TED LOWERY, NAMES ARE PLENTY....THEY WERE ALL GOOD CHAMPIONS IN LIFE THAT WILL NEVER BE DUPLICATED BUT CHERISHED!!!!!Crease wrote:First off, can this topic be moved please mods? I'm sure a lot of folks over in BOTP would be interested in getting invovled in this.
I disagree. That version of the world title was a joke and it didn't last too long did it?NedBadger wrote:Savold was a legitimate champion in the same way that Klitschkos and Haye are.
And if I may ask, who exactly did Savold beat to be acclaimed as a "World Champion"?
Woodcock? Louthis? Walker? Marchinone?
Because absolutely none of these boxers can be described as top contenders...
(Apart from the obvious big 3 of: Louis, Walcott, Charles)
Did he even reach the level to fight any of the top 10 contenders of around that time:
Beshore? Matthews? Layne? Satterfield? Valdes? Baker?
Let's be honest here sir. Savold was a good fighter, you'll never hear me say different, but he wasn't a great and he certainly wasn't a World Champion.
These days there are 4 titles floating around and we've all just got to accept that. Butfor boxers to prove that they are number one, they have to win unification fights.
Savold tried that and lost convincingly. He was a paper champ if ever there was one.
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 10:06
Add all of the BS interim titles, and we have like 8 per division. . .Crease wrote:These days of course, we have 4 different World Champions. But different boxing eras and all that.
I think Savold was a titlist but no-one would've recognized him as "the" heavyweight champion of the world. That said Savold is a forgotten fighter but he had real skills in his prime; very slippery and great counter-puncher.
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 11:43
LouMuskita wrote:If you look at HIS record of fighters he fought...I can tell you...The Top 10 World Ranked fighters...IN LINE... to fight Joe Louis or Ezzard Charles, Walcott, ETC...I can name a lot of them...
I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that Lee Savold never fought Jersey Joe Walcott. Nor did he fight Ezzard Charles either to the best of my knowledge.
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 17:54
Well... in the technical sense... there were many "world" champions during the reign of Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles, and other past champions... for example, Buddy Knox was recognized by the Ohio State Athletic Commission as the heavyweight champion of the world while Louis was in the Army... It was only recognized in that state, area, region, etc... but never the less all the same there were many others who were considered world champion.... Savold, to the best of my knowledge, bested the majority of these men to be recognized as the "interim champion" by today's standards.
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 11:53
Wasnt Jimmy Bivens the "intermit" heavyweight champion when Joe Louis had enlisted in the Army during WWII?
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 12:07
Jimmy Bivins, along with Turkey Thompson and many others (as I stated earlier) were considered world champions while Louis was away... Savold was also apart of the "Great White Hope" tournament in which over 100 men competed and Savold came out the ultimate winner... The back to back match(es) with Woodcock, the latter being for the BBBC's version of the world title... more than put Savold up as the top man in the world next to Louis.Caractacus wrote:Wasnt Jimmy Bivins the "intermit" heavyweight champion when Joe Louis had enlisted in the Army during WWII?
AND... that is why when Louis came back (despite losing to Charles for the linear title) he fought Bivins and Savold, to solidify the position of being the best in the world... had Louis NOT of fought Marciano, he would of been in for a third match with Walcott as he was already the #1 contender for having defeated those two men.
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 12:08
HomicideHenry wrote:Jimmy Bivins, along with Turkey Thompson and many others (as I stated earlier) were considered world champions while Louis was away. Bivins was ALSO the "duration light heavyweight champion of the world"... Savold was also apart of the "Great White Hope" tournament in which over 100 men competed and Savold came out the ultimate winner... The back to back match(es) with Woodcock, the latter being for the BBBC's version of the world title... more than put Savold up as the top man in the world next to Louis.Caractacus wrote:Wasnt Jimmy Bivins the "intermit" heavyweight champion when Joe Louis had enlisted in the Army during WWII?
AND... that is why when Louis came back (despite losing to Charles for the linear title) he fought Bivins and Savold, to solidify the position of being the best in the world... had Louis NOT of fought Marciano, he would of been in for a third match with Walcott as he was already the #1 contender for having defeated those two men.
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 14:35
Whilst Louis was in the army the U.S states of Maryland and Ohio held contests for the 'Duration' world heavyweight championship.HomicideHenry wrote: Buddy Knox was recognized by the Ohio State Athletic Commission as the heavyweight champion of the world while Louis was in the Army... It was only recognized in that state, area, region, etc... but never the less all the same there were many others who were considered world champions
As far as I know only 'Big Boy' Brown, Harry Bobo, Lee Q. Murray, Jimmy Bivins and Jersey Joe Walcott won those 'titles'.
Please tell us in which fights Buddy Knox and Turkey Thompson contested the Ohio or Maryland versions of their respective 'world' titles.
I would genuinely like to know.
Thanks
Steve
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 16:20
Who Knew?HomicideHenry wrote:... for example, Buddy Knox was recognized by the Ohio State Athletic Commission as the heavyweight champion of the world while Louis was in the Army... It was only recognized in that state, area, region, etc...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV5HBKmlkxM
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 23:09
Yes. A claim..
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 17 Oct 2015, 13:18
Buddy Knox was the champion of the State of Ohio.... back then State champions (under special conditions) were by proxy considered claimants to the world championship... take for example when Louis 'defended' his title against 3-3-0 Johnny Davis, and it was only considered a world title bout by the NYSAC... technically, yes, it is a title defense but in a legitimate sense it wasnt as Davis wasnt a contender.SteveO wrote:Whilst Louis was in the army the U.S states of Maryland and Ohio held contests for the 'Duration' world heavyweight championship.HomicideHenry wrote: Buddy Knox was recognized by the Ohio State Athletic Commission as the heavyweight champion of the world while Louis was in the Army... It was only recognized in that state, area, region, etc... but never the less all the same there were many others who were considered world champions
As far as I know only 'Big Boy' Brown, Harry Bobo, Lee Q. Murray, Jimmy Bivins and Jersey Joe Walcott won those 'titles'.
Please tell us in which fights Buddy Knox and Turkey Thompson contested the Ohio or Maryland versions of their respective 'world' titles.
I would genuinely like to know.
Thanks
Steve
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 19 Oct 2015, 19:02
well if Joe Louis vrs Johnny davis is recognized by Boxrec as a title defense
then they should also recognize Lee Savold as a Heavyweight champion of the World(IMOP).
then they should also recognize Lee Savold as a Heavyweight champion of the World(IMOP).
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 21 Oct 2015, 11:52
They would also have to recognize Caveman Bob Moha and several others who were "duration" and "interim" champions as well.Caractacus wrote:well if Joe Louis vrs Johnny davis is recognized by Boxrec as a title defense
then they should also recognize Lee Savold as a Heavyweight champion of the World(IMOP).
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 21 Oct 2015, 11:56
and why not the 'exhibition" with Pat Valentine?
The two acted like it was a heavyweight title fight anyway.
The two acted like it was a heavyweight title fight anyway.
Re: Could Lee Savold have been recognised as a legit titlist?
Posted: 21 Oct 2015, 12:01
The Valentino exhibition was interesting to say the least.... Valentino had just fought Charles for the title and lost.... Louis had done some exhibitions with lesser men, and Valentino was the first legit name since Walcott that he "fought".... Needless to say when Louis kayoed Valentino in the 8th round, he was surrounded by so many promoters, well wishers, etc. who convinced him to make an official comeback and regain the crown.Caractacus wrote:and why not the 'exhibition" with Pat Valentine?
The two acted like it was a heavyweight title fight anyway.
What Louis didn't know, nor did anyone else know, was that Pat Valentino was BLIND in one eye and had told nobody. He detached a retina during the Charles fight. And during pre-fight physicals for the exhibition, he managed to fool the optomitrist by using two different hands to cover the same eye. After all, it wasnt a "serious" match anyways so such trickery was overlooked.
But had Louis knew the inside scoop... that he had defeated a one eyed fighter... he may very well of not made the comeback. Although, it must be noted, that Louis did fight and "defeat" Rex Layne in an exhibition as well.