So what I need help with is something that has 3 main examples I can think of but there are probably more. Basically it's people or websites claiming something is for a world title when it's not (at least I think). The first example is that I've seen several people say that Henry Armstrong was close to winning the world middleweight title from Ceferino Garcia but on Boxrec and Wikipedia it says the title was only recognized by California, so if Armstrong won, would he be recognized as a legitimate middleweight champion? The reason I ask this is because Izzy Jannazzo is regarded as a legitimate world welterweight champion on these websites when he only won the Maryland welterweight title. This is seen when going to Robinson's record against former, current, or future world champions where it is listed that he beat Jannazzo four times. It's also different from Garcia because he held the NYSAC title, Izzy didn't (or the NBA for that matter). So if we regard Izzy as a legit world welterweight champion, then is Moore a legit heavyweight champion? When he beat Valdes in 1955 he won the heavyweight title recognized by Nevada. Is it different because Marciano was the clear, undisputed heavyweight champion at that time or because it was years later? So as I named the thread, can someone explain to me how these should be regarded because I think what your view of them can have a moderate impact on these fighters' legacy. Are the people and websites who say Armstrong almost won the mw title and that Izzy was a ww champ wrong, or do these fighters have a unique case for themselves from Moore.
In the days you are talking about, most every state in the U.S. had a boxing commission and if the commissioners voted to recognize a fight as being for the title, then that fight would determine who was recognized as the champion in that jurisdiction. It was that simple, nothing more nor less. It's not any more complicated than that. It's really no different than the sanctioning bodies around today except that in one sense the state commissions were usually operating under the authority of the state legislatures whereas today's sanctioning bodies drum up there authority out of thin air. Whether the general public would agree with the commission's decision even then is another question, just as it is today. Actually to my mind, stuff like that makes the study of boxing history more fascinating and rewarding than it would otherwise be. The NY State Athletic Commission had more clout than a lot of other commissions. As did California. So in some cases they tended to go their own way. That's why the other states combined their forces to form the NBA -- to compete with the political and economic clout of the more powerful states. Then in some cases, like Boston with Paul Pender, or Michigan with Henry Hank and Kenny Lane, or Maryland with the Cocoa Kid as examples, the state commissioners might vote to recognize a fight featuring one of its favorite sons as a contender when they felt he was not being treated fairly by the other authorities. The NBA and the New York State Athletic Commission were always at war.
