BoxRec

Obviously, I'm aware that in almost everyone's eyes, including mine, Ezzard Charles was the "real" heavyweight champion around that time.

But with Savold, until losing to Joe Louis, being recognized by the BBBC as their world champion, does/did he have a legitimate claim to being a world champion or proper title holder?

Although Charles is/was generally accepted as being the universal champion, was Savold's title equivalent to one of today's belts, like a WBA/IBF, etc, or was it less legitimate than that? (Not that I'm praising today's alphabet soup situation!)

Any light that can be shed on this?

First off, this should be in Boxers Of The Past.
Secondly, this is my favourite era of Heavyweight boixng, so I have a keen interest in it.

I'll try to answer your two questions to the best of ability and I do find that boxing boils down to opinions. But I'll do my best.

AlexY2K4 wrote:But with Savold, until losing to Joe Louis, being recognized by the BBBC as their world champion, does/did he have a legitimate claim to being a world champion or proper title holder?

No, I don't think so. I believe that the title that he won was just invented by the British Boxing Board of Control and the European Boxing Union for their own seedy ends.

Both organisations would benefit from creating this new title,
A. The BBB of C would have an Enligh World Heavyweight Champion
and
B. The EBU would expand and attempt to gain crediblity at the world stage, instead of just being a continental body.

Before I go any further, let me give you a little insight into Savold's opponent in the fight: Bruce Woodcock.

Bruce was an English Heavyweight (hence the reason the BBB of C recognised the fight) who at the time was the reigning European Champion (hence EBU involvement). He won the European Title in 1946 and was still reigning champ at the time of the title fight (June 1950)

Woodcock had proven himself as a talented boxer who was the best in Europe, but each time he ventured to America to mount a challenge for bigger and better things, he was defeated. (First by Mauriello and secondly by Baksi)...

Basically he was just not good enough to compete against the best ou there, his defeat to Baksi proved that. While Baksi was a good heavyweight contender, he was never champion material because he lost to Charles and Walcott.

The BBB of C and the EBU needed to involve a non-European for this title fight, or else it would have been seen as just another European fight and be no different from any of the others. So, in an attempt to achieve global interest they brought in a top American contender (who was beatable) and they chose: Lee Savold...

Why? For 2 reasons.
1. Because Savold lost consistently to the top contenders, fighters such as Muscato, Ray, Bivins and Conn. And NONE of these guys were ever the Champion.

2. Because Woodcock had beaten Lee Savold before in 1948. And both organisations believed he would do it again...

The plan backfired, Savold won.

AlexY2K4 wrote:Although Charles is/was generally accepted as being the universal champion, was Savold's title equivalent to one of today's belts, like a WBA/IBF, etc, or was it less legitimate than that?

As I said before the fight was endorsed primarily by the European Boxing Union. And though the reigning European Champion lost to an American, I would tend to rate it as more of a European Title.

Savold could NOT be considered as a world champion because he never beat any of the top 3 Heavyweights around: Louis, Charles or Walcott.

And back then there was only 1 World Champion at a time. Savold was never the Number One man.

These days of course, we have 4 different World Champions. But different boxing eras and all that.

Sorry for posting in the wrong forum.

Thanks for your detailed response. You more-or-less confirmed the conclusion I was edging towards, but just wanted some clarity.

Thanks, dude!

AlexY2K4 wrote:Sorry for posting in the wrong forum.

Thanks for your detailed response. You more-or-less confirmed the conclusion I was edging towards, but just wanted some clarity.

Thanks, dude!

No problem lad.

Savold was a legitimate champion in the same way that Klitschkos and Haye are.
He was a decent puncher but came up short when against top men.

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.

NedBadger wrote:Savold was a legitimate champion in the same way that Klitschkos and Haye are.

I disagree. That version of the world title was a joke and it didn't last too long did it?

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.

Wasnt Savolds loss to Woodcock somewhat controversial?

klompton wrote:Wasnt Savolds loss to Woodcock somewhat controversial?

Savold was disqualified in the 1948 fight for hitting low. Savold won the 1950 "title" fight on a cut eye stoppage. I don't recall that either was particularly controversial, although I'm going by memory here.

My understanding was that Savold was winning up until the DQ and that it was arguably a bogus DQ. I may be wrong because Im going on what Ive heard from others, not what Ive read or seen.

klompton wrote:My understanding was that Savold was winning up until the DQ and that it was arguably a bogus DQ. I may be wrong because Im going on what Ive heard from others, not what Ive read or seen.

I honestly don't remember, klompton.

"Could" Lee Savold have been recognized as a legit titlist? Well, certainly. The BBBC, the EBU and Savold's parents recognized him as champion, so he "could."

"Should" Lee Savold have been recognized as a legit titlist? No.

raylawpc wrote:

klompton wrote:My understanding was that Savold was winning up until the DQ and that it was arguably a bogus DQ. I may be wrong because Im going on what Ive heard from others, not what Ive read or seen.

I honestly don't remember, klompton.

klompton, your memory was better than mine:

Wasn't the problem due to the fact,that there was not any kind of a world-wide international box-off to determine
whom the next heavyweight champion of the world would be after Joe Louis's 12 year reign?
I think the complaints were that Louis had chosen Ezzard Charles to succed him as World HWT champ,which brought complaints
that he had done the same thing what people had complained about years earlier what Jim Jeffries had done some 50 years earlier.
Also I believe there was a conflict of interest since Louis had been Charles promoter.

Savold in that picture looks like he should be in a travelling circus

Brutu wrote:Wasn't the problem due to the fact,that there was not any kind of a world-wide international box-off to determine
whom the next heavyweight champion of the world would be after Joe Louis's 12 year reign?
I think the complaints were that Louis had chosen Ezzard Charles to succed him as World HWT champ,which brought complaints
that he had done the same thing what people had complained about years earlier what Jim Jeffries had done some 50 years earlier.
Also I believe there was a conflict of interest since Louis had been Charles promoter.

As Jeffries was alleged to have done 50 years earlier. The myth has arisen that, because Jeffries refereed the Hart-Root fight, he might have called for the winner to be recognized as champion. Not so. Jeff was asked then if he was endorsing the winner of the fight as successor to his crown. His response? (I'm paraphrasing.) "I was just the referee of the fight. It's not up to me to say who is the champion. If I could hand out the title, I'd give it to my brother."

well that was what Joe Louis was complaining about in his 1978 autobiography MY LIFE(PAGE 214).
Louis announced his retirement March.1.1949,and along the National Boxing Association and Jim Norris picked
Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles as the 2 leading contenders to fight
for the vacant title(the fought in June 1949),the New York Boxing Commision refused to accept it because they felt there should have been an elimination tournament with more foreign fighters involved.Also it was Jersey Joe Walcott's third consequetive shot at the world heavyweight title in as many years.

Brutu wrote:well that was what Joe Louis was complaining about in his 1978 autobiography MY LIFE(PAGE 214).
Louis announced his retirement March.1.1949,and along the National Boxing Association and Jim Norris picked
Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles as the 2 leading contenders to fight
for the vacant title(the fought in June 1949),the New York Boxing Commision refused to accept it because they felt there should have been an elimination tournament with more foreign fighters involved.Also it was Jersey Joe Walcott's third consequetive shot at the world heavyweight title in as many years.

..the other 2 being against Louis, Walcott's loss in the first fight almost causing a riot.

As for Savold? He probably had as much cause to be called champion as WBF champion Holyfield.

Who were the top ten heavyweight contenders during
January 1906
and
January 1949
anyway??

I am guessing you mean January of 1905 (Since Jeffries' last fight was in 1904).
It's hard to say, there were so many guys that were very close. Maybe sometyhing like this:
1. Johnson
2. Hart
3. Root
4. O'Brien
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Gus Ruhlin
7. Sandy Ferguson
8. Kid McCoy
9. Denver Ed Martin
10. Sam McVey

Maybe Jack Munroe could be in there. There are probably a few other guys you could argue for. I don't think Langford or Jeanette had established themselves as top heavyweiht contenders yet.

I did look up Ring Magazine's Annual Rankings which came out in February of 1949. This is how they had it:
1. Walcott
2. Charles
3. Savold
4. Johnny Flynn
5. Joey Maxim
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Joe Kahut
8. Rusty Rayne
9. Pat Valentino
10. Freddie Beshore

Ambling Alp wrote:I did look up Ring Magazine's Annual Rankings which came out in February of 1949. This is how they had it:
1. Walcott
2. Charles
3. Savold
4. Johnny Flynn
5. Joey Maxim
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Joe Kahut
8. Rusty Rayne
9. Pat Valentino
10. Freddie Beshore

I'msure that the likes of Rex Layne and Harry Matthews would be near the top 10 of that day as well.

While he was still in the Army in England in 1945,there was serious talk about Louis fighting Freddie Mills for the title
over there.
How high were Tami Mauriello, Gus Lesnovitch, Joe Baski and Ollie Tangstad ranked in 1949?

and this is why Gilroy couldn't be allowed anywhere near a title, the fear of dethroning Mills!

Mills the L-HW cum HW, Gilroy the MW cum L-HW... Britain was desperate for a ligitimate World Heavyweight champion, if Woodcock doesn't reach it we've still got Mills. Gilroy was simple too small and though middleweight titles and top l-hw contention was good, the Heavyweight championship was the goal!!!

this was also propelled by Nationality - English preferably over, God forbid, the Scot/Italian and in McAvoy, Mills & Woodcock they had all top 3 divisions secure, again with Mills & Woodcock HW hopefulls.

They were actually selling Mills as a potential Louis challenge and HW title hopefull as early as 1940, and only for the war they got away with all this!

I looked up the fighters that people have been asking about:

Lesnavich was the #1 light heavyweight contender for 1948.
Mills was the light heavyweight champ in 1948, and #4 light heavyweight for 1947.
Baski was not rated in 1949, but was #5 for 1947.
Layne was not rated until 1951, when he was #6.
Mathews was not rated until 1950, when he was the #2 rated light heavyweight.

I didn't see Mauriello rated, Gilroy, or Tangstad rated anywhere around this time period, though maybe they were several years before or after 1948.

You guys may be intersted going to this: http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... al_Ratings

It is important to remember a few things:
The ratings come out early in one year and are for the previous year. So for example, ratings for February of 1949 are for 1948.
If a fighter retired, they sometimes would include him at the end of the year ratings and sometimes didn't.
A fighter is almost never the champion or rated in two weight classes for the same year.

Ambling Alp wrote:http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... al_Ratings

Mate that is a FANTASTIC link.