Was Harold Johnson undeserving...

Again, you clearly dont understand how their rankings worked. Youve said they only had those tiered groupings until 1960 or 61. Not true:

Below are examples from 1954 thru 1959 of the NBA ranking their fighters from champion and down 1 thru 10. Furthermore you can see in the January 1954 ratings that the NBA spells out perfectly for a moron like Kentucky Cobra just how those tiered ratings despite being grouped are still meant to be taken as 1-10.


January 1954 [url]https://flic.kr/p/XshkXv[/url]
December 1956 [url]https://flic.kr/p/Yr41ef[/url]
March 1957 [url]https://flic.kr/p/XshkQX[/url]
June 1957 [url]https://flic.kr/p/XshkTc[/url]
January 1958 [url]https://flic.kr/p/XshkUp[/url]
February 1958 [url]https://flic.kr/p/XshkYT[/url]
May 1958 [url]https://flic.kr/p/XshkMR[/url]
November 1958 [url]https://flic.kr/p/Xshkxx[/url]
June 1959 [url]https://flic.kr/p/XshkRP[/url]

See above, I think I this qualifies as having to beat you over the ****ing head with a fact you didnt already know (a common occurrence with you). To further illustrate that they did indeed issue mandatory defenses and that Moore was chronically at odds for refusing to defend against his mandatories you can refer to the instance in December 1953 when Moore refused to defend against his mandatory Harold Johnson and instead chose to face Joey Maxim in a rematch. The NBA threatened to strip him. It was their second edict prodding him to defend against Johnson. Moore stated that he wouldnt fight Johnson for less than a $100,000 guarantee, he took $52,000 plus a percentage of the gate for Maxim. So clearly he thought more of Johnson's chances. When Moore continued to refuse the NBA finally began proceedings to suspend and then strip Moore which forced him to defend against Johnson and he accepted $29,000, a far cry from his ridiculous demands designed to kill the fight. In early 1957 Moore was suspended from boxing by the NBA for his consistent refusal to fight his #1 contender who was then Tony Anthony. Moore came within a whisker of being stripped and tried everything to avoid the match including threatening a million dollar lawsuit. It didnt matter, he was dragged into the ring and forced to defend. If you notice the ratings above youll see that Johnson was rated #2 in June of 1957. When Anthony lost to Moore in September Johnson moved into the #1 place and stayed Moore's mandatory until Moore was stripped three years and one month later. Sorry Charlie but ducking your number one contender for three years and month is ridiculous especially when youve rematched multiple fighters.

Oh bull****. It was an easier defense. Period. There is nothing intriguing about Moore picking apart a face first cement legged ham and egger. Anthony was clearly the better fighter of the two and the more difficult opponent. Its funny that Moore had no problem with rematches with a title on the line as long as the guy in the other corner was a sizeable underdog.

Its only major because its the one article among a legion of dissenters that kinda sorta supports your ludicrous contention that Durelle, Pompey, and Rinaldi were worthy challengers.

Sorry but rankings are based on merit. Thats how the system works. It fails when boxers can act like Kings lording over the others and picking their opposition. Thats a system doomed to corruption and frankly that specific reason is exactly why the NBA was formed in the first place. To counteract guys like Al McCoy, Battling Levinsky, and JOhnny Wilson abusing their position, clinging to their titles, and refusing to risk them against deserving challengers.

 

Durelle never took priority because when Moore first defended against him Johnson had already been the top contender for a year. Durelle briefly cracked #2 in the rankings before Anthony knocked him out that year. So no, Durelle didnt take priority at all.

Again, wrong, the champion was expected to defend his title every six months as per the rules of the NBA. Do you find cases of fighters refusing and abusing their position? Yes. But does that make it acceptable? No. The NBA was trying to clean up the sport and was attempting make sure champions fought regularly and against the best available opposition. Thats something to be admired, not frowned upon in the face of a fighter who felt like he owned the title and could with it as we chose.

Johnson was the harder fight. Ive said until Im blue in the face. **** Ring magazines ratings. Their ratings dont mean ****. I wipe my ass with paper thats as valuable as Rings ratings. You keep trying to take solace in the Ring ratings and they are absolutely meaningless to this discussion. And as illustrated above Moore was dragged kicking and screaming into the ring with Anthony as well, the ONLY top contender he faced from 1954 on to the end of his career. Period. How ****ing dangerous was a guy who had been beaten 19 times by a wide variety of talented and not so talented guys?? He was a soft touch who has damn few worthwhile wins. Period.

 

Again, ratings arent based one what someone will do in the future. If you can see in the future let me know. We both know you cant. When Moore defended against Pompey and Hecht was rated ahead of Pompey by the NBA it was because Hecht was more proven and had more experience. Dispute that? I dont think you can. As for Speiser ratings are issued month to month and we see fighters pop in and out of ratings all the time. Are you really going to argue Speiser was any worse than Durelle, Pompey, or Rinaldi?

Johnsons loss to Smith only briefly affected his standing because he immediately jumped back into contention with a devastating one punch knockout over Andrews who had just knocked out Smith. Johnson stayed in contention with two wins over Andrews, A win over Sattefield who while fighting around 180 was still considered a quasi LHW by the NBA, thats not from me thats from them when they named him their outstanding fighter and placed him at something like #2 or 3 off those wins. He then beat Hinnant and based off the three previous wins was named #1 contender after Anthony was stopped by Moore. At this point he was fighting heavyweights while negotiating for a title shot. I certainly dont think Bethea and Whitehurst were less threatening than Durelle, Pompey, and Rinaldi. When a fight with Moore failed to materialize he dropped back down to keep his ranking by fighting contender Sonny Ray who most felt had beaten Anthony in their last bout and Clarence Floyd who had just knocked out Sonny Ray. There was no opportunity to fight Durelle because Durelle wasnt in the mix after Moore having moved up to HW and frankly wasnt much in the mix before. Yolande Pompey did nothing after Moore and frankly both Pompey and Durelle had lost to Hinnant so Harold Johnson was really cleaning out a division that below him was pretty weak and establishing himself as the lone logical challenger for Moore. In fact Johnson tried to get a match with Rinaldi after he won the title eliminator but they couldnt come to terms. Meanwhile he was fighting guys like Von Clay, Jessie Bowdry, and Doug Jones, all young guys coming up that Johnson blocked and dabbling at HW against guys like Machen who was pretty avoided himself. Its pretty hard to argue that Johnson was being protected while he was chasing the top guy in the division and fighting all the guys he did.

 

I didnt get confused by anything as illustrated above. If you can read you will see which one of us has a better understanding of the rankings.

 

Its absolutely asinine to suggest that simply because a fighter lost to Moore years earlier and worked his way back into contention that he wasted his time and didnt deserve a title shot. So the guy works to #1 and then what? He retires? He is forced to fight HWs (he did that)? He waits years until Moore abdicates(he did that too). If a fighter earns the top spot he deserves a shot and if that means that Moore is getting older and more vulnerable while Johnson is improving or maintaining then boo ****ing hoo, thats sports. The title isnt some fiefdom that stays with the owner until death. Jesus christ no wonder this sport is so **** today the fans are a bunch of children who cant wrap their minds around the most basic standard of athletic competition. Its not about insisting Moore fight someone six or seven times until he gets old, its about him fighting the guy who works his way to the right to challenge. Moore had no problem fighting Howard Kind FIVE ****ING TIMES while Moore was calling himself a champion AFTER refusing to fight Johnson because he had already beaten him. Double standard?

 

Given that Moore was stripped for just that fact Id say Ive proven it.

Just saying something over and over and over doesnt make it so. Saying that it was accepted Moore make defenses against whoever he chose doesnt make it so. If that were the case he wouldnt have been set down and forced at least twice to defend against the opponent the NBA selected and ultimately stripped for failing to do so another time. Its simple and as the posters above have noted it was common knowledge, its not like im blowing everyones minds by stating simple fact. Some people love Moore and Im one of those people but unlike you Im not afraid to show the guys career had warts.

Pretending that Johnson wasnt Moores top contender for three years is fantasy. Period. Anyone can look at the official rankings i posted and see that. The fact that moore was ultimately stripped for refusing to face him is the proof in the pudding.

And continuing to flat out lie about the way the NBA posted its ratings is pretty ridiculous given the examples i posted. How are you going to sit there and tell me that the NBA only posted quarterly ratings when you can see they posted monthly ratings. How are you going to tell me that when trade publications posted the NBAs monthly ratings in their monthly journals? Just like trying to say they didnt rate 1-10 (disproven by me) and that they generically grouped fighters with no numerical value and each fighter in a group having the same standing (disproven by me)

Moore fought Anthony first, THEN anthony worked his way back into contention. He was rated ahead of Durelle by virtue of a KO over Durelle AFTER anthony lost to Moore and BEFORE Durelle fought moore. Thats called context. Your refusal too look at these instances within the context of the times and instead as some time travelling omniscent being is why your argument holds no weight. It illustrates that Moore literally had to go out of his way to take a fight against a guy who was less threatening than Johnson or Anthony. But hey if you want to believe going life and death yvonne ****ing durelle is a feather in his cap so be it. Great fight but why the **** was a great fighter struggling so bad with such a **** fighter if he was so confident that fights with better fighters were foregone conclusions for him?