With declining standards, are Lee Savold and Ernest Terrell now legit champions?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by catchwtboxing, Jun 26, 2020.

Savold and Terrell as champions?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. catchwtboxing

    catchwtboxing Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jul 4, 2014
    I don't intend to argue this, I only want to see what people think.

    When I was growing up, reading books and magazines (what the hell are those, right?) about boxing history, the fact that guys like Savold and Terrell were mentioned as having held "world titles" by the EBU and WBA, respectively, was glossed over, or even mocked.

    But here we are with four recognized sanctioning bodies sponsoring titles, a couple of other pretender organizations, and each throwing up endless mandatories so that nothing can ever be unified. The WBA recognizes 2-3 champions at a time, and the WBC looks to be following suit.

    So, are Terrell and Savold, in hindsight, a bit more credible as champions?

    Again, I've no dog in this fight.
    William Walker, Flash24 and sweetsci like this.
  2. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Feb 10, 2013
  3. sweetsci

    sweetsci Well-Known Member Full Member

    Jan 22, 2008
    If you're going to recognize (at least) the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO now and the NYSAC in Joe Frazier's time, I think you have to recognize Terrell's and Savold's titles.

    If you have chosen to ignore the sanctioning bodies and their strange decisions and have tried to recognize just one world champ, lineal style, then no, Terrell and Savold weren't legitimate champs.

    I choose the latter.
  4. Big Ukrainian

    Big Ukrainian Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jan 10, 2007
    Savold never was considered as a legit champion. Terrell is perfectly legit though
    Mendoza likes this.
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Sep 15, 2009
    They were title claimants. They never had the best title claim, but they claimed it none the less.

    They went into the ring where a fight was promoted as being a championship fight.

    In my mind their title is as valid as the not universally accepted claims from the turn of the century, as valid as the coloured championship, as valid as the duration championship, as valid as the claims of those belt holders who clearly are not number 1 in the division today such as Anthony Joshua.

    Some believe these guys deserve no credit, some believe they deserve full.

    For me it's somewhere in the middle.
  6. mcvey

    mcvey Obsessed with Boxing banned Full Member

    Jun 2, 2006
    Terrell at least beat top rated contenders to earn his alpahabet title.
    Savold beat a second rater in Woodcock and nobody, outside a few stupid Brits, pretended it meant jack ****.The two best heavyweights at that time were clearly Charles and Walcott.
  7. Berlenbach

    Berlenbach Boxing Addict Full Member

    Sep 27, 2011
    This is a good way of looking at it.
    RockyJim and lufcrazy like this.
  8. Fergy

    Fergy Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jan 8, 2017
    Similar to the WBO claiming Damiani as the heavyweight champ of the world while Tyson held the rest of the belts.. Crazy.
    RockyJim and mcvey like this.
  9. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta We Do Chicken Right!! banned Full Member

    Sep 21, 2017
    When the announcer introduced Lennox Lewis as the universally recognized undisputed heavyweight champion of the world before he fought Botha, I thought to myself "that's not true about him being universally recognized" because at the time I recognized one of my neighbors as the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world
    catchwtboxing likes this.
  10. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Nov 24, 2005
    Lee Savold's claim is about on a par with Bruce Seldon's.

    Ernie Terrell in 1965 was actually a better fighter than Savold in 1950 .... but Terrell's legitimacy is even weaker than Savold's.
    RockyJim likes this.
  11. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Boxing Addict Full Member

    Aug 15, 2018
    Neither were champions and neither were people like Wilder. But I will say you’re a hypocrite if you don’t consider the latter two champions but people like wilder are.
    Bokaj likes this.
  12. mcvey

    mcvey Obsessed with Boxing banned Full Member

    Jun 2, 2006
    No,because Terrell beat a swathe of top heavyweights and was thre standout challenger to Ali and Woodcock never did , his best scalps Savold by dsq and Oma by ko were both fakes.
    Fergy likes this.
  13. mattdonnellon

    mattdonnellon Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Dec 2, 2006
    If you do then you have Kilrain, Slavin, Maher,Sharkey, CC Smith, Grant, Hadley, Godfrey, Jackson, Childs, Armstrong, Martin, Jeannette, McVea, Langford, Wills,Tate, Godfrey, Gains, Walker, Bobo, Murray, Bivins,...where do you stop?
    catchwtboxing, RockyJim and 70sFan865 like this.
  14. scartissue

    scartissue Boxing Addict Full Member

    Mar 2, 2006
    To tell you the truth, Terrell's claim was so much more solid than what Savold had. Savold didn't even have EBU sanctioning behind him. This 'title' was created by the British Boxing Board (actually I think it was created by promoter Jack Solomon to create a Brit heavyweight champ in the wake of the Louis retirement). Solomon plucked Savold from the wasteland to serve as fodder for Woodcock (Savold was 35 and hadn't fought in a year and a half. I think for all intents and purposes he had retired), only for Savold to massacre the Brit. This 'title' was so tenuous that when Savold lost to Joe Louis the following year, the BBB of C would not recognize Joe, despite the bout flying under the banner of the BBB of C. They simply threw their lot with Ezzard Charles. So much for sticking with BBB of C recognition.
  15. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Feb 10, 2013
    Why should we accept the bar being lowered?