To Marvin Hard the Begnning of The Ring Record Book MOQ Heavyweight Lineage goes like this... 1885: John L. Sullivan defeats Dom McCaffrey for the MOQ Lineal World Title. 1892: James J. Corbett defeats John L. Sullivan. 1897: Bob Fitzsimmons defeats James J. Corbett. 1899: James J. Jeffries defeats Bob Fitzsimmons. 1905: James J. Jeffries passes the Lineal Title to Marvin Hart, after Hart defeats Jack Root. To Marvin Hart, the Alternate Beginning of The MOQ Heavyweight Lineage could also go like this... 1883: John L. Sullivan (American Champion) defeats Charlie Mitchell (English Champion) for the MOQ Lineal World Title. 1892: James J. Corbett defeats John L. Sullivan. 1895: James J. Corbett passes the Lineal Title to Peter Maher, after Maher defeats Steve O'Donnell. 1896: Bob Fitzsimmons defeats Peter Maher. 1896: Tom Sharkey defeats Bob Fitzsimmons. 1898: James J. Jeffries defeats Tom Sharkey. 1905: James J. Jeffries passes the Lineal Title to Marvin Hart, after Hart defeats Jack Root. Which do you think is the REAL early Lineage?
I think that the real lineage started when Jem Mace defeated Tom Allen. As for the Queensbury lineage, I think that the Sullivan Mitchel fight has the most coherent argument for being the start point.
I 100% agree with you on the LPR Lineage. Mace was the first World Champion! I also agree with your second point. I've never understood the general acceptance of the Sullivan - McCaffrey fight as the starting point, just because of a brief mention in the contract. Common sense should prevail, IMHO.
The second linage is nearer but after Fitz beat Maher, Corbett came out of retirement only to lose to Fitz. The Sharkey win was too shrouded in controversy to merit as strong a claim.
@djanders since you saw them both from ringside, how does Jem Mace fare against Boston Tom McMustache? LPR rules of course.
That's actually an interesting point. If a fighter can hand off the title, then why *not* give it to Maher? There's probably no clear answer to your question, aside from pointing to tradition. Or just refuse to acknowledge titles gained by donation: Sullivan --> Corbett --> Fitzsimmons --> Jeffries --> Johnson --> Willard --> Dempsey --> Tunney --> Heavyweight championship ends.
The MOQ Lineage had to start somewhere. So if we allow Sullivan - Mitchell, or Sullivan - McCaffrey, or even Sullivan - Ryan (Glove fight), as the starting point, then we can allow Schmeling - Sharkey as a restart, which reboots the Lineage...IMHO. As for Maher and Hart, there were no major governing bodies in those days, so the Champion had the say. The Champion even, more or less, decided who the top contenders were. This continued on into part of Dempsey's reign, until the NBA/WBA came into play. The NBA/WBA, along with Ring Magazine, used to be THE authorities. Then, for a time, The Budweiser Rankings were the place to look. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case in modern times, for any of them.
The latter one I think is the most accurate Maher and Sharkey had as much a claim as some of the champs today who’d hold wbo etc
How do we treat retirements when tracing lineages? If the lineal champion retires, the top 2 contenders fight in his absence, then he returns to the ring, is he still the champion? I think there is an argument to take Sullivan at his word as retiring in June 1890, meaning a new lineage needs to be created. I also think there is an argument to consider Jackson vs Slavin in May 1891 as being the #1 vs #2 contenders. If it was, does that mean that Jackson was the new lineal champion? Moving forwards in time, it is generally accepted that Moore vs Patterson created a new lineal champion. If Marciano had changed his mind about retiring afterwards, would he be lineal champion, or would Patterson? Can there be 2 lineal champions at once?
And to add to your point the Police Gazette (the most influential boxing paper of the time) also recognised Jackson as champ.
