In the Ring With Marvin Hart

Well, if that were the case would not Tommy Burns' claim then also be suspect? The argument against Hart, as I understand it, has largely rested on contentions that because Jeffries had not lost, he was still champion. Those who would dispute Hart, then, call into question not only Burns' reign also, but Johnson's status as champ prior to beating Jeffries in 1910.

It's a moot point I think. Other than a few dissenters, I don't think there are many people who dispute Hart's status. And Pollack's book, imo, provides some pretty solid historical evidence of his claim.

 

Tommy Burns' claim strengthened when he unified the world title with Philadelphia Jack O Brien. It was further strengthened when he fought and beat the British and Australian champions. Still, I can see a very good argument that it wasnt until he met the coloured champion that there was a true undisputed world champion, and that was Johnson. Still, as when Tyson unified but hadnt beat Spinks, I agree that Johnson' true reign commenced with the Jeffries fight.

You have to wonder how the lineal championship would have looked if Jeffries had beaten Johnson.

 

http://news.google.com.au/newspaper...6827,6145064&dq=jack+johnson+life+story&hl=en

This is an interesting article on Marvin Hart where he makes some reasonable points about his rights to the world title and how he should be in the title picture.

Also some interesting tidbits about some of the Jeffries offers and Jeffries considering coming out of retirement to fight Burns if it became a big enough money fight.

 

Sullivan and Corbett had only tenious claims to be WORLD champion too, John L failing to beat Mitchell or fight Jackson, Slavin or Goddard. The Jackson-Slavin "TITLE" fight was more international and included the British Empire champion against the coloured champion, who happened to have a draw with the American champ. Fitz by virtue of his win over Maher for the title vacated by Corbett also has a claim as indeed has Sharkey(beat Fitz) and then Jeffries cleared up the mess by defeating Jackson(coloured and British champ) Sharkey and Fitz. Jeff was probably the first true World lineal champ.

 

I think the lineage from Sullivan is prety solid.

Beat the gloved American champion (Goss).

Beat the bareknuckle American champion (Ryan)

At this stage many people saw the American title as representing the true linage, because Jem Mace had unified the British and American titles before moving to the states. After he vacated Allen and Goss fought for his vacant title claim.

Sullivan then beat Mitchell who represented the residual British portion of the title claim, in a gloved bout.

He swept up a couple of other miscelaneous title claims as well.

The only thing that was criticised at the time, was the fact that he did not beat the British champion in a barekuckle bout. That formed the basis for the Killrain title claim, which Sullivan eventualy settled.

 

I am not going to open the can of worms of trying to dispute Hart's claim.

The most parsimonious solution is to accept it, since it was accepted at the time.

I do think that some equaly solid title claims have fallen by the wayside though.

 

That sounds OK now but the British never rated the Allen-Goss fight as for the World title, indeed Ryan was usually described on both sides as the American champion.
Glove champions had no credence at all as the Sully-Mitchell affair was for limited rounds. Smith was considered the British champ and drew with Kilrain in an international fight and then Jackson ko'd Smith. I don't think Sullivan's lineage is rock solid or indeed even sound.
The only thing that was criticised at the time, was the fact that he did not beat the British champion in a barekuckle bout. That formed the basis for the Killrain title claim, which Sullivan eventualy settled.[/QUOTE]