To all my boxing history folk! I've recently been researching a lot about the championship succession in the heavyweight division. I used to be the so called "linealist" but I found a few flaws in that logic, mainly that it is mostly ahistorical and it is mostly written post factum. I'm all for the logic that to be the man you have to beat the man. And even the rules of crowning the new man are pretty clear. The retirements are where it gets confusing. Here, the linealists are not consistent at all. When Jim Jeffries came back and fought the reigning champion Jack Johnson, he was viewed as the challenger, even though he never lost the title in the ring. Nobody (except for the racist public) said he was the rightful champion. When Joe Louis came back and fought Ezzard Charles, he wasn't considered the champion either. Charles wasn't of course recognized as the undisputed champion, but he was considered the man, since he won his title in the battle of 2 best active heavyweights, which was also promoted by Joe Louis as a bout that will crown his successor. The linealist argument falls short even more, when we consider Charles wasn't universally recognized as the champion until Louis beat Lee Savold, who was viewed as the world heavyweight champion by BBBoC. But there is an argument to be had when it comes to the early days of the heavyweight. When Jim Corbett retired in 1895, Peter Maher beat Steve O'Donnell for the vacant title. Corbett confirmed that he was retired right after the fight and gave Maher's blessing as his successor. He shook Maher's hand and declared: "You are the champion of the world. Any title which I may hold I confer on you. My withdrawal from the prize ring is final. I regard you as a worthy man to hold the championship". But right after he unretired, the claimants from the Maher's branch weren't recognized at all as champions: Fitzsimmons beat Maher, Sharkey beat Fitzsimmons (or robbed him of it tbf) and Jim Jeffries beat Sharkey. It was the public who crowned the champions back then and they took the recognition from Sharkey at the time and start recognizing Corbett again. The history books say Fitzsimmons became the champion after he beat Corbett, not Maher. So we are left with conflicting precedents. Coming back to today, Tyson Fury retired in August 2022 and TBRB & The Ring followed the precedent set by Louis and Jeffries - stopped recognizing him as the champion and crowned the new one, when 2 of the best in Usyk and AJ faced each other. But Fury came back and still has the claim as the man who beat the man following the example of Corbett. So the question arises: if we want to have ONE champion, not 2 boxers who held legitimate claims, which way would be more traditional? Recognizing the man after he unretires and strip his successor of the title, (which would be silly, what if Lewis unretired today?), or go with the flow. Or we should just accept the fact that there are 2 guys who hold a claim to the tile and wait for the matter to be settled between them. But then again, the idea of one champion is then dead. Somebody has to be the champion and somebody has to be a contender. I didn't mention anything about being fully unified when it comes to the alphabet belts, as they don't hold any merit in the discussion.
"Or we should just accept the fact that there are 2 guys who hold a claim to the tile and wait for the matter to be settled between them" This. This is what happened in the Corbett, Jeffries,Louis and both Ali cases. Their returns didn't nullify the legitamacy of belts established in their absence. But at the same time they themselves had not lost their status because they are "the man who beat the man" and that can never be truly taken away. I don't consider this to be an issue with the lineal title. The appeal of the lineal title IMO is it doesn't split for unneccessary reasons. Emphasis on uneccessary. Crowning a new champ when the old retires is necessary thus so is the split if the old one returns. There is a fair amount of trying to edit out earlier title claims that weren't widely accepted in the name of simplicity. Especially if they end up getting absorbed into the widely recognized belt anyway. Another one from that 1890s period is Joe Goddard. He was set up as an alternative to Maher/Fitzsimmons/Sharkey after beating Denver Ed Smith. But he lost a unification bout to Sharkey so his claim has sort of gotten edited out of history. The idea of a Gene Tunney, Rocky Marciano or Lennox Lewis coming back is more of a theoretical problem then a practical one. Humans age and at some point champs will not be able to come out retirement anymore and their fights will not be sanctioned. Even if they return they will go away eventually and then there will be 1 champ again. Archie Moore in the 60s tried coming back at LHW when Harold Johnson(who he'd already beaten) was champ and he did not ultimatly get to fight for the unified crown. And that did not turn out to be a problem in the end.
The Commonwealth champ had a world title claim in the beginning that was lost due to inactivity by Peter Jackson and Dan Creedon. Peter Jackson had drawn with Goddard in 1890 and Corbett in 1891. You could argue Corbett and Jeffries both got their world title claims by fighting Jackson. This is what got Jeffries the fight with Sharkey etc even if Jackson was old and out of shape by 1898. In early 1896 Creedon was established as a replacement for Corbett before Goddard was but instead of pursuing it went down to LHW for 7 years instead. Hence Goddard and Smith getting to fight for the world title in late 1896. Creedons Commonwealth belt was not on the line in that fight which Creedon retained until he returned to HW in 1903 and lost his title to the undefeated Billy McColl. Ultimatly the Creedon lineage was absorbed into the Sullivan one when Tommy Burns beat both Bill Squires(3 times) and Bill Lang. Not that anyone considered the Commonwealth belt a world title after 1896. Goddard is a pretty interesting character for a number of reasons. First he appears to be the first HW contender of the gloved era to be born having been born in 1857 the year before Sullivan. At the time he had his title claim he was 40 years old. Another thing is his incredible punching power. Goddard had a KO percentage of 93.75 above that of Fitzsimmons whose KO percentage remains the highest among lineal HW champions(not Wilder or Bruno) to this day.
It is certainly true that the standard list of lineal champions has been simplified after the fact, and doesn't always represent what was seen as true at the time. Peter Jackson was seen as the World Champion by many people as he had unified the Australian title (by beating Tom Lees in 1886), the World Colored title (by beating George Godfrey in 1888), the English title (by beating James Smith in 1889) and the Police Gazette belt (by beating Frank Slavin in 1898). He had also drawn with Corbett in 1891 and firmly established himself as the #1 fighter in the world. Whilst Corbett's win over Sullivan was certainly for the American title, there was plenty of debate around whether it was truly for the World title. Sullivan had been retired for a number of years, and had refused to fight Slavin on the grounds he was retired, so it could be argued he had given up the right to call himself the champion. Only Jackson's retirement eventually settled matters in Corbett's favour. As noted in the original post, Fitzsimmons had a title claim after beating Peter Maher in 1896. His claim was recognised, even by Corbett himself, who challenged him to a fight and wrote a letter claiming the title back by default due to Fitzsimmons' refusal to fight him. “By the time this reached you I am sure that I will again be the heavyweight champion, by reason of Fitzsimmons’ default. The six months’ limit will have expired on July 26, and the title will be justly mine again. As you know, I am matched with Tom Sharkey for the championship". It is clear from this that Corbett accepted that Fitzsimmons had been champion (as you can't lose a title you never held), and that he believed himself to be champion AGAIN, meaning he had stopped being champion at some point. You won't find this fact on the standard list. Another point around Fitzsimmons is that he actually announced his retirement right after beating Corbett. In words which would be echoed by Tyson Fury over a century later, he said: "Yes, I promised my wife before the battle that it would be my last fight, and intended to abide by that promise. Henceforth all statements signed by me shall read: ‘Robert Fitzsimmons, retired heavy-weight and middle-weight champion of the world.’” This announcement was swiftly denied by his management, and you won't find a break in the generally accepted lineage here, as Fitzsimmons is considered to be champion until he loses to Jeffries, despite being inactive for over 2 years after this retirement announcement.
Who cares, respectfully, Why? because EVERY Heavyweight Champion & Ligit Contender in History has Greater Credibility and Merit than Tyson Fury!!! nice try.
So, can we say that Jim Jeffries was the first undisputed heavyweight world champion as he beat claimants from every branch? Before that it seems like it was a mess similar to the alphabet soup. Also, was Sharkey and then Jeffries recognized on their claims to the championship while Fitzsimmons was "retired"?
I think Fitz is probably the first undisputed, as Sharkey’s claim was nonsense in my opinion, gained through a fixed fight against Fitz which in reality he lost convincingly. Certainly a case can be made for Jeffries as the first truly undisputed given he beat both Fitz and Sharkey. He also beat an old Peter Jackson, removing whatever lingering claim he had. Jeffries was not seen as a champion until he beat Fitz.
OK, sorry to bother you, but I'm fascinated with all that history. So, to sum up: 1. Peter Jackson was viewed as the world heavyweight champion at the same time John Sulliivan was. So you can say they were both disputed heavyweight champs? Public acclaim was on the Sullivan's side? 2. When exactly did Jackson lose that claim? And why he's completely ignored while talking about the heavyweight champions? Americentrism? 3. How exactly did these lineages meet? Are there any books on the topic I can read?
American centrism is certainly one factor. Another is the fact that coloured champions weren’t seen as equal to their white counterparts, so the White champion got the public support. Sullivan was never really accepted as champion in the Australian Press, but he certainly was a massive figure in America and in Britain. Jackson was seen as the Coloured and British Empire champion, and some argued his case for World recognition in Australian and British media. Most American publications saw Sullivan as champion until Corbett beat him. Sullivan showed himself to be the best in America by beating Ryan, McCaffrey and Kilrain, and beat the various English champions who travelled over to challenge him, including Mitchell, Greenfield and Burke. He could therefore arguably claim to be the World Champion based on those wins, but he hadn’t fought the best from Australia, which was the other major boxing country at the time (technically a collection of colonies at the time, but whatever). He had arranged to fight the Australian champion William Miller, but Miller suffered a career ending injury while wrestling shortly before he was due to make the trip to America. He had also not fought any black men, and this was because he drew the colour line and refused to fight them. In simple terms then, whilst not really stated in this way at the time there were 4 main titles which could be “unified”, the American, the British, the Australian, and the Coloured/Black titles. There was also the Police Gazette title which attempted to apply some rules around who was champion. Sullivan could argue he had unified the American and the British through various wins, along with the Police Gazette. He had no claim to the Australian or the Coloured, and was stripped of the Police Gazette title during his retirement. Jackson could argue he had unified the Australian, the British, the Coloured and the Police Gazette by beating Lees, Smith, Godfrey and Slavin. He had no claim to the American title, and technically never won the Police Gazette title as they stripped Slavin before he fought Jackson despite him being active and undefeated. So both men had weaknesses to their claim of Champion. Nobody had been a world gloved champion before, so there’s no way of beating a predecessor here. Someone had to establish a new lineage, and Sullivan is usually given the nod here for his work in the early to mid 1880s before Jackson was in the picture. Corbett’s claim relied on inheriting Sullivan’s title. Looking at it on its own merits, he could claim the American title by beating Sullivan, and arguably the British by beating Mitchell. He also held the Police Gazette title. His failure to fight Jackson again after their draw meant he never really proved his right to the World title as he didn’t beat the Australian or Coloured champion. A fight between Jackson and Corbett after Sullivan was dethroned would have settled matters, but it never happened. Jackson retired, and so his claim petered out and Corbett was the only real claimant remaining. His lineage passed to Fitzsimmons (at some point, exact time is debatable), and then to Jeffries. As Jeffries had beaten Fitz, Jackson and Sharkey he had eliminated any real rivals to his lineal claim. At this point a lineage is established, so there’s no real need to unify the various countries. Australian and British boxers were not challenging for the title, and he had beaten Fitz who was British but fought his early career in Australian so arguably represented the best of the British Empire anyway. The one thing Jeffries never did was to beat the Coloured champion. He was certainly the undisputed White champion, but until Jack Johnson there was always a divide.
IMO Jacksons case to be champ should be viewed not as an alternative starting point to Sullivan but as an alternative to Corbett who he drew with and all the people vying for Sullivans title when he was inactive. This is when Jackson went on his 37 fight win streak and fought Godfrey, McAulliffe, Cardiff, Jem Smith, Peter Maher, Gus Lambert, Goddard, Corbett and Slavin. During this run he picked up the Colored, Northwest, Commonwealth and Police Gazette belts and also beat the Irish and Canadian champs. I'm not a rankings guy but Jacksons was not ranked in the RING top 10 before 1887 and the idea that the Australian champ should be considered world champ simply because the belt existed does not make sense to me. Whatever claim Jackson had he lost to Jeffries in 1898. I consider Jackson to be Jeffries first title fight. Jackson was in no way in his prime but lineally that doesn't matter. Americentrism happens more retroactively as at this time the world very much orbited around London but at the end of the day the American title would gain its recognition over the British and Euros in the ring. The revisionism is pretending that happened right away. Also a lot of it just wanting things to be simple as a lot of obscure champs are American.
OK, so, to put it simply: 1. Peter Jackson and John L. Sullivan both had claims to the world heavyweight championship, but the public was more willing to call Sullivan the champion as he was a white American. 2. Sullivan is not willing to take challengers being retired, so National Police Gazzette stops recognizing him as the champion and presents the belt to Frank Slavin, who is then beat by Jackson. 3. After Corbett beats Sullivan, he inherits his claim as the heavyweight champion. Peter Jackson retires, so Corbett is the only one left with the legitimate claim. 4. Corbett retires, Peter Maher wins the vacant championship, loses to Bob Fitzsimmons who then he loses to Tom Sharkey in the daylight robbery fight. 5. Corbett unretires, still being viewed as the rightful champion by the public, Fitzsimmons still has a calim on a basis that he beat Maher. 6. Fitzsimmons beats Corbett, technically being the only claimant, cause the public dismissed Sharkey's claim. He technically retires, but his management doesn't let him do it. 7. Bob loses to Jeffries who also inherited Peter Jackson's and what's left of Sharkey's claim. So there is no debate here. Am I getting this correctly?
Here is a timeline that puts everything in order until Jeffries unifies everything 1)5/1883 Sullivan v Mitchell 2)10/1884 McCaffrey v Mitchell(elim) 3)8/1885 Sullivan v McCaffrey 4)1/1887 Sullivan D Cardiff 5)8/1888 Peter Jackson v George Godfrey(Colored title) 6)12/1888 Peter Jackson v Joe McAuliffe(Pacific title) 7)4/1889 Peter Jackson v Cardiff 8)7/1889 Sullivan v Kilrain(Police Gazette title but bareknuckle) 9)11/1889 Peter Jackson v Jem Smith(Commonwealth title) 10)2/1890 Corbett v Kilrain 11)4/1890 Corbett v McCaffrey 12)9/1890 Slavin v Joe McAuliffe(Police Gazette title) 13)10/1890 Peter Jackson D Goddard(Commonwealth title) 14)5/1891 Peter Jackson D Corbett 15)6/1891 Slavin v Kilran(Police Gazette title) 16)5/1892 Peter Jackson v Slavin(Commonwealth and Police Gazette titles) 17)9/1892 Corbett v Sullivan 18)1/1894 Corbett v Mitchell 19)11/1895 Maher v O Donnell(Maher lineage) 20)1/1896 Creedon v Jem Smith 21)2/1896 Fitzsimmons v Peter Maher(Maher lineage) 22)6/1896 Corbett D T Sharkey(Corbett lineage) 23)11/1896 Goddard v Denver Ed Smith 24)12/1896 T Sharkey DQ Fitzsimmons(Maher lineage) 25)2/1897 Goddard v Mick Dooley 26)3/1897 Fitzsimmons v Corbett(Corbett lineage) 27)6/1897 Goddard D Tut Ryan 28)6/1897 T Sharkey D P Maher(Maher lineage) 29)11/1897 T Sharkey v Goddard(Maher lineage,T Sharkey takes Goddards claim) 30)3/1898 T Sharkey v Choynski(Maher lineage) 31)3/1898 Jeffries v Peter Jackson(Jeffries takes Jacksons claim) 32)4/1898 Jeffries v Everett 33)5/1898 Jeffries v T Sharkey(Maher lineage) 34)8/1898 Jeffries v B Armstrong(Maher lineage) 35)6/1899 Jeffries v Fitzsimmons(title unified)
Yes, with a few small points 1) Sullivan's claim pre-dates Jackson, so there is an argument he didn't have any real rival claims to the title before the late 1880s. 2) Slavin wasn't awarded the Police Gazette belt, he won it by beating Joe McAuliffe. He defended against Kilrain, but was then stripped of the title as he couldn't get enough money together to make a fight with Sullivan, who had decided he wanted to fight again by late 1891. Therefore the PG title wasn't on the line for Slavin vs. Jackson. 7) There is still an argument that Jeffries hadn't beaten the best Black boxer, as when he fought Jackson he was no longer top of the pile having not fought in 6 years. Frank Childs would probably have been the best available option, but Jeffries didn't want to fight Black boxers once he became champion.