Best fighter to never win a world title

Since there have been a few polls on here of late though I would post one as to who people felt was the best fighter never to win a world title. Reasons for your choice would be welcome or if anyone wants to weigh in with some modern guys I will surely have missed that would be equally welcome.

Langford

Eddie Booker as another shout, but Langford/Burley are probably the best. Langford you would have to say considering where he features on P4P lists. Some others that came up last time: Del Flanagan, Jimmy Bivins, Billy Graham, Memphis Pal Moore.

Apologies this has been done before Scott. To be honest I only posted it because i couldn't think of a more subtle way of mentioning Burley in a thread and to work out if I could do a poll without making a pigs ear of it.

BTW, the link on the highlighted last time text is very, very cool. I am envious. Would try to work out how to do it but suspect it would just make my head hurt

Don't apologise, it was over a year ago!

Gone for Driscoll, while Burley and Langford are greater fighters you could argue that they may not have won a title during their eras which is controversially applied to Langfords draw with Walcott. It's undeniable that Driscoll should have been the featherweight world champion so that's why i've gone for him.

Great shout on Billy Graham, Scott.

As someone who counts Carmen Basilio among his favourite fighters that particular generation of welters is of great interest to me, and I've always had a great admiration for Graham.

Having said that, old habits die hard, and I'm going to risk incurring jeff's wrath, ( while admiring his fascinating and admirable promotion of Burley during the last year or so, ) and stick with the man that I have always believed to be the best of the lot among the uncrowned.

Sam Langford, for me.

If I'm brutally honest Windy I think it is Langford as well. Didn't stop me voting for Burley though.

rowley wrote:If I'm brutally honest Windy I think it is Langford as well. Didn't stop me voting for Burley though.

That sounds disturbingly like...

Nah, better not.

I thought the answer to this question was always Langford.

Langford for me but Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall and Eddie booker aren't far behind.

fearlessBamber wrote:I thought the answer to this question was always Langford.

Bamber, the result of the poll thus far would certainly seem to support that theory. See Driscoll has got a vote, has got me in a cold sweat thinking Steffan may have found his way over here.

rowley wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:I thought the answer to this question was always Langford.

Bamber, the result of the poll thus far would certainly seem to support that theory. See Driscoll has got a vote, has got me in a cold sweat thinking Steffan may have found his way over here.

I'm sure we'll see him here. Since his Rocky quote obsession I found him a lot less offensive than the petty nationalism.

Hmm Rocky - might watch Rocky tonight. Family is at in laws.

Burley for me - though its tight between him and Langford.

rowley wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:I thought the answer to this question was always Langford.

Bamber, the result of the poll thus far would certainly seem to support that theory. See Driscoll has got a vote, has got me in a cold sweat thinking Steffan may have found his way over here.

I'm guilty of that one Jeff, gave my reasons which i'm sure make sense to no one but me

Went for Burley, he beat every other fighter of his generation that the champs wanted nothing to do with.

No Chuck Gardner on that list...Rowley you are slipping up.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No Chuck Gardner on that list...Rowley you are slipping up.

It was between him and Audley Truss but wanted to make this fair on the others named

Gardner was beaten by Big Frank so I discounted him immediately.

Obviously cast my own vote for Jackson even though I suspect Rowley only included him to highlight the fact that I'm the only person who gives a damn about The Black Prince.

Undaunted by the genreal apathy toward Peter, I shall strive to ensure his name is known to a much wider audience. If Big Brother returns to our screen I shall apply and spend my time wearing "Peter Jackson is the greatest" t-shirts although I suspect the viewing audience will get horribly confused.

Obviously cast my own vote for Jackson even though I suspect Rowley only included him to highlight the fact that I'm the only person who gives a damn about The Black Prince.
__________________________________________________________

Dave, you know me too well. Would not dare incur your not inconsiderable wrath by excluding him.

(shakes fist in anger)

If it's not Langford, Burley or Driscoll, then there are two others to consider, perhaps. If you don't accept that Owen Moran won a piece of the bantamweight crown, then he belongs in this exalted company, I'd say. The other fighter that also does and about whom there can be no doubt whatever is the great lightweight Packey McFarland, who certainly has a case to be named among the top 15 or so 135 pounders of all time.

That would be my five against the field; to pick just one out seems pretty unfair on the others, but based on the difficulties that he faced from the colour bar and the fact that he might have been champ in any one of three divisions, Langford is my choice. Burley also had to endure the colour bar, but I'm not convinced that he was quite the greatest fighter of his era at any weight, with the possible exception of middle, in what was, admittedly, one of the greatest boxing eras of all. Langford it is, then.

Good summary captain and putting aside my in built bias for Burley probably pretty fair. There are times I would have fancied Burley to win a title, I would have particularly fancied his chances against LaMotta who openly acknowledged he struggled with cute defensive guys. However at other times in his career it is by no means a given, could not honestly back him to beat Robbo, although it is not impossible.

However with Sam outside of heavyweight you would have to back him heavily. Am convinced he beats Ketchel had that happened and in decent style as well. Would also make him against Johnson genuine 50-50 if it happens post Jeffries where the impression is Jack was resting on his laurels to a degree.

I see it slightly differently Jeff

Would have picked Langford to beat Walcott in a rematch at Welterweight but would heavily favour Ketchel and Johnson over him, also the light heavyweight title seemed to be forgotten about for a fair time after O'Brien vacated it.

Got to disagree about Ketchel Atom. Nearly every newspaper report of their no decision six round affair concedes Sam was holding plenty back and still he gave Stan all he could handle, with some newspapers even giving him the nod, although it should be acknowledged they were in a minority.

There are also a few rumours, although unsubstantiated that just before his death Stan had developed an opium habit. If there is any truth to this have to think he would struggle against Sam. Personally I believe if Sam can push a guy at half pelt if he is going all out, which he obviously would be in a title shot he would have enough to get the result.

I know Sam was gutted when Stanlely died as he genuinely liked the guy but also said he was devastated Stan went to the grave believing he had the beating of Sam, although Sam was always quoted as saying Ketchel was the best white fighter he ever faced.

On the face of things would favour Burley over Lamotta but in 1949 at the tailend of his career it's far from a given, doubt he would have beaten Cerdan prior to that and would he have beaten either Robinson or Gavilan at Welterweight, again not entirely sure.

Burley might also have had the beating of Maxim, Jeff, although I suppose Charley was more a middle at that point. He doesn't beat Robbo at welter, though, even if I would have liked to see Ray extend him the opportunity to disprove that. A peak Zale or Cerdan against Burley might have been fun.

Oh, it almost goes without saying that Burley would have thumped dear old Freddie Mills, whatever Charley was weighing at the time. How Mills got away with sitting on his title for two years without defending is beyond me.

Langford is the best fighter on the list, but as Atom said I'm not sure he would have been guaranteed a belt at any point.

Driscoll SHOULD have been the featherweight champ as he clearly beat Abe Attell (as people following the featherweight tourney thread will now), so perhaps he should be the winner here?

rowley wrote:Got to disagree about Ketchel Atom. Nearly every newspaper report of their no decision six round affair concedes Sam was holding plenty back and still he gave Stan all he could handle, with some newspapers even giving him the nod, although it should be acknowledged they were in a minority.

There are also a few rumours, although unsubstantiated that just before his death Stan had developed an opium habit. If there is any truth to this have to think he would struggle against Sam. Personally I believe if Sam can push a guy at half pelt if he is going all out, which he obviously would be in a title shot he would have enough to get the result.

I know Sam was gutted when Stanlely died as he genuinely liked the guy but also said he was devastated Stan went to the grave believing he had the beating of Sam, although Sam was always quoted as saying Ketchel was the best white fighter he ever faced.

Have to assume that Ketchel was holding some back to in a non title affair Jeff and for me his style would lose more when not at 100% and see him getting out worked by Stan if they were going hell for leather unlike the Johnson fight he wouldn't be severely outsized and definitely think he has the power to take Sam out. At heavyweight he would rely on Johnson not being 100%, not the greatest indicator but his heavyweight form was patchy throughout and if the likes of Mcvea and Jeannette could occassionally get the better of him have to give Johnson a huge edge especially against someone he knows is dangerous far different to facing the tripe he defended against.

Johnson was is tricky as his reign coincided pretty much with Sam's peak years. Think between 1908-12 Sam only lost two of 51 fights, both avenged so at that time he was far from patchy. However having fought him before Johnson knew just how good he was so have to think the disinterest or laziness that could often typify Jack's defences is certainly not going to reappear in this fight. Would probably favour Johnson but not by any great degree and is certainly not a gimme.

As for Ketchel we'll have to disagree. I personally think the Johnson fight demonstrated that whilst Stan carries a dig he cannot really take the power up at heavy and Sam carried a dig even at the higher weight. Given Stanley was not too hard to hit I personally think over 20 rounds he ships too much and gets taken out.

Captain, totally agree Burley beats Mills out of hand. There is footage of the Marshall fight with Mills on youtube and if to watch it and realise it was Mills who went on to get the title shot it truly staggering

Langford is a bit of a grey area for me, not read up on him as much as I probably should have done but we have to assume that Ketchel/Langford would be at 154lbs were it for the title which definitely plays into Stanleys hands for me. Both weighing the same would have to favour him in a war of attrition, probably not a popular view but think Welterweight would have been Sams best bet for a title.

Audley Harrison