Which fighter's legacy has benefited most from a fight not happening?

I hope you'll also not mind a new contribution from an earlier poster to this thread. In submissions #9 & #10, I offered my two bits on Wills and Dempsey which you considerately indulged. But more and more, there's seems a superb obscure example which I have an increasingly mounting realization of.

Freddie Miller, if he had defended the featherweight championship against Henry Armstrong rather than Petey Sarron.

Now, Freddie would be recognized as an ATG HOFer regardless of whether or not he was the first world champion Hank dethroned. But the very month before Armstrong-Sarron, Miller decisively lost his final challenge of Sarron only two months after Freddie defeated Petey in a non-title ten rounder at the same Wanderer's Stadium venue in Johannesburg.

Sarron was only stopped once in his 152 fight career, and it was of course to Hank. Miller did not get stopped over a span of 250 bouts, only getting halted in just his second match and final career outing. Does that change if Freddie wins his final match with Petey, then gets to be the one confronting Armstrong's awesome challenge?

Ironically, the triumphant outcome of Sarron's final match over Miller in one of boxing's very best rivalries may well have cost Petey entry into Canastota up to the present date, while Freddie got in over 15 years ago.

Miller had over 100 more victories than Sarron. This isn't about who was greater overall, or head to head (as the tough little Syrian did actually emerge with the title in hand). But how does Freddie's historical status change, if on October 29, 1937, Henry Armstrong KO 6 Freddie Miller for the World FW Title, followed possibly by Sarron succeeding Hank to that then vacated championship?

Also, what if Armstrong decides to stick around to make at least one defense at 126? Unlike Petey, Freddie continued to compete at 126 after Armstrong-Sarron, and seems like he'd be the most plausible first challenger for Hank. Does such a FW Title challenge of Henry end well for him?

My hypothesis is that Armstrong-Sarron having taking place has kept Petey out of the IBHOF as of this date, while Armstrong-Miller never having taken place allowed Freddie an earlier entry into Canastota than he'd have otherwise enjoyed, maybe a much earlier entry.

Armstrong-Miller, instead of Armstrong-Sarron for the FW Title. Just how much were the reputations of Freddie and Petey changed by which fights did and did not happen? Maybe a fortunate thing for Miller he was still hanging out in South Africa when Armstrong-Sarron took place, while Petey shielded Freddie's credibility by taking the bullet for both.

 

Another one from a recent thread is/was that Bruno--Mason bout. Those UK fighters always seemed to fight and actually, tend to have a series of bouts. How that didn't come off is incredible and the Bruno reputation would be far lower with that loss--most likely a tko--on his dossier. We the fans missed out on that because it would have been an entertaining bout and a nice payday and the attendance would have been huge in Wembley for it.

Ayala--Duran is another nice consideration in recent times anyway. I think a bad loss--and does he lose any other way--puts Tony in penny stock status overnight. it would have made for a huge pendulum swing.

 

Y'all musta forgot

 

Not sure why that would come to mind especially since I have the opposite listed as an option. It appears to me that Foreman has gained considerable mileage from not fighting Mike Tyson; if Foreman fought and lost to Tyson in 1991, you would view his come back very differently.

I think we can both agree that we've found your option.

Great insight!

It just goes to show what the crux of this thread is about; boxing is largely about perception. And yes Miller certainly lucked out.

 

Jack Dempsey, he may have lost his first defence if he didn't duck Wills and Greb

 

Your now two-year old post about Wills was strong enough to cause a paradigm shift. I've always suspected that Demspey would have defeated Wills anyway, but your insights really color in the rest of the talk about that fight that didn't happen.

The post above really forces one to think. On one hand, Duo found dots, connected them, and came up with a cogent theory. On the other hand, some one like me never would have appreciated Sarron had he not fought Armstrong. Armstrong's blackout punch finished him off in that bout, but the fact that he was involved in something so historic put a spotlight on him that he, unlike Miller who was already more well-known, may not have gotten.

Any IBHOF voter should take the time to read the press releases before Armstrong-Sarron to really get a glimpse into how formidable a fighter Sarron truly was. It has been forgotten that by some reports, Sarron was actually handling the Hurricane for about 4 rounds before the inevitable happened. "Armstrong isn't facing a punk this time," he said before the fight.

Cocoa Kid and Sarron were stable mates in the early 30s. Both fighters were brought to New Haven, Connecticut from Florida by Senator Harry Durant. Everyone was more excited about Sarron, who was already making waves.

 

If on the other hand he beat them, you could say that Wills was past his best and Greb was just a middleweight.

Either way, somebody would have lost those fights and their reputation would have suffered.

 

I'm saying Salvador.Can't see him beating Alexis, Ray, or Howard jr, for that matter.

 

Sullivan - Peter Jackson

Dempsey - Wills

Tyson - Foreman (career 2)

IN the first two a legend comes down to Earth ... one way or the other ... in the third Foreman gets crushed and his legacy would be no where as warm and fuzzy ...

 

One of Ortiz and Napoles ranking would suffer had the two met at 135\140.Gato Gonzalez might have changed perceptions of a few fighters with better early career management and a bit more luck, though that goes both ways as well.

 

I don't know what to think of Gato. And his durability.

If I remember correctly he was regarded past prime when he fought Carmona - his only good performance on film.

He looks good, reminds of Napoles a bit.

But when exactly was his prime?

When he was stopped by Cervantes?
Before that?
Somewhere between the loss to Colter and Cervantes fight?

Who was the best fighter he was capable of beating?

 

pac not fighting fmj has worked wonders for his career it must be said.

 

Lewis definitely for me. His whole legacy is clearing out his era by beating all his contenders and forcing bowe into hiding.

In reality bowe probably beats him any time before 97.

 

Controversial, but just came to me reading this great thread, Pacquaio/Mayweather (either way really, but especially Pacquiao)