Why is Tunney a great heavyweight?

[Marchegiano]

The issue with Historians not including Maher as a worlds heavyweight champion is quite simple.

Corbett announced he was bestowing his championship upon Maher. Maher did not earn that title. Thus the resulting Fitzsimmons- Maher bout in 1896 was not for the championship. No historian claims Maher was heavyweight champion because you cannot put together any logic historically that he was.

Fast forward to 1905 Jeffries announced the winner of Root-Hart would be the new champion. Over the years historians here and there felt, once again, that no champion had the right to bestow a championship in this manner. Over time however it was determined that a logical case could be made that Hart (due to his win over Johnson) and Root (due to his wins over Gardner and Flynn) were the logical top 2 contenders at that time. Thus most allow this fight as for the heavyweight championship. NOT because Jeffries called it as such but because it was historically accurate to do so.

Jeffries chose Hart and Root. History has no issue.

Corbett handed over his title, the next title fight in history is Maher vs Fitzs. Fitzs wins. But there's no historical grounds x2 HW champion Fitzs?

How about him holding the belt, how about him fighting for the belt, how about the belt being on the line while Corbett is an actor? Those are not historical ground to recognize a champion?

[HOUDINI563]

The question is how and why did Maher get to be champion. If it’s just that someone stated “Maher is your new worlds champion!” which in effect was what occurred then it holds no value. It’s similar to Norton being handed a championship because Spinks chose to rematch Ali. Did many call Norton the champion? Yes. Did Norton have any real claim to the true title. No. Spinks beat Ali, whose lineage is very clear, and had yet to lose that title in the ring.

[Marchegiano]

Jeffries chose Hart and Root. History has no issue.

Corbett handed over his title, the next title fight in history is Maher vs Fitzs. Fitzs wins. But there's no historical grounds x2 HW champion Fitzs?

How about him holding the belt, how about him fighting for the belt, how about the belt being on the line while Corbett is an actor? Those are not historical ground to recognize a champion?

Let me just say, I could be wrong, but, don't you think it's rather telling CBZ recognizes Figg, Pipes, Taylor, and Broughton but not Sutton, Whittaker, Peartree, Getting, or Gritton?

Maybe that's because they've applied a modern term for champion in an era when champion meant fighting in the honor of not best of?

I mean Whittaker is the English champion in his time, Peartree whooped his ass for the title...what the hell? Probably the hell is the inclusion of these guy, like the inclusion of Maher, causes a tree rather than a line.

Is it the truth? yes....All you have to do is look at the record keeper's records and look up the fights. Why isn't this man who beat the man for the title called a champion today even though he was in his time?

Pretentiousness.

The story is already guilty of it. It only seems used to defend upholding historical racism.

[HOUDINI563]

You are ignoring the details. If Hart and Root were not the logical top contenders then historically this bout would not be considered for the title.

I found an article years ago written by Jeffries where he defended very logically Hart and Root fighting for the championship. His analysis was 100% on the money.

Regarding Corbett his choice had zero historical merit. You cannot make the claim that Maher was top two best heavyweights in 1896.

[Marchegiano]

The question is how and why did Maher get to be champion. If it’s just that someone stated “Maher is your new worlds champion!” which in effect was what occurred then it holds no value. It’s similar to Norton being handed a championship because Spinks chose to rematch Ali. Did many call Norton the champion? Yes. Did Norton have any real claim to the true title. No. Spinks beat Ali, whose lineage is very clear, and had yet to lose that title in the ring.

Corbett is retired.

No one has an issue with Hart and Root but there is an issue with Maher and O'Donnell?

I'm really, honestly, I stopped arguing a while back and now I'm just confused.

The champion held a fight for his vacant title just like champions had before and did after. A man won that vacant title while the champion took up a different profession. What the damn hell do you mean there is no historical grounds? What do you mean it's like when Spinks fought Ali instead? No it isn't. There's one champion and he's ****ed off.

If the date is October 1895 then it's been about a month since Corbett left boxing and Maher won his title. Maher holds the physical title and there is no alternative. Corbett's not a boxer at the moment. Who is champion? Why is Corbett recognized as if he never retired?

Why are no other champions who simply chose the next champion disregarded unless they happen to cause a tree rather than line?

Do y'all know about Ward and Burke? Try explaining that **** and those dates on CBZ without applying modern standards.

[HOUDINI563]

The only way Maher is champion is if the top two heavyweights fought once Corbett retired. The two best heavyweights DID NOT fight for the championship so the idea that Maher vs Steve O’ Donnell was “for the championship” is beyond bogus.

Alternatively Hart vs Root you can very logically make the claim that these two at that time were number 1 and 2 heavyweights.

If you don’t see the difference you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Willie Pep 229]

I'm not following. How is disregarding Maher's championship run not applying modern standards to a history that did not have them?

If it was October 1895 and I asked who is the HW champion you would respond why Peter Maher of course.

if you look up who was champion in October of 1895 you're going to get Jim Corbett...even though he's off acting at the time.

I don't see how it isn't the application of modern standards that excludes Maher title reign from historical recognition.

Ok, using Houdini's post regarding Hart as a champion.

If those revisionist historians go into their research with a preconceived definition of champion (a contemporary definition) and then reassess Hart's claim to the title, that bad history.

But Houdini's post doesn't suggest they did that. His post suggest they just looked at the events as they unfolded then, and then concluded that Hart was 'a champion.'

That is good revisionist history, but had they tried to use/apply the Marciano-Patterson-Moore event as a bench mark (a standard) then that would be bad history.

The same process should be applied in evaluating Mader's claim, but when we do it is necessary that we don't go outside the social/economic/political circumstances of the day, what historians called the prevailing social temperament.

There is no doubt that all historical research is clouded by our own contemporary biases.

An event occurs, it is witnesses (the primary source) and then historians evaluate those primary sources.

It is inevitable that historians will bring to that research their own contemporary bias, that's why we have the rule, to warn the historian to guard against bringing in his contemporary values and standards (as best he can.)

It is never bias free and it pollutes all history.

Evaluating Hart or Mader's claim to the title can be done within the proper parameters, but to diminish a man's greatness, when his contemporaries all called him great just doesn't work, unless of course one breaks the rule and brings in his own contemporaneity standards.

You have to judge a man's greatness compared to his contemporaries, not the whole fabric of time.

Just my opinion I guess, I originally didn't reply directly to your post because it wasn't just your post I was reacting to, its a pet peeve of mine. I use to teach historical methods.

And I probably should have used a different word than pretentious. Sorry that was unnecessary, but it wasn't meant just for you.

[HOUDINI563]

To add credibility that Maher’s title was bogus the Police Gazette certainly felt that Maher had to beat Fitzsimmons to bolster the claim bestowed upon him by Corbett:

“He has been hailed as the champion, but conservative, reasonable, thinking people, appreciate the fact that the simple act of handing a title to a man on a gold plate is not the only thing that is requisite to make him a champion”.

Add to this that after koing Maher Fitzsimmons stated the following:

“To show Corbett how little weight his championship present carried, I formally, through the Associated Press, renounce all claims to the belt and refuse to accept it.”

Note the two words “little weight”.

[HOUDINI563]

Any idea that Dempsey, universally hailed as an all time great fighter, was somehow not that great is pure hokum.

Read the statements by boxing’s greatest trainer, boxing’s ATG pfp, several former heavyweight champions who he faced in the ring. Read Wills statement made in the early 50’s that he layed no blame on Dempsey regarding he not getting a title shot and it was those who controlled boxing that were the cause.

Dempseys title reign was very similar to many before him. Taking his title on the road, fighting exhibitions, performing in film, this is what the heavyweight champion did in those days.

[Marchegiano]

Ok, using Houdini's post regarding Hart as a champion.

If those revisionist historians go into their research with a preconceived definition of champion (a contemporary definition) and then reassess Hart's claim to the title, that bad history.

But Houdini's post doesn't suggest they did that. His post suggest they just looked at the events as they unfolded then, and then concluded that Hart was 'a champion.'

That is good revisionist history, but had they tried to use/apply the Marciano-Patterson-Moore event as a bench mark (a standard) then that would be bad history.

The same process should be applied in evaluating Mader's claim, but when we do it is necessary that we don't go outside the social/economic/political circumstances of the day, what historians called the prevailing social temperament.

There is no doubt that all historical research is clouded by our own contemporary biases.

An event occurs, it is witnesses (the primary source) and then historians evaluate those primary sources.

It is inevitable that historians will bring to that research their own contemporary bias, that's why we have the rule, to warn the historian to guard against bringing in his contemporary values and standards (as best he can.)

It is never bias free and it pollutes all history.

Evaluating Hart or Mader's claim to the title can be done within the proper parameters, but to diminish a man's greatness, when his contemporaries all called him great just doesn't work, unless of course one breaks the rule and brings in his own contemporaneity standards.

You have to judge a man's greatness compared to his contemporaries, not the whole fabric of time.

Just my opinion I guess, I originally didn't reply directly to your post because it wasn't just your post I was reacting to, its a pet peeve of mine. I use to teach historical methods.

And I probably should have used a different word than pretentious. Sorry that was unnecessary, but it wasn't meant just for you.

Very well explained, even if you did call Maher Mader

Isn't being a colorline champion just a point of fact though?

Isn't having not fought any colored champions just another fact?

Hell, if y'all're letting me slide on that you might look at it, I could be wrong, I did not check.

I don't feel like it's revisionist to say the champions from Sullivan to Braddock did not defend their titles against black men. That's simply what happened.

It isn't revisionist to point out guys before Dempsey strengthened their claim over all boxing by seeing a colored HW champion prior to being champion themselves.

There's nothing revisionist about any of that. Most people, myself included, don't see the boxers as the 'bad guys'. Some were, but to be honest I'm a fan of them too. It's not a poetic justice thing, it's just pointing out what happened.

I don't think it's revisionist to denote Maher's time as champion. If anything, what you just explained to me is revisionism. Why should I give a GD how strong or weak Maher's claim to being the best of the era is? He is the man who is called champion. He is the man with the belt and he won that belt in a pre arranged fight for that belt. Anything but denoting his title run is revision. Corbett is gone and not denoting that is revisionism.

I see myself as setting the record straight and in doing that revising what's been revised back to the original.


There shouldn't be a line because there never was. There's disputes from day one and who are historians to tell anyone who has the strongest claim? Why not present everyone and let the readers decide who the real champions were? Isn't that exactly what was actually going on?

When you have champion A who claims to be the champion because X and champ B because Y how is it not the application of modern standards to make any judgement at all rather than present the argument and the sides?

Jack Dempsey was a colorline champion, Peter Maher was the guy you'd call champion while reading about Corbett's exploits as an actor. Covering it up because one's a weak claim while saying the other shouldn't have modern standards applied seems to be a case of exactly what I said before. The only time we in boxing history actually believe in upholding dated opinions is when those opinions happen to be racist. If they happen to be something we disagree with then **** it, call it weak and challenge me to make an argument for Maher's merit rather than the fact that Corbett's ****ing around with Edison and Maher punched his protege into oblivion for his title.

To be clear, I'm not accusing you or Dini of being racists or upholding racism. I'm just pointing out it is a totally different standard being used to defend not denoting the colorline history and the standard being used for defending not denoting a title reign. One is because it's wrong to apply modern standards...even though the colorline happened, and the other is because being elected to the vacant title fight by the champion has been deemed weak by historians, which is applying a standard to history. And for that standard to be from historians it's got to be more modern than the history itself.

Why cover up anything? Seems to only serve to make men look better. Men our grandaddies told us were the bee knees and to say otherwise is wrong, historically speaking....