Jack Britton lost five times in a row in three months (March 26-June 14 1917) to the same fighter, Ted Lewis, but was allowed to keep his world welterweight title due to a "must win by KO" clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Britton
Yeah, Lewis did something similar to him. A few other things. It must be understood: everyone knew going in what was happening. It was, in many ways, more than a non-title fight, but only by virtue of the fact that if you were counted out you lost your title. So both men boxed accordingly. Lewis had to make the case for a proper title match - and Britton had to avoid defeat. That's how they fought these fights. Second, Wikipedia are listing these fights as "wins." That is one way to do it, but these were wins determined by nespaper writers. Boxrec (and a few of us here) actually try to keep track of emerging reports to get a numbered ruling and these results change all the time - all the time. So something will be listed as a draw one week (because two newspaper reports were verified and scoring it 1-1) and a win for fighter x the next week (because a new report was found and it's now 2-1). Also many Newspaper decisions are listed as ND, no decision bouts these days, because no decision was rendered - there was no winner without a decision. What happened in modern terms was Ring and Boxing News decided the winner. Finally note that the fifth 1917 win for Lewis over Britton saw the title change hands. So he kept his title through four newspaper decision.
You're comparing apples and bananas. You're comparing two different languages. You're comparing an Owl to a Seagull. You're comparing a Homosapien to an off Earth species. How is saying "you must win by KO" to win the match comparable to saying "stay at the same weight or at least something very similar as to what you weighed at the weigh in" to be considered a credible opponent. What I just said is just as ridiculous as the title of the topic/original post.
Nono, you didn't have to win by KO to win the match: You could lose the match, and still keep your title. Britton lost *four fights for the title in three months, and took the losses on paper, but was allowed to keep his title anyway. He utilized a shrewd, defensive style to ensure that no matter how badly he was beat he would keep his title, and due to the rules of the era, he was allowed to use these clauses. I'm drawing comparisons to rehydration clauses, because those clauses are called ridiculous. I'm not saying people should accept or be grateful for rehydration clauses because of this, I'm merely pointing out how hilariously unfair/corrupt boxing used to be.
On the last part of that, yeah, sorry, I missed that. He only lost four times in a row and was allowed to keep his title because of clauses attached to the fights. It's funny that you mention that Lewis did the same thing to him. It's true, but he also won the tile from Lewis by decision when a KO clause finally wasn't attached. I don't think it's fair to portray these fights as fair, even rules, because that's not the case at all. They're odds fights that favor the champion. If the champion isn't knocked out, he keeps his title and all of the glory, wealth and reputation that comes with it. Imagine if Magnus Carlsen was allowed to keep the title, and they instated a rule that said that to win the match you had to win by at least three points. You wouldn't be defending this rule. Things don't exist in a vacuum: Boxing was a sport even at the time where losses by decision were common. Everybody knew that a KO clause made it much harder for the title to change hands, and that therefore this rule favored the champion tremendously.
Canelo had that clause for quite a few years. Hearn had an even better clause for Whyte v Povetkin. Povetkin needed to KO Whyte twice to win the eliminator.
I mean it depends upon what you mean by "Fair". Both made a lot of money doing it. Both knew the story. And both knew that there would be a decision bout coming. Do you prefer these fights not happen? If so it wipes out high level competition in tmany of hese states completely - no decision was the law. In other words, a decision was not permitted in that state. The fighters liked them; the fans loved them; the clubs that staged them stayed alive while the law was under examination. Most of all, most of the time a challenger who did well in an ND would get a "real" title shot down the line.
I understand what you're saying. Jack Britton retained the title by not getting knocked out. Jack Britton didn't get knocked out so he retained the title. Are we on the same page sweetheart?
I think the Tank Garcia one has probably brought it to the fore. The main thing for me is the fact it was so obviously not needed. It has tainted a victory for Tank that never needed to be tainted. His team should have had more faith as on a completely even playing field he still would have been far too much.
If they're making so much money, why don't they go to a state where decisions are allowed? It's a world title fight. Of course, because the goal was to keep the champion retaining the title. As far as it making it easier to make fights: Do you think champions should still be allowed to hold title fights like this? Should Joshua have been allowed to retain the world championship vs Usyk? It would certainly make it easier to make big fights. How about the upcoming Inoue vs Fulton? Should Fulton be allowed to use a "fair" clause which would mean that Inoue would have to knock him out to take his titles?
Because that's where the money was. Club's (or promoters) would write to a fighter and offer them the chance to come and fight at their venue. They would make an offer. Offers for ND bouts would generally be lower than those for title bouts. Then it is up for the fighters involved to decide whether or not they want to do the fight. ND was a part of the world back then - it was a thing. Almost all fighters did them. If it was a non-title fight, would that make you happier? Is it ok for it to be non-title where there is a no decision? Or do you think non-title fights should not be allowed either? Only the champion, out of everyone involved - promoters, fans, challenger - would welcome non-title instead of no-decision bouts. At least the challenger had a chance to win the title. No, I don't, it's dangerous for the fighters to fight this often. But if Joshua fought in three legitimate world title fights (as was the case at welterweight in 1916) against quality opposition and then fought in three more no-decision bouts where a knockout only would see the title change hands, I think that would be a vast, vast improvement for fans but very hard on AJ You have to remember that title fights often took place at a higher rate than they do today and the ND bouts were extra. There was no television. There was no ****ing radio a lot of the time. There was one way to see these fighters and that was to watch them box at a venue. With no rights to sell, the fighters had one way to make money in boxing: box at a venue.
Yes, I would be fine with it being used for non title-fights, because then it would not be an odds-fight. My issue stems from the fact that it is unfair and gives one fighter an advantage, forcing the other fighter to take risks that the champion doesn't have to to try and win the title. I'm willing to accept this for why they fought in no decision states in general-I still think that the right path to go would have been not holding the fight for a title, or sanctioning bodies agreeing to give it to who an on-site official viewed as the winner. I do believe the promoters of the champions did not favor or search for such solutions (fair solutions) because they favored rulesets that favored their champions. More powerful promoters were more likely to promote champions and of course therefore fighters were more likely to select powerful promoters if they wished to win a title. That is to say, I still believe that these fights being title fights was a matter of corruption. Promoters could have found multiple better solutions that would not lead to one fighter having an advantage. I thought of two in minutes.
I mean, it's a position. It's just that it's illegal in a lot of the places where fights took place. I guess just tough **** on those clubs? Tough **** on those fighters losing out on those purses? It's true that NDs favoured champions and that it can be uncomfortable, but here is are the decision bouts for the World Welterweight Title in 1916: March: Ted Kid Lewis vs Harry Stone April: Ted Kid Lewis vs Jack Britton October: Ted Kid Lewis vs Jack Britton November: Ted Kid Lewis vs Jack Britton November: Jack Britton vs Charley White Pretty crazy. There were also a number of ND bouts where the two adult male athletes decided to take money to perform at a club where a decision wasn't possible or at a club that couldn't afford to pay for a decision fight (or maybe just the first, I haven't looked). These guys were putting the title on the line plenty, way more than in any other era in boxing history. It's just that they made extra money doing this, same as every other fighter that didn't have a title. Of course. The whole sport reeked. Black guys weren't allowed to fight for championships, often. Promoters paid writers to say their fighters won fights they hadn't. Single verdict judges, the referees, showed all sorts of bias. It was an absolute madhouse. NDs are uncomfortable but they sometims yeilded a new champ, were a way for everyone to make money, and were a way for the public to be seen by fighters. On paper they were just exhibitions, but everyone knew that wasn't true. Sorry, I missed this: what's your solution for fight-clubs in states where decisions are illegal?
