best fighter never to win a world title?

the number of rounds is a huge difference. stamina is very important for pro boxing so i struggle to decide 3 round fighters will be good pros until they do it.

I never said it was worse, i said it was a different sport. as rugby league and rugby union are, or test cricket and 20-20 cricket, or supercross and enduro motocross, or football and beach football, or volleyball and beach volleyball, If your good at one you will likely be good at the other if you switch training and gain experience, but being the best in one code is irrelevant to how your career in the other will be viewed.

stevenson didn't exactly make that decision by himself, it'd be an important film if it happened but we'll never know.

Fair point that the thread title doesn't specify proffesionals

edit: that movie was telling a fictional story.

 

Please tell me that you don't think that the film Hurricane is a reliable source, or even one worth taking into account!

 

The problem with this question is that there have been so many titles available for so long that almost every good fighter over the past few decades have held a belt of one kind or another.. Sam Langford held the world colored heavyweight title back in his day which may omit him from the discussion depending on one's view. I think the best heavyweight candidates are men like Bob Pastor, Jerry Quarry, Elmer Ray, Zora Folley and George Chuvalo.

 

The whole point here is that Giardelo sued the makers of that film for defamation of character and implying a totally different fight had occurred than what actually happened atsch
"They doesn't [do not ,]want a black boxer defeating Giardello?"
He lost his title in his next defence to **** Tiger.What colour was he for Christ Sake?

I've produced the link to ACTUAL FIGHT but you want to form your opinion from a fictional film that was successfully sued by Giardello to the tune of $75,000 for propagating false hoods?

The soundtrack of the actual fight shows that the decision was cheered by the majority of the audience.This is in direct contradiction of what you stated'
That 75% of the press agreed with the verdict.
That a straw poll of writers taken immediately after, almost unananimously agreed with the decision.
I provided the transcript to the trial which you obviously didn't bother to read!
I have to ask you, are you on drugs?

NB I have seen the fictional film of Carter's career, it's a crock of ****.
I'm annoyed now because I've wasted considerable time conversing with a fool.

 

They were successfully sued for misrepresenting the facts.
Do you actually understand that?

For **** sake read the transcript of the trial!atsch

 

It is called fiction.

Would you quote Robin Hood Prince of thieves as a historical source?

 

Well he has opted to believe a fictional film's version of the Giardello vCarter fight rather than the real fight which I provided so yes he probably would? The man's unhinged.

 

According to Lew Eskin, who reported the fight for Ring or Boxing Illustrated, "Giardello trotted out everything in that bag of tricks of his, and clearly deserved the decision"....and considering that Joey was on the downward cusp of his career, and lost soundly in his next fight against the even more ancient **** Tiger, I think that the version of Giardello that beat Tiger for the title in 1963 would have trounced Rubin Hurricane Carter.

 

I view different codes as different sports, if you view them as different codes but the same sport that is fair enough but the change in vocab doesn't change the differences between codes. whether boxing, motorcross or whatever, changing codes requires different training and new experience so success cannot be assumed.

I never said the skills were less, not sure why you are convinced that i did.

I don't doubt that they loved their country but it is quite naive to think there wasn't political preassure on him not to take the ali fight.

I view the colored title in the same light as a belt today so while it was not the full championship it qualifies langford as a title holder.

 

Cleveland Williams.

 

I never heard of the white championship, that's funny.

I would choose driscoll, williams, burley, tendler and a few others over papp but you made a decent argument for his inclusion in the discussion.

 

Or a troll. Either way, a waste of time to debate with. Nobody who uses a Hollywood movie as their "source" for anything can be taken seriously for one second. Save your gray matter, mon ami. :smoke I am.

 

If you had read the transcript I provided you would know that they awarded the same belts to Giardello at the same time as well!

What is it with you ,why do you ignore cast iron proof?


http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.sport.boxing/xR5Y5mmsJyY

 

Great discussion, but I really think Sam Langford is the answer here.

 

give it up, the film was fiction. It is not debatable. the facts the story is based on are;

1 that there was a boxer called hurricane carter,
2 who fought giardello,
3 went to jail and was released.

That is all the facts it contains, they could have only used his name and made a story about a lion tamer and still said it was based on real events.

what you reckon is wrong. the lawsuit was settled out of court, meaning they knew they would lose, but also means that there would be no actions taken, so the film wouldn't be affectd at all.

I saw that film when i was a kid and assumed he was robbed and innocent of the murder, when i learned the truth i just accepted it because it is the truth.

pain and gain (good acting and plot but the worst directed movie ive ever seen) was based on a true story, then they changed most of the facts and characters to make a movie script, still says based on real events at the start.