Acheiving greatness without a title

Billy Graham and Billy Petrolle are in the IBHOF. So are the Gibbons brothers. Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall ring a bell, as does Tiger Jack Fox, and Jack Blackburn. Willie Young Stribling is also in the IBHOF. This would be a pretty extensive list if I were to try continuing. But here are a few names which might fit the criteria.

 

Les Darcy was never officially the Middleweight champion despite whipping most of the other title claimants of that time and he is very definately a great.
Lew Tendler was a great fighter who had the misfortune to be campaigning at Lightweight when Benny Leonard was the champ,losing two decisions to him in title fights.

 

Sam Langford maybe the obvious choice, but he is the greatest never to win a world title.

 

Peter Jackson would be another. :good

 

Don't pointlessly waste our time with cliches.

Seriously, though, nice pick.

 

Here we go again with that word greatness!,Langford was great the others you mentioned were not ,they range from,good- Brazier and Lastarza to very good-Quarry,people need to look the word greatness up in a dictionary,its the most overused and devalued word I know.

 

The IBHOF does not define greatness,it devalues it.

 

Yeah, I'm kind of conflicted about it now. Induction weekend offers a golden opportunity to hang out with some boxing legends, but you're right. With careful discrimination, and an arduous induction criteria, they could have created something truly representative of the very best in an enterprise noted for some of civilization's very worst.

I can easily imagine a time in the near future where I abandon any remaining interest in boxing's past, as I long ago did in boxing's present. (At that point, I'll kick myself hard, and ask, "Why did I waste so much time and interest in something so worthless?") Maybe posting to ESB Classic is my way of disgorging myself of any lingering residual interest in the sport. Should that happen abruptly, resulting in my sudden and complete disappearance from ESB, that will be the likely reason.

How many halls of fame do NOT devalue greatness? I've become entirely disinterested and disengaged from a wide variety of formerly passionate pursuits (which has actually been rather liberating), and classic boxing is one of the tiny number of old pasttimes remaining, that I haven't yet become absolutely indifferent to. (I suspect that's only a matter of brief time now.) I think I'd prefer not to care at all about boxing, rather than having strong opinions associated with any connection to it.

 

Jimmy Bivins and Charley Burley.

 

Personaly I think that Sam Langford would look better on the resume of any title than it would look on his.

 

In boxing to acheive greatness you have first to beat it,or have a long winning run over many very good fighters,well at least thats my criteria,Quarry did neither,the best opponent he defeated was a marginal great Patterson ,and he was past his prime by several years.

 

I quite agree Quarry is one of the best Heavyweights never to win the title ,but bestisnt great,and Quarry was beaten by men who werent great like Ellis,and Chuvalo,I excuse his losses to Machen ,Jerry was still developing,and against Norton he was washed up.

 

Five stick out:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected