Heavyweight Champions from Ancient to Present (WIP)

I actually agree a lot with the need for revisionism. I do think one needs to be careful to be as objective as possible, as I think so can fall into the trap of hyperevisionsm, e.g. making someone out to be trash because they were overrated.

There's a lot of other complexities too, the not mentioned in the neat "classic" view. For example the Poice Gazzette, while be rather agenda driven, recognised Tug Wilson, and Jake Kilraine as champion, then Frank Slavin as champion during his retirement (before he came back to fight Corbett). I even saw one contemporary article describing Frank Slavin, Peter Jackson and John L Sullivan as claiments to the word title. It also does appear (as I think Senya has pointed out) the English title lineage from William Stevens to Harry Sellers, seems very questionable, with a lot of them losing the title, then reclaiming it, and it continuing as nothing happened, it all seems created many years ater. Senya also found an article showing Slack lost to Taylor after his win over Broughton (CBZ also claims Tom Faulkner claimed the title after beating Taylor a long time later, but that could be an error, I've never looked into it). I honestly think the water is muddied by people not releasing differences in language, I honestly wonder if Fig may have been thought a champion boxer because he was known as a prize-fighter (which was used to describe sword fighters).

I think the first stage has to be just gathering all the information possible, and then figuring out what's true. It's no easy task, the sourcing in a lot of the writings is lax at best, even modern newspapers often aren't the best, and I have no idea which ones are regarded as the more credible ones throughout time. Pugilistica and Boxiana comically go against each other on Sellers and Corcoran, I may have just missed it, but I don't know of any serious research into them. I've seen about 5 contradictory versions of the Crib Molineaux fight. There is ways to figure out which sources are better, but that's a lot of work to go through everything. I then once you've got as close to true as you can, you can try and interpret it.
/ramble

 

Also, I did a thread on that 1600's newspaper report, if you want to include that.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/dark-age-champions-name-unknown-a-butcher.611435/

 

The thing about Slack losing to Taylor was from this thread https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...rences-to-the-sport-in-old-newspapers.605825/


1751-02-09 The Ipswich Journal (page 3)
London, Thursday, February 7.
Yesterday was decided the Boxing-Match between Taylor and Slack, which lasted about 15 Minutes, and was ended in favour of Taylor

He posted a ton of cool stuff in it, especially about Slack.

Edit: Another one I saw going through it again, I think you'l find interesting is
1738-05-11 The Derby Mercury (page 4)
Last Friday Night was buried, Thomas Allen, commonly called Pipes, particularly famous for his Art and Bravery in Boxing; He was Gallery Door keeper to Drury-Lane Playhouse; and the Funeral (which was extraordinary decent) was, for his faithful Services, defray'd by his Master. It was remarkable, that his Pall was supported by John Broughton, Nathaniel Peartree, George Taylor, George Stevenson, Benjamin Boswell, and Thomas Dimmack. Six of the most celebrated Boxers that this or perhaps any Age has produced. To see half a Dozen such brave Fellows affectionately and decently attending him to his Grave is an Instance (as in their Scene of Life he was often their Antagonist) of the innate generous Love of Valour for which Englishmen are so justly distinguish'd.

Vel sapientissimus errare potest

 

But Jeffries didn't pick either Hart or Burns to contest the title and ,after he had accepted the cash to referee the fight he disavowed any entitlement to select who fought for the vacant championship. Corbett didn't push O Donnell forward on the grounds of racism,[ though Corbett was a racist ,]there was no outstanding black challenger then, Jackson was a bit past it ,he did it to control the title with his manager and with it the $$$$.
Cromwell is not on any list of English monarchs I have seen.The nearest he came to being royalty is being a descendent of Thomas Cromwell, Chancellor to HenryV111.

 

Re: glaukos
Honestly, I didn't undrstand 90% of what you wrote, so I don't know what I should have been offended by.

Jem Ward was considered a champion. Tom Cannon, who's listed as the previous champion by Tracy Callis, wasn't considered champion, as far as I can tell.

Regarding contemporary opinions, it's one of the most important things in historical science, there's a huge section in it, dedicated to source study, where there's a classification and a number of important points to consider regarding literary/written/text sources. A historian doesn't just list anything he finds uncritically, there's a methodology of how one should treat these sources. English not being my first language, I'm not going to tutor you or anyone else how to do such things right, but I advise you and anybody else who wants to study boxing history, to look up books studied in universities by historians-to-be. It's an interesting read, and if you omit the things that are irrelevant to boxing historians and only read the abstract methodology of source study, it was less than 50 pages in the books I've seen (although I never studied to be a historian, it's just a hobby). Members of IBRO are researchers, but they are not historians per se (maybe there are/were members who were professional historians, with an academic degree, I don't know, but for the most part there aren't/weren't). They do the best they can. You should formulate your questions carefully if you want to get a helpful reply from them.

 

BS. Hart vs Root is generally viewed as World Heavyweight Title.

Jeffries was the referee of this fight, which Hart won by knockout. He had zero effect on the outcome.

Before the fight, Jeffries stated that the winner of Hart-Root was entitled to the title of heavyweight champion of the world. He was not paid to say Hart is the champion beforehand.

The fight was a good one, I wish it was on film to get a look at Hart. Root is on film, he looks better than what most who have not seen him would think.

 

I'm not disputing how Hart and Root is considered,I'm saying Jeffries had no authority to pick either man as the contestants for the title and he didnt and the next day he said so in print! Why would he be paid to say Hart was the champion before the fight had actually happened? No one has suggested Jeffries had any effect on the outcome of the fight.Are you drunk?

 

Yes I do.

 

He was the ref of the fight. It was a finish fight. Hart at the time was a clear #1 or #2 for the vacant title. He had beaten Johnson, Ruhlin, Ferguson, Choynski, and O'Brien.

Root at the time had only lost to Gardner, but he avenged the loss in 1904, also beating Flynn, McCoy and Hart himself. In 1905, you can argue he was the #2 contender.

Are you saying Jeffries put up his own money as the promoter for the event and picked who the fighters for the vacant title all by himself?

Jeffries also said he denied giving the title to Hart after time passed.

 

I've never said Jeffries put up anything except his name and presence in the ring as the third man.
I've made no comment on the authenticity of either Hart or Root's credentials to contest a vacant heavyweight title fight.You are in effect arguing with your self!
Before you turn this into another crusade I'm bailing out here ,I'm only peripherally interested in the subject anyway and don't wish to see it take a wrong turning due to your agenda putting it off piste,perhaps with me out it can revert to its subject.