Tom Sharkey's Heavyweight Title Claim

Usually accepted lineage:
Sullivan > Corbett > Fitzsimmons > Jeffries

Important questions to answer when deciding who the true champion was:

Was the Police Gazette right to strip Sullivan in 1887 and award the title to Kilrain?
Do we take Sullivan's retirement in 1890 seriously?
If Sullivan was retired, was the Slavin/McAuliffe fight in 1890 a title fight?
If Sullivan was retired, should the Corbett/Sullivan fight be seen as a title fight given Jackson had beaten Slavin?
If Slavin was champion, were the Police Gazette right to strip him in 1892 for failing to raise funds?
If Jackson was champion for beating Slavin, and retired in 1895, was Corbett ever champion?
If Corbett was champion, did he have the right to give Maher the title?
Was the Police Gazette right to strip Fitzsimmons in 1896? Did the title revert to Corbett or become vacant?
Is Sharkey's claim legitimate given he got the official verdict over Fitzsimmons?

Based on the above, you could get various unorthodox lineages, such as

Sullivan /// Kilrain > Sullivan /// Slavin > Jackson /// Maher > Fitzsimmons /// Corbett > Fitzsimmons > Jeffries

/// means title stripped

In which the reasoning would be:
1) Sullivan is first gloved champion
2) Sullivan is stripped in 1887 and Kilrain wins the vacant title for beating Smith
3) Sullivan beats Kilrain in 1889
4) Sullivan retires in 1890
5) Slavin beats McAuliffe in 1890 for the vacant title
6) Jackson beats Slavin in 1892
7) Jackson retires in 1895
8) Maher beats O'Donnell in 1895 for the vacant title
9) Fitzsimmons beats Maher in 1896
10) Fitzsimmons is stripped in 1896 and Corbett claims the title
11) Fitzsimmons beats Corbett in 1897
12) Jeffries beats Fitzsimmons in 1899

It's not the prettiest of lineages, and has some flaws, but I could see an argument for it, along with other alternatives.

 

Its the same situation as when Jeffries, Louis, more recently Tyson Fury retired. The lineal champ retired a new champ was named and then the lineal champ returned. Except here the new lineage had progressed from Maher to Fitzsimmons to Tom Sharkey and then to Jeffries. Because Tom Sharkey won the belt off Fitz via DQ people find it simpler to just cut Sharkey out of the picture there.

Theres also the reality that the "lineage" as established by Sullivan and Corbett was about 15 years old and it was not at all clear this was the "real" lineage opposed to Peter Jackson or Joe Goddard(which could be viewed as the anti Maher lineage). Jeffries would bring all of these lineages together but at this time what exactly had Corbett done except beat Sullivans 1880s rivals in the 1890s to be worthy of such deference? Hed fought draws with Peter Jackson and Sharkey.

 

This Lineal Heavyweight Title Lineage has been very difficult to define throughout a lot of Heavyweight Boxing history. In fact it is not even entirely clear right now, in 2024. The Usyk vs. Fury fight would probably settle that for now.

 

Was Kilrain v Smith gloved? It does not show up on boxing rec. I know police gazette didn't make the distinction as their title was originally bare knuckle. Also how long did the Police Gazette title keep going after 1892?

Also a way to trace the Jackson lineage to Sullivan is through Patsy Cardiff who fought a one sided "draw" with Sullivan. This was Sullivans last gloved title defense in nearly 6 years. Cardiff loses to Killen and Killen loses to McAuliffe who loses to Slavin who eventually loses to Peter Jackson(who'd also beaten McAuliffe before McAuliffe beat Killen).


Anyhow answering your questions

1)I don't count it as a title fight because it was bare knuckle. Also we know today Sullivan sits out 5 years but in late 1887 it was probably too soon. So no.

2)Given his inactivity I guess you would. I don't know. Sullivan was only 32 at this point even though it feels like he should have been 40. Sullivan really reminds me of Tyson Fury. I think the best thing to do is to wait a few months for fighters to change their minds instead of trying to read the tea leaves about how serious they are.

3)Yes but disagree with the decision to name it a title fight as it opened up a third lineage with Jackson and Corbett(who'd beaten Kilrain and McCaffrey) having better claims.

4)Yes because of the 61 round draw with Jackson he had a claim. It wasn't as good a claim as Jacksons. But the draw really prevented either Corbett or Jacksons claim from being erased.

5)No. This is the sort of nonsense the modern alphabet bodies would do.

6)He never did anything to seperate himself with Jackson. He was a valid claimant from when he won the Kilrain fight IMO and the Jackson draw ensured he remained so despite his inactivity. But he was never "the" champ.

7)He didn't have the "right" to but its an inherently arbitrary thing. Maher v O Donnell was an acceptable matchup. I don't think most people would have picked him if O Donnell wasn't their friend but he wasn't blatantly unqualified or anything.

8)No. In these cases the situation eventually resolves itself. Either the old champ retires again or he loses to the new champ. You can't "undo" titles and vacating belts is really the crux of the modern alphabet mess.

9)Yes but Its a reasonable opinion to say someone can't win a belt on a foul. Same as Schmeling. It certainly weakens the claim. But Sharkey then KOd Goddard who was the British alternative to Maher. Going into his fight with Jeffries Sharkey had at least as good a claim as Fitzsimmons and arguably had the best one since he had 2 of the 4 outstanding lineages. He also had the Corbett draw.

 

Kilrain vs Smith was bare knuckle. As you say, the Police Gazette saw this as the “true” sport, and resisted the move to gloves, even though they recognised gloves fights as title fights at times.

The Police Gazette was still awarding championship belts in 1899 for the Jeffries/Sharkey fight. I’m unsure how much longer they went after this.

 

Reading through this thread was interesting. I followed up by reading about Wyatt Earp and the incredibly bizarre circumstances leading to Sharkey's "win".

As much as we love to complain about the problems with modern boxing, the split titles, shady sanctioning bodies, etc, it made me realize boxing has always been a complete mess. We are super long overdue for an organized and well structured league that dots it's i's and crosses it's t's.

 

I find this discussion fascinating and hope it continues with new wrinkles and interpretations.

I also will take a moment to point out the irony which I’ve long noted that at a time when prizefighting was illegal in many jurisdictions and the police literally enforced that law by halting fights (including title fights) from happening or breaking them up after they’d already started in certain cases iirc … that the arbiter of who is the real champion for a period was the Police Gazette.

It’s like the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list being used to rank who is the best criminal, haha.