Does winning the Colored Heavyweight Champ carry the weight as winning an Alpha Title?

Francesco Damiani and Manuel Charr wouldn't be allowed to fight for the colored title, because they weren't black men from North America.

How can you be a WORLD champion, when only black fighters from North America were allowed to compete? Is North America the WORLD? Black men DID fight for the World title during that period. Two of the three who fought for it won. One of them, Jack Johnson, dominated most of the colored champs before becoming world champ.

A boxer from Italy and a boxer from Lebanon could never fight for the Colored title. They weren't allowed.

Again, how the hell was the Colored title a WORLD title, when absolutely no one from outside North America ever competed for it ... and even if you were from North America, you had to be black?

The colored title was one of the most restrictive boxing titles ever created.

The North American Boxing Federation (NABF) title was more of a WORLD title than the Colored title was, because you didn't have to be black to fight for the NABF belt.

 

Hart had the win over Jack Johnson, who had been a very clear standout among the contenders.

Root had beaten Hart previously, and was a 3 to 1 betting favorite.

This is not how I would have done it, but it is not that bad as a title claim!

 

Jeffries also chose them to fight for the title because he was retiring.

Tyson Fury didn't choose Charles Martin and Czar Glazkov to fight for his title.

And Charles Martin, who had previously beaten no one, won the title when Czar Glazkov twisted his knee and ruptured his ACL.

Martin just happened to be in the ring with him when it happened. Could've been anyone.

 

The idea of the “coloured world champion” is that the holder is the best black man in the world. What’s wrong with that?

. It’s not the worlds best fighter any more than the WBC champion is the worlds best fighter.

All an alphabet champion represents is the best within a group according an alphabet soup set of rules. A splinter group who says “we don’t recognise this person so we are making a new title” It is not the universal recognition of the World. The recognition is restricted. It eliminates a linear claim.

The coloured championship came about because the linear championship became a white championship. the linear champions remained historically more significant-than the coloured championship since the champion remained “linear” but the existence of a colour line represents an opportunity for another title.

A more justifiable opportunity than Larry Holmes not fighting a guy who lost to somebody Larry already beat. Or Leon Spinks rematching the guy who he won the title from. Or Muhammad Ali changing his religion.

Outside of North America where else were world class black fighters fighting? If a group of world class fighters are restricted from fighting the linear champion what title can they fight for?

 

Because a WORLD championship doesn't determine who is the best fighter of a certain race, that's why.

The WBC doesn't say only Mexican boxers from North or Central America can fight for the WBC WORLD title. If they did, NO ONE would consider the WBC belt a world title belt.

Name a WORLD title in boxing TODAY where all the participants HAVE to be from one continent and one skin color?

There aren't, because it wouldn't be considered a world title.

The question is should the colored title be viewed the same as the alphabet belts today. The answer is clearly NO.

 

Let's look at it another way.

If the colored title had existed in the 1990s, would it have been easier or harder to win, than any of the individual title belts?

 

So, let's change the question? (LOL)

 

That is the same question.

 

No it's not.

Lennox Lewis never would've fought for the colored title because he moved back to England to turn pro. And he was arguably the best heavyweight of the 90s. Frank Bruno never would've fought for the colored title not being from North America.

And why limit it to the 90s? Would the colored title have been easier to win than a world title if you didn't have to beat the Klitschkos?

Would it be easier to win a title if you didn't have to fight Tyson Fury?

And this thread acts like NONE of the best black fighters fought for the WORLD title. Jack Johnson fought all the world heavyweight champions from 1900 to 1919 (Jeffries, Hart, Burns, Willard) and Joe Louis fought all the heavyweight champions from 1930 to 1955.

The only WORLD heavyweight champions who didn't fight the BEST black fighter were Dempsey and Tunney. By the time Tunney had the belt, Sharkey had beaten Harry Wills.

Did ALL the best black fighters get title shots? No. Did all the best white challengers get title shots? No. Did all the best from everywhere get title shots? No.

You couldn't compete for the colored title unless you were black and lived in North America. It was a regional belt, at best. But even regional belts don't have the same restrictions that did.

It wasn't the same as a WORLD title. I don't know why there's an argument.

 

Now I have to go watch the fights.

 

Root was a tiny middleweight/light heavyweight tweener who apparently bulked up to a career-high 171 pounds for this fight. He had been knocked out twice by middleweight George Gardner.

Gardner, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, and Wild Bill Hanrahan had also beaten Hart previously--they didn't really give out prizes for beating Marvin Hart back then (until Tommy Burns did it).

From what I can recall, Root and Hart met when Root was a middleweight and Hart a light-heavy.

Pretty awful way to set up a claim for the heavyweight championship of the world, but then again it was an extremely mediocre era at heavyweight. Would have been better if the powers that be had just held off on crowning a new champion until a worthy claimant established himself more credibly.

Just might be the only heavyweight title fight where the ref actually could have beaten each fighter on the same night...

 

The operative word is previously!

Hart was clearly the No1 contender when he fought Root!

 

Only fair to say what I would have done, if I had made the decisions.

I would have taken the view that Johnson was the clear cut #1 contender before he fought Hart.

After the fight, I would have made Hart the #1 contender, and moved Johnson down to #2!

Root would have been somewhere from 3 down.

When Jeffries retired, I would have rematched Hart and Johnson for the vacant title!

 

Only because of the ridiculous gift he got against Johnson!

Hart was such a mediocre, unworthy challenger that there was too little interest public interest to even make Hart-Jeffries happen, so Jeffries just retired instead.

 

Pretty much this, depends on who you had to beat to get as well as who you had to beat to keep it. Each title reign needs to be looked at for its value.