Lee Savold - a heavyweight champion?

Actually found the book right away. I should have popped a tab.

Boxing and Society: An International Analysis. I think you'd find enlightening.

If I find a digital copy I'll DM you.

 

Wiki being wiki I'd def like to compare to my own but Wikipedia's EBU listings includes IBU eras:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Boxing_Union_champions

Even just HW is too long for the 10k

 

Same goes for NSC and BBBoC on Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_heavyweight_boxing_champions

 

I mean, we know they're bad lists, just look at them, but it's a start. I just felt really bad saying "Look for it". I am looking, Mac don't need to. I probably should have a website or something like that.

Edited because I felt like the last version read bitchy. I never did anything offsite because I secretly aspired to a sticky. None of my research is useful enough to enough people yet. It probably is time to accept failure and work off site then link to the forum. Like a word doc or some such.

 

Because the BBBC belts from 1929 onward are national belts and that was a world one. The NSC titles which were claiming to be world are a seperate list because it was nominally a seperate organization.

The Commonwealth belt is a far better indicator for British claimants. Whenever there was a worthy BBBC claimant they had the Commonwealth belt but not vice e versa.

While the BBBC was a major organization this is because they ran British boxing not because the titular British belt meant anything.

 

The IBU regional champs were sort of recognized as world until 1938 but George Godfrey got a title specifically labeled as world champion because they were trying to nail home he was a replacement for Braddock. But the IBU champ wasn't explicitly labeled world champions until the 30s. At this time their 175 champs got the label of "world champions" that previous champs did not.

 

I'm struggling to find any pre-30s HW IBU champion of any sized region.

I found some easy resource not much if any more useful than the wiki stuff

The old 90s IBU site lists european IBU world champions:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170611175631/http://www.ibuboxing.com/title-history.html

But all I see for during the euro IBU's time are Godfrey and Primo, the same two boxrec lists:
https://boxrec.com/en/titles?t[bout_title]=173&t[division]=Heavyweight&t_go=

--

I'm just saying this next bit for readers, I know youse know this. Any list that does not include Jack Johnson or Sam Langford is surely wrong because we know those stories decently well. We know the IBU had a lot to say when Jack fought Jim. We know the Hague fight was a title fight for Lang.

So, we know better than to accept two for the IBU. What the full list should look like I can't say.

--

That said, world before the 60s is a bit much but semantics is semantics and that's not my call. Just saying, the NBA became the WBA a few decades later for a reason and it ain't altruism.


Finally, I'm not sure if this did or did not get posted yet. Since the subject has become more or less was the IBU or BBBoC a major body before the modern bodies here's Boxrec's coverage for what that is worth:

Alphabet soup

Alphabet soup refers to the abbreviations of the various sanctioning bodies that have proliferated since the 1980s, and their handing out of what many boxing aficianados consider "cheap" world titles.

Once upon a time there were only eight weight divisions, with only one champion per division, for a total of eight boxing world champions at any one time (sometimes fewer, if one boxer was the champion of two or more divisions at a time). A contender became the world champion only by beating the then-World Champion, or by beating other contenders in an elimination tournament for a vacant world title. In those days there were only a handful of world sanctioning bodies--including the National Boxing Association, New York State Athletic Commission, International Boxing Union, British Boxing Board of Control, and a few others.

Then, from the 1980s onward, many new boxing sanctioning bodies arose, to the point where it seemed that if the manager or promoter paid the requisite sanctioning fee, his boxer could fight for a somewhat dubious "world title," although the boxer's record may not be what was generally considered by most fans and commentators as "world-class." (Currently there are 17 weight divisions and some six major sanctioning organizations, for a total of 102 world champions. This figure could be doubled to almost 200 when one adds in world titles labeled as "interim," silver, diamond, emeritus, in recess, or something similar.) Thus, some boxing fans and critics belittle these "world championships" by labeling them "alphabet soup" titles or trinkets.

--


Maybe it's insecurity but I feel compelled to say imo the BBBoC and IBU never matched the NYSAC and NBA but were never as unimportant as the IBO or WBF. Historians have a tough job categorizing them because they are kind of something in between.

Today the WBO and IBF struggle for respect but are seen as major. They're like lesser majors or something. Everyone recognizes their status but no one hides their history either. We all know those are 80s belts with 80s lineages that do not reach to Jack Dempsey.

The NSC/BBBoC were the first body. Yes i understand the separation of the two but they're the same men. If Franky Fisheyes and Fast Eddie formed something new together they'd still be Frank Warren and Eddie Hearn. Being first gets you that respect.

IBU was first to say hey, how about more than one nation? Being first gets you that respect.

IBF/WBO are not first, but they brought on some champs that became undeniable and made those belts matter.

Just like how the NYSAC and NBA did when they formed a decade after the IBU. The champions they crowned got them such respect they became above the originals.

So like now how the WBC has history on the IBF, the IBF may be winning fans over by not having champs like Stiverne and Wilder, it doesn't translate to the WBC belt being unimportant. Just less important than the unified. Like if Usyk and Danny were switched in titles alone, exact same resumes. Usyk being the true champ would elevate the IBF but that doesn't make the unified trash though. Or even equal to lesser belts or lesser bodies.

 

Whether a given belt was considered subordinate depended on how unification bouts turned out. These titles were only considered equal in the absence of such fixtures. At HW the IBUs subordinate status was established by Carpentier losing to Dempsey and Spalla losing to Tunney and Firpo. The IBU regained credibility when Schmeling and Carnera won the lineal title and its best fighters. At LHW the script flip was temporarily flipped when Carpentier beat Levinsky subordinating the ABA. Same with MW in the 30s when Thil was beating the other claimants.

But this stands true for the major alphabet organizations today and is fundamentally different than the EBU/Commonwealth/NABFs current status as subsidary belts. These organizations were the WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO/IBO. Today these belts aren't trying to claim their holder is world champion and if their holder wins a world belt it is taken away and given to someone else. With these belts that didn't happen.

In this era if their champ wasn't recognized as the champ they would wait until that status was somehow in question to push that claim. Hence why Godfrey was crowned champ when Braddock upset Max Baer. The NSC crowned their first HW champ after Jeffries retired and whoever backed Goddard as champ did the same when Corbett(and Jackson)were seemingly gone. The BBBC pulled the whole Savold v Woodcock stunt in the aftermath of Joe Louis's retirement.

The main post WW1 IBU HW lineage was as follows. I made this by piecing together information from the regional and world lists and many different sources(cyberboxing, boxinglist, hugmans etc).

1919 Carpentier
1923/1924 Ermino Spalla
1926 Uzcudchin(stripped when went to US)
1927 Scott(stripped when went to US some sources say this was a British version of the IBU title)
1928 Schmeling(stripped when went to US)
1928 Uzcudchin(stripped when went to US)
1929 Pierre Charles
1932 Schmeling(is briefly recognized before the Sharkey fight).
1933 Uzcudchin
1933 Carnera(stripped for not fighting his "mandatory" Gastanaga)
1934 Max Baer(stripped for not fighting his "mandatory" Pierre Charles)
1935 Pierre Charles
1935 Godfrey(retires)
1936 Pierre Charles
1937 Koeblin
1938 Lazek

I seperate the NSC and BBBC because the NSC belt was a credible world belt and the BBBC belt was not especially as a lonesome title. Every time the BBBC champ was a credible claimant they had the Commonwealth belt which predated the NSC 5 years. An example of this would be Freddie Mills who was clearly a major champ at 175. While the BBBC(the brick and mortar organization) was the NSC and sacntioned the Commonwealth belts, the belt that carried that organizations name after 1929. The British titles had mainly lost their credibility before the NSC became the BBBC. Australian and Canadian fighters were the driving force between the British titles major status as was the fact they had a built in advantage because they organized the sport first. After WW1 these advantages sort of went away hence why the British's pre WW1 titles are more valuable.

WBO is unique because its main purpose is not to identify the best champion its to give exposure to fighters from underserved regions. Sometimes it does have the best champ but thats not its main purpose. The IBO has a better track record identifying the best fighter but the WBO wasn't given major status because the world needed a 4th sanctioning body it was given major status because it serves a neccessary function.

I see the division between the IBUs major and minor status as the IBU congress in 1938 where the bodies agreed to work towards recognizing one champ and at this point "the" lineal title became one the whole world more or less accepted. While the IBU got taken over by Fascists and went back on this during WW2 this still serves as a good boundary because Louis knocked out Schmeling a few months later and the IBU would emerge from the war as a strictly regional organization. Schmeling had been recognized by much of the world as HW champ including Louis.

 

It's a fair perspective and a dynamite post.

I would like more on the WBO perspective. I am unsure what function the WBO is meant to serve.

 

During the mid to late 20th century boxing was dominated by Americans. The WBC was founded by all the NBAs rivals to counterbalance this but besides the best British and European champs getting title shots was nearly impossible. A fighter from Asia or Africa almost had to be the continent GOAT at their weight class to get a title shot and still might not get it.

Then the "United States Boxing Association" got promoted to the third 3rd major body as the "International Boxing Federation" which you could imagine many weren't thrilled by. So the WBO was designed to give fighters exposure who wouldn't otherwise get it. This is why even after becoming major the WBO rankings look so different than the other 3 and they don't really promote the usual suspects.

Joseph Parker is a good recent example of someone who "made it" who would have struggled to get exposure 50 years ago. He was the champ of the WBOs regional affiliate then became WBO champ and then he fought Joshua. Hes currently the WBO interim champ. A lot of times they are giving title shots to guys who don't deserve it but they are giving avenues to the people who do and would have never been noticed.

 

Sometimes when you ask too many questions folks take it as an attack. These are not rhetorical or meant to be disrespectful, honest questions and the only reason for asking is respecting you enough to assume you may know.


Would you go as far as to say boxing's globalization is thanks to the WBO?

Would you say the WBO is what ended US-centric boxing and media?

I know when the WBO splintered from the WBA they took with them former WBA regional bodies. Of course home grown WBO regional bodies would follow but the original WBO is former WBA members. Exclusively. I mean absolutely no WBC or IBF members went WBO originally. Would you say it is fair to say this alludes to systemic xenophobia within the WBA prior to the WBO departure?

All of this sounds great, but I do struggle to see why the WBC/IBF and especially the WBA gain from recognizing the WBO. I'm fairly certain these guys are all in competition and only recognize one another through a begrudged process.

NBA, NYSAC, IBU, BBBoC, all recognized one another's regions before any had the balls to claim world. Once WBA did, the NYSAC, IBU, BBBoC coming together to form the WBC isn't recognized out of respect for the WBC. It's because the WBA hasn't the neck to retcon their recognition of the regionals. Same is true for the WBO. The WBO may very well have globalized but this does nothing for the US-centric bodies except embarrass them and give them competition. They recognize the WBO because the WBO is made up of already recognized regionals and the mental gymnastics of recognizing a regional without recognizing it's global overseer can only last so long as those regions gain fame.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that you didn't know any of that, just that I fail to see anything motivating the three into recognizing the WBO simply because the WBO did something fans appreciate. That's super sus.

Knowing all this history, can I ask you, why does it seem like I'm the only one who ever tells the lesser read fans it's all kind of suspect. Bro, you know how racist the early days are. Those slide right into the fascist invasion era which gives way to the US hegemony era which only recently caused its own backlash forcing a global era for the first time. I'm just super curious how you can know all this and still regard any champion with complete respect prior to the current ones. No offense to whoever is you historical favs. Mine's Marciano, but tell you what dude, red scare America might have produced a man who swing 925ft-lbs, or maybe red scare american propaganda. I don't know for sure. And every single one of them have that. Was Burns really best or just Canadian when Canada was the world economy. Those are rhetorical, the real question is how do you know so much and yet seem to have lost none of your belief?

 

No. I mean the WBC and WBA were already setting up regional affiliates for all these regions. But its one thing to set up infrastructure around the world and its another thing to actually give the oppurtunities. Title shots are finite resources. And even when a dominant Euro or British fighter got a title shot in the late 20th century fans will often ask "why did this fighter get a title shot?". Tangstad being an example.

No the US ceasing to dominate boxing ended US centric boxing though the WBO had some effect in expediting that. Geopolitics aside at this time they had an overwhelming share of the champions. Without this, structual support will only get you so far. The British had all the structual support in the beginning and it could only got them so far without boxers backing it up.

I don't know if the WBO bodies are former WBA members or if the WBO founded new ones. Obviously the IBF is the former USBA a WBA member so NABO is new. The WBA still has subsidiaries. Its hard to look up the historys of them because boxer rec decided the WBA doesn't exist.

I'm not saying they wanted recognize the WBO. It took a good 12-15 years. But why they did it and why you can appreciate the WBOs neccessity as a major belt while rolling your eyes at some of their decisions. It wasn't the fans it was the promoters, managers and fighters and various people in these bodys. There was a large group that benefitted from the existence of the WBO.

The thing with that era is the sport was being born and becoming legalized. Burns was born before the first Queensbury HW title fight. It goes without saying that there were people with talent to be boxers around the world. But first people need to know what the sport is watch it, have places they can go train, learn from people who have experience. And at the start only the UK, some colonies, and maybe a few jurisdictions in the US had this. Its one thing to talk about the promising champion who'll never get the oppurtunities to test themselves against the world elite because of where they are from. Its another thing to talk about a random person who had the physical capability to "swing 925ft-lbs".

 

Excellent

Just to be clear, are you saying you accept the biases of history as limitation on the sport's reach?

Just one last question. I took for granted that you believe now is the global period. So in your own words when would you say boxing globalized if ever?

Cheers bud, I'll give you the last word on this if you'll take it.