Is Peter Maher remembered as a HW champion.

We were told that the recognition was bestowed upon a fighter by a public opinion. According to that, minority of the public recognized Maher, most of the public recognized Fitzs, but nobody recognized Tom. I've seen an exerpt from 1910's with the list of heavyweight champion and the Maher lineage was skipped entirely.

Do you have any books in mind on that era?

 

Joe Goddard was the rightful champ, the guy who twice KO'd Maher early.

 

Did he claim the championship and when did his line start?

 

He beat Denver Ed Smith in South Africa in 1896 for the Heavyweight Title.

 

Was it billed for the world championship?

 

Yes, I have seen sources where it was billed as such. And a few days later Mick Dooley challenged Goddard for the heavyweight championship. Boxrec claims the fight was a fix but the next day reports from Johannesburg do not back this...

"The battle was terrific, the men going at each other in savage fashion and landing terrific blows. Smith was almost out at the end of the third round, and Goddard was not slow to take advantage of his opponent's condition when the next round started. He landed two knockdown blows, and the last one put Smith out."

The Standard and Diggers' News out of Johannesburg gives an even more detailed blow by blow description of the bout that extends a full column. Didn't seem fixed by those who were there and give detailed accounts.

 

Yes he won the lineal title after Corbett retired. Because Corbett came back and Fitzsimmons's DQ makes things messy they decided to ignore the whole thing altogether. During Mahers 3 month reign the alternative claimant was Dan Creedon who never fought at HW again. Goddard would have had a stronger claim but Goddards title claim didn't enter the picture until the following year after Mahers loss and Corbetts return. Maher was the champ. He was champ for only 3 months but he was the champ nontheless.

O Donnell might have only gotten the title shot because he was Corbetts friend but he was better than Mitchell who was the only title fight Corbett had in the previous 3 years and change. After what Sullivan and Corbetts reigns we really shouldn't be sniffing at O Donnell. Slavin who O Donnell would beat the following year was better than anyone Sullivan or Corbett beat.

Modern boxing historians have a habit of ignoring early title claims in the name of simplicity if they are not lineal. You see this especially in transitory periods when they are picking a new champ. Whoever emerges from the chaos gets the nod and the chaos is ignored. This fight was lineal. But because Corbett returned and Fitz beat him they're trying to cancel the previous two years of uncertainty.

 

Yes people forget Sharkey took that lineage from Goddard and wasn't only champ because of the Fitz DQ.

With the Jackson draw and the Maher KO Goddard had a really good case.

 

One can't hardly blame early sources for their mistakes unless you have a reason to believe they knew better. That is to say, there's a reason I hang Nat and not Richard. Nat absolutely knew he was lying to you. Richard may not have.

That said, who made this claim? Recognition is bestowed by public opinion?