BoxRec

just browsing like some kind of freak and i stumbled upon the fact that the bbb of c recognised Bruce Woodcock v lee Savold as a world title fight in the 50's ???

what the blue blazes happend there ????

surely not 'the' world title.....Charles and jersey Joe were well established successors after the brown bomber.

anyone know the history of this seemingly preposterous info

The BBBC crowned Savold champion. During Louis's WW2 hiatus, Jimmy Bivins was donned the Interim champion of the world. I know Savold was the winner of a 150 man heavyweight tournament in the 1940's, but wouldnt fight Louis until ten years later.

wasnt the savold / woodcock fight after Louis had lost To Charles ?


ive just checked...

its very odd

Louis retires after Jersey Joe

comesback loses to charles.

bbb of c recognises Savold as champ

Savold loses to Louis...

then bbb of c recognise Charles instead ????

am i missing something (its not my main era of specialization )

My memory is a little hazy on this one but I think what happened was that after Louis retired, the American matched Walcott and Charles for the title and the Brits matched their boy Woodcock w/ Savold. Unfortunately for them, Savold upset the applecart by beating Woodcock.

Majority of sporting world recognized Charles as champ after he beat Walcott. After Charles waxed Louis and Louis beat Savold, recognizing Louis as champ seemed absurd, so the Brits quietly withdrew recognition.

Raylaw can probably tell me if I'm right or not.

yes..that makes it a bit clearer. thanks

the sad thing about this was Ol Bruce Woodcock was beating Savold but suffered a right gash of a cut in the 4th and it was stopped. Woodcock was a nasty puncher and a very good basic boxer... he had a punchers chance against Charles, Walcott or any of them.

excluding Fitz and LL for question of proper nationality, Woodcock is propably Britain's second best HW behind Farr, certainly top 5...

funso banjo baby wrote:just browsing like some kind of freak and i stumbled upon the fact that the bbb of c recognised Bruce Woodcock v lee Savold as a world title fight in the 50's ???

- Savold set the record for the hairiest heavyweight champ ever until Valuev was discovered in upper Siberia.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: - Savold set the record for the hairiest heavyweight champ ever until Valuev was discovered in upper Siberia

True to form you're probably confusing him with someone else.

It's interesting to keep in mind when we talk about the "Good old days of one champion per division" that this idea is coloured by nostalgia. Guys fought a lot more often, so of course definitive "man-who-beat-the-man" results were easier to come by, but it wasn't always the case. Growing up listening to old-timers like in my family, who were all involved in boxing from the fairground booths to Jack Turner, you'd think there was some unbroken gilded chain of succession reaching back to the dawn of time, which isn't always necessarily so.

I can remember my old man telling me about title fights & world champions, & when I got older I looked the fighters up & lo & behold, they were only recognised by the EBU or the Missouri commission or something.

Not denigrating the EBU (or any other organisation) per se, as I am aware that they evolved into the current sanctioning bodies... But the very fact that they evolved into the current sanctioning bodies is surely enough to regard their machinations with suspicion, & actions such as recognising Lee Savold as heavyweight champ or only the California commission recognising Armstrong's bout with Ceferino Garcia as a world title fight makes you think that behind the scenes, boxing's always been as slime-filled as it is now.

wouter wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: - Savold set the record for the hairiest heavyweight champ ever until Valuev was discovered in upper Siberia

True to form you're probably confusing him with someone else.

- Nah.........

http://pro.corbis.com/Images/spacer.gif