Why is Tunney a great heavyweight?

[Marchegiano]

I didn't mean to suggest that you were being a revisionist by bringing in the 'color line.'

No doubt when evaluating Dempsey one has to assess that he didn't fight any Black challengers.** It creates questions that go unanswered and is a proper challenge made.

But to ignore the prevailing social temperament of the day and go into the research believing that a wrong had occur and that, in itself, warrants Dempsey's greatest be diminished, is in my opinion, wrong.

If one wants to say he wasn't that great then say what he accomplished wasn't great, not what might or should have been, if he had been fighting post Braddock. IMO that is unfair.

Your use of the phrase "color line champions" makes me ask if you are not making that prejudgment when assessing these fighters' greatness. Assess their greatness by what they did accomplish, not the 'what ifs.'

I have no opinion on Maher barely know anything of him except the controversy surrounding Gentleman Jim.

I have always been a Hart man. Exposing my age, I use to throw his name into the champion mix back on Prodigy, just to be a troll.

I think Hart got screwed out of his title by the money men.

The day of the Hart-Root fight Jeffries declared Hart HW Champion. Four days later he retracted his words and announced that Hart needs to fight a few more times before we should call him champion.

Can't you just hear it, the money boys grabbing Jeffries and saying 'what the hell did you just do'? We need to milk this for a few more elimination fights before we give the title to anyone, besides that bastard Hart won't sign with us, now get out there and retract your declaration. (Just joking, sort of.)

I don't think Jeffries got wiser over those four days, just had the dollars and cents explain to him.

So I include Hart. Why not! He was kind enough historically speaking to lose his 'title' to Tommy Burns and set things in order for us, so lets give him one. I say he's in!

Or do we not accept Burns as Champion? LOL -- When did Jack Johnson become HW Champion, after Burns or Jeffries? LOL


** Really just Harry Wills (whom IMHO he should of fought) but the other three McVea, Langford, and Jeanette were pass it.

I don't actually take an issue with Champion's Prerogative. Which may be a retronym(thanking you, great word) itself, I don't know, but, I do know Corbett wasn't the first and Jeffries was really just following a long line of tradition.

To me there's no difference between Jeffries right to select the vacancy fighters than Figg's era and any era in between including Corbett's.

Who else would you expect to select the next champion when a champion retires in an era when the champion themselves control the title?

They selected who the fought, when the title was on the line, and who fought for their vacancy. Not just Corbett and Jeffries, but Corbett, Jeffries, Thompson, Ward, Cribb

...let me just c/p the line on Tom Spring's CBZ record when and how he became champion:

1822
May 18 -Spring was nominated as the British Champion by Tom Cribb, who retired

didn't even fight for it. Recognized! No historians saying " Oh but the claim is weak though"

Hen Pearce also elected Gully to the title. And if you go back to Figg's era everyone who was called champion in Figg's lifetime was done so because Figg said they were champion. Some of them fought for it, others didn't. It's why Broughton had to fight Taylor for the right to control boxing. It's also why Broughton, after winning the title, had the honor of writing the rules.

It's also why no one could do **** about Sully going with different rules when he switched boxing to QB rules. The Gazette tried, but to get control of a title you have to beat the champion or get the champ's approval and that's it.


Why would I or should I go through history and denote who I believe has a strong claim to the title? It doesn't seem like that's what any of them were doing. It seems like champion's simply control the title. And honest lineal, or lineage, would acknowledge all of these instances, not just the ones that conveniently end in the same line they started like Broughton and Taylor or Hart and Burns.

I can go through every single instance it's happened. There's plenty more than the names I mentioned and as I type more pop to mind. Usually the champion elects his last good challenger or the next one he's meant to face to the vacancy fight against their own star pupil. Which is a practice as old as Figg. Maher's a pretty normal case of it.





In Dempsey's case, no I don't have a moral issue, I just think given he didn't fight X then he shouldn't be given the benefit of doubt and act like he did. Wills is the main, but, the Sams and Joe may have been old, they'd've still been nice names to see, and Godfrey may have been young but he too would have been a good fighter to have on Dempsey's record. All five are better names than Miske. It's not about holding Dempsey's toes to the fire for some historical morality. It's about boxing being a sport of skepticism and no free passes.

Also, I do not think reposting mens opinions of the boxers of their time has anything to do with not forcing your opinions into history. I think it's a very easy way to feel like an opinion is beyond reproach. No one justifies ATG lists with dated opinions. No one says well X was really well loved in his time so he must be great. Until you start complaining about colorline fighters. Then, all of sudden, all the metrics get thrown out and the white guy gets given the benefit of doubt because the white guys who made him super popular were, shockingly, really into Dempsey.


It does look like a tool used out of convenience and an unwillingness to backtrack what men who really shouldn't be respected historians had written years and decades before technology made information readily available enough to shine enough light on their claims to realize it's bull****.

Maher not being champion is just bull****, it's bull**** that's being spun very well but it's still bull**** and no modern man has any right to disregard that history.

I believe, atm, it's because of laziness and an unwillingness to tell a complex story so they simplified it. If that's not the answer then I'm inclined to believe it is racism. Maybe latent, maybe overt, I dunno. It doesn't look like there's much option for how we got the stories and ideas we have today other than laziness and racism. Keeping the history pure is without a doubt not at all even close to why Peter Maher is not seen as champion or why there's no indicator for the racially limited 'world' champions and the real, actual, world champions who actually defended their titles against anyone from anywhere.

I'm a Jack Dempsey fan, ATG for sure, he gets no freepasses though. When I say he's not a real world champion that's because it's the truth, not me reimagining the history. The history is, back then the world champion titles were for whites. The presentation is look at my list of equal champions and never mind men who won titles in their lifetime, we can forget them because they're weak claims also remember the weaker ones though because we said so...


It's a cluster **** atm

[HOUDINI563]

Jeffries picked the top 2 heavyweights at that time to fight from the vacant championship. Had he NOT picked the top two the winner would not today be considered the true champion. So it had nothing to do with Jeffries “anointing” a bout as for the championship.....absolutely nothing. It’s the simple fact that Jeffries indeed retired and the top two heavyweights fought for that vacant title that mattered.

So VERY different as compared with Corbett’s fake retirement and a bout between fighters not the top 2 at the time.

[JAB5239]

Nice to see this thread create do many contrasting opinions in such a (mostly) respectful way. I am firm in my opinion on this topic, but I respect the others I've seen and disagree with. You guys have put some great thought into your arguments.

[QueensburyRules]

Jeffries indeed retired and the top two heavyweights fought for that vacant title that mattered.

So VERY different as compared with Corbett’s fake retirement and a bout between fighters not the top 2 at the time.

- -Heh, heh, feeling U fresh Harry Potter BigBoys today are U?

Any Barney source links?

[Waldenverney]

You're right.

[Willie Pep 229]

So who's the non-sequitur new guy?

[Marchegiano]

Jeffries picked the top 2 heavyweights at that time to fight from the vacant championship. Had he NOT picked the top two the winner would not today be considered the true champion. So it had nothing to do with Jeffries “anointing” a bout as for the championship.....absolutely nothing. It’s the simple fact that Jeffries indeed retired and the top two heavyweights fought for that vacant title that mattered.

So VERY different as compared with Corbett’s fake retirement and a bout between fighters not the top 2 at the time.

How is applying modern sensibility to history in this way better than applying modern sensibility to the colorline? IE, who are you, me, or anyone else you can possibly quote to say who is and is not historically a legitimate champion? That's a point of fact, either a man had that status or he didn't Peter did. So how is saying "Oh but he's illegitimate" not applying your POV onto some history that happened differently?


Are you claiming I can't find an elected champion with a weaker claim than Maher? You know some of them bought that honor, fixed their fights, ducked any legitimate contender ( IE a man who was willing to actually fight rather than work a fix) and used gang violence to enforce their rule over the title rather than fighting in the ring. Those guys exist, their reigns are documented as legitimate championship reigns. They seem to me to have far, far, weaker claims than an undefeated legitimate challenger fighting the protege of the champion for a vacant belt. That's pretty straightforward when you look at the rest and doesn't stick out as an odd one.

Jem Ward and the Ward Gang sticks out as odd ones, and are guilty of even more ****ery then the above paragraph.

Tom Spring didn't even fight for the title. To be far, going by your Hart reasoning he didn't need to, but going by the normalcy of practice, yeah, he's like the only guy presently recognized by CBZ and TBRB as champion who did not even fight a vacancy. He stands out.

Peter Maher is par for the course from that point of view.




I can't argue against Hart, you know I can't. He was the man at the time, but, I do feel like that's changing the goal post to even ask me to.

Marvin Hart, in his time, was elected to the fight because the champion said so. Just like Simon Byrne, just like Tom Spring, just like Peter Maher.

To say now, no, no, you've the history wrong. The champions never decided....well...I know that's bull**** bud. I can tell you every title transfer ever from 1722 to the 1900s. A lot of guys were elected and no one had the authority to do anything about it. The champions decided what weight classes were, who was legitimate contenders for them to fight, who they passed their titles to, and whether or not the world had just seen a legitimate championship fight.


Look you into Jem Ward and tell me he's a more legitimate champion then Peter Maher. That might be why Peter was left out, but if that's the case there's still plenty inconsistency in the list of champions.

[Marchegiano]

Nice to see this thread create do many contrasting opinions in such a (mostly) respectful way. I am firm in my opinion on this topic, but I respect the others I've seen and disagree with. You guys have put some great thought into your arguments.

If anyone has taken me as disrespectful I apologize and I did not mean to come off that way.


I see youse olders as the knowers. I'm learning from youse. Sometimes it's a bit of a struggle. I'm not trying to fight, it's just difficult to say "Oh, okay" when you know contradictory info.


The juxtaposition may not have been achieved, but, it should be Willie and Dini are the teachers here and I am their student.

[HOUDINI563]

You are trying to make your argument fit two completely different circumstances. Jeffries actually retired and the two leading contenders fought for the vacant title. That’s how a new champion is crowned once a champion retires. It did not matter that Jeffries just happen to choose the top two contenders. Either way the winner is the new champion.

Corbett’s retirement was not taken seriously and the populous was right. The bout Corbett christened as for his championship had to include the top two leading contenders AND Corbett had to actually retire. He didn’t and it wasn’t. Try to understand the difference.

[Willie Pep 229]

If anyone has taken me as disrespectful I apologize and I did not mean to come off that way.


I see youse olders as the knowers. I'm learning from youse. Sometimes it's a bit of a struggle. I'm not trying to fight, it's just difficult to say "Oh, okay" when you know contradictory info.


The juxtaposition may not have been achieved, but, it should be Willie and Dini are the teachers here and I am their student.

I like to see it as just a bunch of fight fans sitting around in a pub, downing a few pints. Sometimes I get too loud, but then I calm down and go back to listening.

It's been a good discussion.