Lee Savold - a heavyweight champion?

He has the weakest claim of any of the peripheral title-holders in history, maybe next to Archie Moore's world heavyweight championship of Nevada.

 

Monte Masters says hold his O’Grady brand beer.

 

Lee Savold was raised in Canby, MN which was the same town my father and his family came from. My godfather/uncle was in the same grade as Lee. My dad moved to a boarding house in Minneapolis for about eight years during the Great Depression. The house was owned and operated by Mike Malone, the father of Jock Malone. Jock was Lee Savold's first manager/trainer, and he taught Lee the St. Paul style of boxing. Jock and Lee were in and out of the Malone household at the time my dad was living there. All this serves to qualify Savold as a legitimate heavyweight champion to my mind, and no one is going to convince me otherwise!

 

Another thing is that lineage eventually takes the lineal title through Marciano. Thats the ironic thing there.

 

I never learned or red up on all the facts but the BBOC crowning Savold as a “ world champion “ always seemed a bit scandalous on the surface to me

 

Jetpunk ranks Savold as a world champion in their world heavyweight champions quizz.

I have to remember that everyt ime i take that quiz.

Other than that, no.

 

One would think that the number one and two contenders squaring off is how the crowing of the new champion is SUPPOSED to be decided. And not two fringe contenders battling over an obscure title that was just manufactured . I suppose some ideas are older than we realize.

 

The Ring rankings were not gospel and the fighting world didn't revolve around the US yet though it was about to.

None of the alphabet bodies were "world" organizations with even the NBA being the "National Boxing Association". The BBBC was a major body in 1950 though this arguably changed that. This was sort of the boxing version of the Suez Canal crisis.

The agenda here was feeding Savold to Woodcock and crowning Woodcock champ. When that didn't happen they were like "this is awkward".

 

"... None of the alphabet bodies were 'world' organizations with even the NBA being the 'National Boxing Association.' The BBBC was a major body in 1950 ..."

Yes, and this is the reason Savold's claim is at least as legitimate as most of the so-called "belt holders" that some boxing fans hold in such high esteem today.

 

In March 1949...Joe Louis announced his retirement from boxing. Had been champ since 1937 and had 25 title defenses. The International Boxing Club said that the upcoming fight between Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles would be for the vacant Heavyweight title. The British Boxing Board Of Control didn't like the idea of those 2 fighting for the vacant title. They stated that the upcoming fight on June 6, 1950 between the UK's Bruce Woodcock and Lee Savold from the US would be for the vacant title. The European Boxing Union went along with it. Savold carved up Woodcock...and Woodcocks corner stopped the fight after 4 rounds. Lee Savold was recognized as the Heavyweight Champion Of The World by the British Board Of Boxing. On June 15, 1951 at MSG in New York...Joe Louis KO'd Savold in the 6th round and once again became the Heavyweight Champ...(according to the EBU). Feb.13, 1952...Savold was KO'd in the 6th round by Rocky Marciano and that ended his boxing career. For 13 months he was recognized as the Heavyweight Champion by the EBU. In April 1972 Savold suffered a stroke and died a month later at the age of 58.

 

Are you sure? I thought the EBU quietly revoked recognition of Louis for some reason.

 

I think he may have been awarded the IBU title as well. It's sometimes cited, sometimes it is not, I have yet to pull any papers myself on this particular deviation from the accepted consensus lineage.

Yes, of course he's a champion. He fought for a title and won it.

I don't understand the twisting of history boxing historians have done and fans have agreed to going along with.


Fact is Lee won a world title from a body and lost his status when he lost. The importance of this fact is debatable opinion but the fact is a fact and anything outside of it is a lie.

Here's a few others people don't recognize as champions despite winning those honors in a fight advertised as championship, held as championship, and awarded a championship:

Ned Sutton
Robert Whitaker
Nathaniel Peartree
John Gritton
Bill Gretting
Tom Molyneaux (only sometimes though)
Robert Delaney
Morris Grant
Charlie Smith
Charles Hadley
George Godfrey
Peter Jackson
Peter Maher
Bob Fitzsimmons (He's a x2 or unified in reality, we recognize one of those events)
Tom Sharkey
Bob Armstrong
Frank Childs
George Byers
Klondike Haynes
Ed Martin
Jack Johnson ( Same as Bob if not worse, recognizing sometimes)
Sam McVea
Sam Langford (Might be the most belted man to never get that respect from fans)
Luther McCarty
Arthur Pelkey
Gunboat Smith
Harry Wills
Shadow Godfrey
Larry Gains
Obie Walker
Lee Savold




While doing mental gymnastics to explain to me why Richard Kyle Fox and his Police Gazette had enough authority to be crown Bareknuckle champions, contenders, and ratings, BUT, lacks the authority to do the EXACT same for the black men those white champions refuse.

Saying Lee isn't a champion is a lie. Rationalization and the weakness of his title makes for an excusable lie for how fans most often handle history but makes for a frustrating lie when one chronicles history. No one is ever going to be told "Lee was not a HW champion" then find his Woodcock fight and make a big stink for the legitimacy of that fight or fighters. However when one asks for the flow of bodies, belts, and contenderships, now, all of a sudden, that lie is a pain in the dick.





What I am saying is you guys a fans have no real problem with tailoring history to fit narratives for your arguments of forums because that's the extent and limit of your dealing with history.


In super basic terms; y'all lazy so it doesn't matter and if you stop being lazy and do anything with the history of the division beyond using it as opinion enforcement for silly arguments you will realize it does matter.


George The Claimant Pipes is not even possible without Figg's particular usage of his platform. Do NOT let that stop you from skipping the platform!

Corbett losing his title to Fitzsimmons requires, from a promotion/money perspective, Fitzs to beat up Maher in a very public and exciting fashion but don't let that stop you from not learning about the preamble that caused the situation in the first place. you can totes skip it and that omission is never ever going to bite you in the ass. It is not short sighted and stupid as long as you believe.


There's nothing wrong with listing Lee. He's not going to overnight become equal to great champions regardless of what category he is thrown in. Absolutely **** all no one have any problem recognizing Weaver and the way youse deal with that era really does not come back and bite you in the ass.




**** man, the existence of this thread and the question is poses is all the reason you need to throw away Nat's goofy narrative and simply go by what actually ****ing happened and who was actually awarded what. You know, instead of making up absolute horse**** pulled out of imagination to rationalize the lack of context when you chop up history to sell a narrative to move magazines.