Worst Heavyweight Champion in Boxing History?

[Marchegiano]

TBF to Charles

He is not a mixed rules champion. There are 0 elements on LPRR in his career.

He is not a pre-body champion. He did, kinda, earn his shot. More so than just being popular in America amongst whites.

He is not a a colorline era champion. He had to fight all sorts of people to get into position to be called up by the IBF

He is not a cold war era champion. He fought someone who wouldn't have been fighting for a world title at all in the cold war era.

So, I mean, yeah, there's plenty to dig into but infrastructure and culture alone does give Martin some wins in some categories other dudes are not applicable in. I don't think Sully-Braddock should get the praise they do given boxing was so small, so unorganized, and so unfair for so long. Those dudes are champions who fought what would be considered mixed rules today, fought whoever they damn well pleased, did not have to care about black talent, did not have to care about EE talent. That pool is so small being champion of it seems like a lesser accomplishment, to me.

Hate Fury and Joshua all you like, they are pieces of real world champions. China can get it if China can get to their level. Russia got it. Ukraine is about to get it. Resumes that are impossible for say the great Joe Louis. Martin is part of that much larger world of boxing, so, maybe hating on him should be done with a grain of salt. How great was Joe Louis really? How great was Dempsey really? Great enough to utterly dominate a very small pool of talent? Eh. Not saying I'd take Marin over Louis or Dempsey just that Martin did something totally non-applicable to Louis and Dempsey and it shouldn't be utterly lost of historical fans.

All this always hating on the new in favor of the old, y'all might just miss what makes your era special. When reading eras we find what made them special and talk about it, but, we are always hating on our own time without trying to find what makes now special and why we should feel fortunate to watch some **** like Martin vs Glaz even if neither were "the man" in the division and the fight went ****ty. It's cool that **** like that happens now. Black dude fighting white dude, american vs ee, rated fighters, it's not all bad. It's not all worse.

[QueensburyRules]

TBF to Charles

He is not a mixed rules champion. There are 0 elements on LPRR in his career.

He is not a pre-body champion. He did, kinda, earn his shot. More so than just being popular in America amongst whites.

He is not a a colorline era champion. He had to fight all sorts of people to get into position to be called up by the IBF

He is not a cold war era champion. He fought someone who wouldn't have been fighting for a world title at all in the cold war era.

So, I mean, yeah, there's plenty to dig into but infrastructure and culture alone does give Martin some wins in some categories other dudes are not applicable in. I don't think Sully-Braddock should get the praise they do given boxing was so small, so unorganized, and so unfair for so long. Those dudes are champions who fought what would be considered mixed rules today, fought whoever they damn well pleased, did not have to care about black talent, did not have to care about EE talent. That pool is so small being champion of it seems like a lesser accomplishment, to me

- -Lot of prehistory blah blah ignores Charly beat a guy unable to pass a basic military physical, something that even average cupcakes pass.

[Marchegiano]

- -Lot of prehistory blah blah ignores Charly beat a guy unable to pass a basic military physical, something that even average cupcakes pass.

A - I did not know that, are you being sarcastic or for real Glaz failed his physical?

B- Lot of blah to ignore basically everything.

[Willie Pep 229]

A - I did not know that, are you being sarcastic or for real Glaz failed his physical?

B- Lot of blah to ignore basically everything.

The fight was a split draw after two rounds and ended on a knee injury.

The guy (Glazkov) was 21-0-1 at the time. Doesn't seem to be a ham and egger to me, who couldn't pass a physical, he seems a site more than that.

But I don't think Martin deserves the international praise you heap on him, at the expense of the 'old timers.' One should only judge a man's greatness by the standards of his day, don't make him responsible for those standards and don't demean his greatness for something he can't control.

In regards to international Martin, he went over seas and got stopped in two, and Glazkov blew out his knee. Otherwise he fought in the States. This somehow this mitigates him and raises him to the level of Dempsey-Louis?

[QueensburyRules]

A - I did not know that, are you being sarcastic or for real Glaz failed his physical?

B- Lot of blah to ignore basically everything.

- -Try to keep up.

He couldn't pass a military induction physical. Or your average truck driving/construction physical. They don't hire cripples save for office work.

[StarshipTrooper]

Trevor Berbick

[Marchegiano]

The fight was a split draw after two rounds and ended on a knee injury.

The guy (Glazkov) was 21-0-1 at the time. Doesn't seem to be a ham and egger to me, who couldn't pass a physical, he seems a site more than that.

But I don't think Martin deserves the international praise you heap on him, at the expense of the 'old timers.' One should only judge a man's greatness by the standards of his day, don't make him responsible for those standards and don't demean his greatness for something he can't control.

In regards to international Martin, he went over seas and got stopped in two, and Glazkov blew out his knee. Otherwise he fought in the States. This somehow this mitigates him and raises him to the level of Dempsey-Louis?

I didn't think it was a heap of praise tbh, just a lot to explain a small victory imo. He was a single strap holder in a time when boxing was more global. That's not even calling him a great for his time let alone an all time great. That's just acknowledging he got to a title at a time when the whole world except like North Korea or some such had a chance to get in that title shot. Which is probably the only thing Martin can say he did a lot of ATGs never did.

Don't get me twisted bud, I'm definitely still a Marciano fan. I'm just acknowledging Marciano's pool was smaller.

[Willie Pep 229]

I didn't think it was a heap of praise tbh, just a lot to explain a small victory imo. He was a single strap holder in a time when boxing was more global. That's not even calling him a great for his time let alone an all time great. That's just acknowledging he got to a title at a time when the whole world except like North Korea or some such had a chance to get in that title shot. Which is probably the only thing Martin can say he did a lot of ATGs never did.

Don't get me twisted bud, I'm definitely still a Marciano fan. I'm just acknowledging Marciano's pool was smaller.

You made a comment in an earlier post about Sullivan claiming a world champion after drawing with Charlie Mitchell. A fair point.

It got me thinking about the power of 'belts' - literally the belt itself.

There is an irony to Sullivan's title claim, that is: the first recognized champion of the modern era (MQB) held a 'disputed' title. Actually maybe more prophetic than ironic.

In a sense Sullivan was a claimant and his 'scationing body' was the people of the United States as expressed by the actions of a handful of Boston elites who created a $10,000 (maybe $300K plus today) diamond studded belt for 'their' champion.

Just a few years back there was a big fight where there was no recognized title on the line so the WBC created a special (absurdly priced) belt for the occasion. Bragging about its ridiculous cost, (maybe six million) this belt was suspose to add credibility to the fight. (Actually the fight didn't need scantioning but the WBC needed to make itself important to the fight.)

Sullivan had a belt, a very expensive belt that came with much prestige, that said he was world champion.

The Brits on the other hand suffer from the Scottish disease, short arms and deep pockets, (i.e. very cheap) and no one saw fit to give Mitchell a super expensive belt, so how can we expect people to think of him as a world champion?

Of course I am being tongue and cheek but only to an extent; it would be an interesting history to examine the impact of championship belts on the game.

But Sullivan's title was scantioned by the American people and if anyone wanted to challenge that claim they could say 'but look at that belt he must be champion.'

I wonder if we clocked the years, we would find that the HW championship has had more years being under dispute than it did as a consensus?

[Marchegiano]

You made a comment in an earlier post about Sullivan claiming a world champion after drawing with Charlie Mitchell. A fair point.

It got me thinking about the power of 'belts' - literally the belt itself.

There is an irony to Sullivan's title claim, that is: the first recognized champion of the modern era (MQB) held a 'disputed' title. Actually maybe more prophetic than ironic.

In a sense Sullivan was a claimant and his 'scationing body' was the people of the United States as expressed by the actions of a handful of Boston elites who created a $10,000 (maybe $300K plus today) diamond studded belt for 'their' champion.

Just a few years back there was a big fight where there was no recognized title on the line so the WBC created a special (absurdly priced) belt for the occasion. Bragging about its ridiculous cost, (maybe six million) this belt was suspose to add credibility to the fight. (Actually the fight didn't need scantioning but the WBC needed to make itself important to the fight.)

Sullivan had a belt, a very expensive belt that came with much prestige, that said he was world champion.

The Brits on the other hand suffer from the Scottish disease, short arms and deep pockets, (i.e. very cheap) and no one saw fit to give Mitchell a super expensive belt, so how can we expect people to think of him as a world champion?

Of course I am being tongue and cheek but only to an extent; it would be an interesting history to examine the impact of championship belts on the game.

But Sullivan's title was scantioned by the American people and if anyone wanted to challenge that claim they could say 'but look at that belt he must be champion.'

I wonder if we clocked the years, we would find that the HW championship has had more years being under dispute than it did as a consensus?

It is VERY interesting

I have a thread about colors someplace, the whole point is I do kinda need help assembling the belt story. There's just HUGE gaps with little to no information and I haven't the time a younger version of me had to beat my head against known info to find unknown info.

I'm going to cover what I know, if what you're reading sound like something you know already then feel free to skip, I'll try to format in a way that makes that easy to do.

The belts start out as a means for duelists to make more money. You have your bets, which are good and fine, but also you'd wear a sash of a color of your choice around your waist and sold the same deal but smaller to your supporters who'd wave their colored handkerchief around in support.

This system in a way is the predecessor to belts but was not abandoned until the 20th century, which is why we see guys in sashes so late.

So the champion, early, just had his color. When a fighter beat a man he'd get a copy of that man's sash to add to his own, tied end to end, as kind of an early record keeping. Making it pretty clear by banner alone who had beaten who and who was the clear best.

It'd be around Mendoza's era and because Mendoza's claim to science folks combined the idea of what a champion is. They represent boxing, of course, but now they're the most knowledgeable and talented. So you have to listen to the champ like how we listen to "experts" today. His word was boxing.

The sashes for champions exists until Cribb, he was given a belt by King George and Moly got a belt from supporters. Now the champion has a belt rather than a very long banner made up of sashes tied end to end to display laurels. I mean sashes continue but the belt makes the long tied sash-record deal old hat and isn't used by champions after Cribb gets a belt.

I have 0 ****ing clue whatever happened to Moly's belt but Cribb's we can track. Cribb gives his belt to Sprigg. Just gave it to him, there is no fight. So precedence on how a vacancy is dealt with right there is a bit....no one would accept that from a "lineal" today even though a lineal is kind of meant to represent that era, pre-body belt moving, because it is such ****.

Cribb is able to do this because of the nature of boxing's roll out through Figg a century earlier. The champion was the most knowledgeable and best. If you go through CBZ's listings of champions they go with knowledge over skill. Figg did not fight most of the years he's listed as champion, he trained the man who did the fighting and named the best of an era for the public. It was called champion's prerogative and it lasted all the way up to the NBA era. CBZ calls Figg champion through that period because the people then called him champion but it's important to note the 1700s folks did not mean best, they meant master, trainer, knowledgeable expert.

As champion it was Cribb and Cribb alone who could decide for the public who was best after him and it was up to him how he wanted to handle the pass off. Cribb chose to simply hand over his title and belt to Spring.

Spring lost it to Cannon who sold it to Ward, I already covered Ward in my first post but basically, fixed fights and ducking from 1825-1839, multiple retirements and stripping champions who came after by stating he's back but never fighting. Ward would retire, allow the vacancy fights, then unretire, or, he'd demand crazy money, get it, then retire and unretire, but did not fight.

Through the chaos of Ward, we skip Burke, who never once held the belt. This is the first time in boxing history where the belt or its analog, the tied sashes, was split from consensus. If during say Peartree of the Figg era you thought champion meant knowledge then everyone mostly agreed that's Figg. If you thought champion meant best everyone agreed that's peartree. Now folks have to acknowledge Ward has the title but Burke is probably best.

Burke loses a fix to Bendigo, Bendigo was not in on it, Ward made it happen. After Bendigo beats Burke he receives the belt from Ward and the belt and consensus come together again.

Perry comes in, refuses Burke's challenge, and beats a man who was never a champion for the claim to the title. Bendigo still has the belt. Perry challenges and requests the belt, Bendigo refuses. The consensus and belt are again separated.

There quite a bit of back and forth now with who has the title, but, you know who still has the belt? Bendigo does. Perry, Broome, Paddock, and Sayers fight, exchange the title around, but no OG belt is returned to the champion. Sayers fights Heenan and a new belt is made.

Sayers and Heenan is kind of a repeat of Cribb-Molyneaux. No one really wins, or both do, or you think X does because Y report says he was doing better, whatever, what is important is both mean walk away with a version of world HW champion. You can't say consensus and the belt are tied again though, there's a whole nation to dispute the belt itself, a whole nother belt.

Sayers retires and bring Paddock's old tired ass up for a vacancy against new comer Hurst. Hurst beats Paddock and Sayers gives his belt to Hurst. English consensus and belt are united again and transfered.

Hurst drops to Mace, Mace to King and King fights Heenan. There's another controversy where the American KOs the English but it was in England so of course a bit of pause in action and then King wins.

So the Heenan line kind of born and died with Heenan, he did not give King his belt but King had Sayer's belt and it is safe to say world wide consensus. First world champion too.

King retires as far as I know that's as far as the Sayers belt gets.

Being no real lineage on the American side what you have are really claimants. Allen would claim the title, beltless, after beating a man called Davis.

Mace would claim the English title after King retired.

Allen and Mace fight, mace wins, he is our second world champion. well, fourth if you count co-champ like cribb-moly and sayers-heenan but 2 if you mean one champion for the world. To my knowledge there is no belt, but I honestly have not done any serious digging at this point in history.

Mace retires wich leaves Allen to reclaim the American title.

Allen loses to Goss who is the new champion in America but then Allen becomes the English champion.

Goss loses to Ryan

Ryan loses to Sullivan.

We all know Sully did not win a belt but had a belt made for him. Actually Sully was so ****ing popular there are multiple belts made for him. Sully ends the English bid, but, if we're talking consensus, the last consensus English champion is Mace. Guys post Mace like Allen claiming the title post Goss were already seen as lesser known and so lesser champions.

It literally is Sullivan's popularity that made the singular champion world post Ward's ****ery.

From there we get the return of some old stuff. Corbett retiring and returning is very Ward, what happened next is also very Ward. There's a dispute until Jeffries ends it.

And from that basically everyone knows the flow of title and consensus, but, it isn't until the NBA/NYSAC era that belts become something out of the control of the champion. So there ARE disputes even if most historians present them as undisputed. Like Jack Johnson, we all know Sam had like 4 titles, belts, from bodies, that said he was the real champion.

Not until Dempsey, I think, do we really get something like the modern belt-consensus situation and really that was short in the big picture....what is it, 68 or some such when the NBA and NYSAC split recognition? Kinda even before that, When Louis retired and unretired the NYSAC was kinda a **** to Walcott and Charles.

So really, I mean, Savold held the IBU, so really we have from the 20s- 50s where consensus and belt go hand-in-hand and that's about it.


to my knowledge.


Would ****ing love any help, input, corrections, etc. Someone has to tell the story of the belts, the ****ing champions, the real history. I'll say this, what I just wrote makes way, way, way more sense than this idealistic history folks spread where modern times is where consensus and belts split. Nah, most times, most eras I can point to another champion, or, a champion with no belt at all.

[markusmod]

Bruce Seldin.