Who is the most undeserving world heavyweight title challenger?

Well Fitz was still the actual and lineal Champ when Jeffries was making this so called claim - though contentions for the title likely arose during Corbett’s own protracted period of inactivity before he finally bit the bullet and faced Fitz.

Still, Jeff hadn’t beaten the Man who beat the Man etc. when making such claims - so a case of wanting one’s cake and eating it too if one views Jeff as Champ before beating Fitz and viewing him as defending his lineal Title when facing Johnson in 1910.

Jeff was unequivocally retired for 6 years no less - and left the game after refusing Johnson a justifiable shot over several years. Jeff might’ve retracted his deeming of the winner of Hart vs Root in order to sharpen the focus on his own lineal claim and pull the plug on the any form of reasonably viewed lineage since his retirement.

It is essentially understood that Jeff didn’t win the Title until he beat Fitz in 1899 and to cement the point, when he won the actual Title he made it clear that he wouldn’t be accomodating any black challengers - a preclusion he took all the way with him to retirement. Jeffries situation wasn’t so different as to alter the perception of his own, obviously self created, anomalies.

Also, it was doing them a favour (or/and for the sake of the spectator draw) when Jeff rematched Fitz and granted Corbett fights # 1 and # 2 - both Fitz and Corbett were about 2 years or so inactive as at the time they were granted their title shots.

 

Jeffries was not champ when he fought Fitzsimmons.
Wikipedia is pretty unreliable as far as boxing goes.Box Rec whilst not infallible, is much more accurate.Jeffries was paid to put his blessing on the Hart v Root fight privately he said he couldn't care less what they called it.
Kennedy was a sparring partner for Jeffries.

The Jeffries v Finnegan "affair " was a travesty,as was the Munroe debacle.

 

Bermane Stiverne in the Wilder rematch for me without question. He had no business being in there and it was an embarrassing fight.

Honourable mentions:
Eric Molina (against AJ and Wilder)
Dereck Chisora 3
Michael Bentt
Rademacher
Leon Spinks (yet he somehow won)
Johann Duhuapas
Gerald Washington

Tbh Wilder’s resume has got a lot of them, you need not look further than that.

 

The Lion of Flanders.

 

Vitali Klitschko, a few months shy of being out of the ring for four years, got a shot at the WBC title. No matter how it played out, on paper, it was beyond undeserving, and frankly should've been criminal that the WBC got away with doing it. It's a joke but I'd honestly rather see a Patterson/Rademacher before that.

 

If I were fighting prime Louis, I would eagerly run to the ring to rain down terror on the Brown Bomber. When I would be done with him, he would be the Brown Bombed

 

I read that Earl Walls went to a pro fight back in the late 1940s or thereabouts and one of the fighters didn't show up. Walls volunteered to fill in. Having no boxing experience at the time, he was beaten up pretty bad. But that's how he got into boxing. He eventually rose to become a top heavyweight contender in the 1950s.

 

Well Sharkey had beaten Fitzsimmons by DQ before Fitzsimmons KO'd Corbett. Sharkey then also picked up Joe Goddards title claim. So you had more than 1 champ until Jeffries beat Sharkey to become the first truly undisputed champ.

Jeffries earlier claim would be based on Peter Jackson having a seperate lineage than Sullivan etc. Remember the Sullivan lineage was created retroactively by historians.

 

Jeffries has no claim as the first undisputed Champ.

Sullivan was considered the Champ. Jackson challenged him as such but Sullivan drew the colour line

Jackson drew with Corbett in 1891. Corbett then beaf Sullivan in 1892 and then was beaten himself by Fitz in 1897.

The Sharkey DQ in 1896 was before Fitz won the title. The DQ was a fraudulent ruling by Wyatt Earp at any rate. In reality it was a clean KO that falsely deemed a low blow by the ref.

Fitz turned the trick again in their rematch. So, Fitz had 2 KO wins over Sharkey in less than a total of 10 rounds.

Jeffries was unable to stop Sharkey even once despite having 2 separate fights and a total of 45 rounds to do so.

Clearly, there was no lineage taken into the fight when Jackson faced Jeffries in 1898.

Jackson also hadn’t fought in 6 years himself. He was 37 yo, ravaged by alcohol and well dissipated by his own admission. He passed in 1901 from TB.

 

Fitzsimmons first won the title from Peter Maher who'd won it during a 2 year window Corbett retired. Fitzsimmons KO'd Corbett after the Sharkey DQ. Questionable or not(like the Schmeling DQ later) the Sharkey DQ was the final result and Sharkey had also drawn Corbett his previous fight. Even if I agree with your assessment of the DQ Tom Sharkey would add another claim by beating Joe Goddard. So either way Jeffries v Sharkey I was a title fight.

With Jackson if he hadn't had a title claim before from the Northwest and Commonwealth titles certainly had one after the Corbett fight and beating Paddy Slavin. Dan Creedon had won Jacksons vacant Commonwealth belt in 1896 before himself leaving HW so I will concede Jeffries v Jackson wasn't considered a title fight at that time like most of these others were which is why I said "IMO" I'd consider that a title fight. Jeffries was undefeated and Jackson old and unfit or not hadn't lost in 59 fights that is where I'm coming from there.

Before Jeffries beat Fitzsimmons there was always more than 1 person with a claim to the HW title. That is what I meant when I called Jeffries the first undisputed HW champion when he beat Fitzsimmons all previous claims had been resolved.

 

I understand what you meant but I disagree.

The facts and their chronologies can’t be logically cohered to the make the claims that:-

1) Jeffries won any version of the title after the first Sharkey fight or

2) that the HW Champ wasn’t truly resolved or continued to be firmly established when Fitz beat Corbett.

Well, every man and his dog could make a claim for the title if they were so inclined.

The making of that claim doesn’t, in and of itself, make it legitimate.

As far as I am aware, Jeffries had no such claims nor did he make any such claims going in to face Fitz.

He wasn’t even even fully confident that he could win - so much so, Jeff in fact bet against himself.

Who exactly did Maher beat to justify his claim to being HW Champ? Steve O’Donnell.

And what exactly were O’Donell’s credentials to be worthy of a fight to determine the HW Champion?

Since there are unofficial claims being proposed here - then the final result of the first Fitz-Sharkey can be raised and questioned in kind.

A widely recognised fix on Earps part and, until the legit body shot KO (falsely ruled low) Fitz was winning, going away.

At any rate, whatever thin claims Sharkey made to be considered Champion, , they were immediately dropped upon Corbett’s return to the ring.

Corbett’s return, was of course, prior to Tom’s first fight vs Jeffries, thus there being no claims of it being a Championship Title fight.

If you wanted a real mess of flimsy claims, what if Choynski and Ruhlin stepped forward with their own claims - since Jeff didn’t best either man prior to defeating Fitzsimmons in 1899.

Just imo, all things considered, I think the lineage of solidly recognised Champs, with lineal sequence (viz: man who beat the man) intact, has already been well considered by many and properly confirmed.

Also, due to the invoking of the colour line, one could call Jeffries reign into dispute anyway - the segregation only allowing Johnson to go so far as winning the Coloured Championship.

A racist apportioning of the title - with Jeffries steadfastly refusing to fight Johnson when Jack was the Coloured Champion and outstanding # 1 contender across the board to challenge for
Jeffries “Whites Only” claim to the title.

 

The Maher v O Donnell credentials are the same as any 2 fighters fighting for a vacant belt. The champion returning from retirement has not undone the title fight in any other circumstances. It is no more or less arbitrary than Hart v Root(or Hart v Johnson) and Ezzard Charles v Joe Walcott. And Sharkey beat Goddard his next fight who had a title claim outside of the US.


Before the alphabet bodies there are quite a few poorly recognized title champions and title fights. A big factor in this is many people only considered a belt to change hands via KO. Thats not the case here though its just a bizzare fact pattern.

Corbett retires
Maher and then Fitzsimmons win the belt
Goddard wins another belt by beating Denver Ed Smith
Corbett returns and draws Sharkey
Sharkey wins by DQ against Fitzsimmons
Fitzsimmons beats Corbett
Sharkey beats Goddard
Jeffries beats Sharkey


Im not disputing Jeffries refusing to fight Johnson when he was champ I was just saying Jeffries fought Peter Jackson and defended his title against Bob Armstrong. Which somehow came up when mentioning I thought John Finnegan was the most undeserving title contender ever.

 

I’ve already covered what you wrote in your last post.

You didn’t actually address several of my points, including Jeffries making no claim to be Champion when he faced Fitz.

I asked for Maher’s and O’Donnell’s credentials - they weren’t forthcoming.

That match fits under any man and his dog having as much right to make the same claim.

Corbett and Sharkey was set for just 4 rounds - hardly a Championship route.

However, if one wants to source from that result - it was a draw, therefore Corbett successfully defended both his actual and lineal titles against Sharkey.

It was also a foul fest on Sharkey’s part - he should’ve actually been DQ’d.

The following year, Fitz did beat Corbett, so Fitz became Champ. Very simple.

IF Jeffries thought he was Champion as at the time in question, he wouldn’t have fought Bob Armstrong.

Jeffries feelings re preclusion of black challengers for the title were clear and uniformly held.

No, Jeffries correctly understood that he was still just a contender when he engaged Armstrong. It was in no way, shape or form a title defence.

Any alleged claims Jackson had, especially as at the time he fought Jeffries, have already been well and truly struck out earlier in this discussion.

The article below clearly indicates the view that Corbett was the Champion when he engaged Sharkey in 1896.

Probably best if we agree to disagree. I don’t see any fresh points in counter being made.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-18960624-st-lo/83047808/