Great Fighters who never won a world title

Yes I do consider McGowan a great fighter. Have you seen him in action?

I don't think I'm trivializing the word "great".
I don't know how I'm trivializing the word "champ"

Are you gonna offer up any fighters for consideraton on the subject?
Title challengers or never fought for a title, it's all the same to me.

 

Remember when I mentioned your dad and Ryan O'Neal Al? I forgot to reply to your question. It was one of the McGowan fights- O'Neal went over and Wished Walter 'good luck' and MCGowan just looked through him concentrating on the task in hand. O'Neal then said he went to your dad's corner wished him the same and your dad said: "Very nice to meet you Mr O'Neal, I like watching you on the telly".

 

That sounds about right.

 

Packey McFarland was a phenomenal fighter that never won a title.

 

Of course. And he was very good. But to refer to him as great is a stretch.

You trivialize it by refering to every pug who ever got near a belt as a champion. A guy who holds one of four alphabet belts is not a champion, he is merely a titleholder. As I said before, once there was no difference between the two. Now it's a different story.

I guess you forgot about the earlier post where I mentioned both Les Darcy and Dave Sands.

Then maybe you should stick to the general forum.

 

The classic forum is the site where we talk about great fighters of the past. Are you saying that there is no place for McGowan to be discussed on here? Do you think that all the other fighters mentioned on this thread are more deserving than McGowan?

On the contrary, i don't consider all the title holders of today and over the last 30 years as "champs" and I've mentioned it on quite a few on previous threads. 80 percent of those title holders would have been contenders if there was only 1 "Champ" . That's not to say that some of them weren't great fighters.

Ok, Les Darcey and Dave Sands. As I said earlier I consider them both great fighters of the past. Darcy, a title claimant and Sands a top contender of his day.

You are the one who said that we should distinguish between title challengers and those that never got a shot. I stick by my guns and say "why"? There have been great fighters that fought for and never won a "title" or "undisputed title". There are those who never got their chance for various reasons. I judge a fighter on his accomplishments and the quality of his opposition.

I don't post on the general forum, maybe once or twice. Who are you to judge me and my opinions? Comments like that, maybe It's you who should be on he "general".

You any relation to Ray Mitchell by the way?

 

Perfect finishing line mate. :rofl:rofl

 

When we look at it, and give the fighters from 30 years ago a fair equation, all top 4 contenders would have been champs. Manny Pac is heralded as a fkn god. Why?? He has unified ****. He knows how to punch and defeated has beens. Give him his dues, he's brilliant in todays game. 5 Years from now, ask your next door neighbor who Manny Pac is. Ask the neighbor right now.

30 years ago, the majority of top 5 contenders were house hold names. The majority of contenders remain household names until this day.

In 20 years, Manny Who?? A storm in a tea cup of a fight game.

 

you really think taht Janitor

maybe he will be forgoteen by the average spots fan but he is an ATG possibly top 20 and many boxing experts rank him there.

Also he has done a feat no other fighter has even come close to by being linear Flyweight champion adn linear LWW champion now that amazing even if it is a ******* division

 

You said that you don't see a distinction between a fighter who got his chance but failed and a fighter who never got his chance. That is why I said that maybe you belong in the general forum. I'm certain that many posters there don't understand that distinction either.

Who am I to judge you? I am human being with a God-given right to speak my mind in any way I see fit. It's called a disagreement. I respect your right to have your own opinion. I don't respect your opinion. Maybe you don't see a distinction there either.

 

Stop being a patronising *****.

 

I don't see the name of Kevin Finnegan anywhere in this thread... perhaps I need to look harder

Finnegan fought Hagler twice; of course, he lost, but he gave Hagler two real rough runs for his money. The guy was a warrior.

Afterwards Hagler said that Finnegan was "the toughest man I ever fought." .... I suppose that counts for something

Sadly, he died last November. More info on Finnegan in this interesting note:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2008/1106/1225925511932.html

 

Bacon you could add his brother Chris but intrestingly i was speaking to my trainer and he maintains that Kevin was better than Chris

 

Peter Keenan.

 

Once again, there are fighters of the past who fought for the title/undisputed title and there are those who didn't get there shot. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter, they can still be judged on their accomplishments and quality of their opposition.
I respect your right and anyone else on here to disagree with. me. I don't however respect you for telling me to stick with the "general" forum for having a different opinion to you.
Why should there be a distinction between those who got a shot and those who didn't?
By the way what McGowan fight have you seen?