Why is Marvin Hart considered more legitmate heavyweight champion than Peter Maher?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BitPlayerVesti, Jun 24, 2018.


  1. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,099
    Oct 28, 2017
    Both were recognised as champion by the previous retired champion, before they came back, and both lost their first defence
     
  2. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,233
    Feb 15, 2006
    I personally think that the Hart Burns lineage is a legitimate one.

    Hart did defeat Jack Johnson prior to the match, and while the decision was controversial, opinion is too divided for it to be called a robbery.

    Hart was matched against Jack Root for the vacant title, and Root who had defeated Hart previously, was the 3:1 betting favorite.

    It is not a perfect basis for establishing lineage, but it is good enough for my money.
     
  3. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,099
    Oct 28, 2017
    But why is Maher not a legit champion?

    Thinking about it, it's a hard distinction to draw, other than stuff that happened later.
     
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,233
    Feb 15, 2006
    I would be willing to accept one of the lineages between Corbett retiring, and Corbett losing to Fitzsimmons, but none of them really put down roots.
     
  5. mattdonnellon

    mattdonnellon Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,617
    1,884
    Dec 2, 2006
    I think the Fitz-Maher fight deserves to be considered a title fight for the title vacated by Corbett, Maher's claim is tenuous but probably as legit as some of the recent alfa ones.
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  6. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,728
    29,078
    Jun 2, 2006
    Jeffries was paid to endorse Hart and Burns he later said he had no authority to say either was champ.
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  7. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,099
    Oct 28, 2017
    You don't recognise Hart? What about Maher?
     
  8. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,728
    29,078
    Jun 2, 2006
    I recognize Hart,Maher is a little bit more problematic,imo.
     
  9. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,099
    Oct 28, 2017
    What do you see as the main differences?

    The big one seems to be that someone had established themselves clearly as champion when Jeffries came back. I'm not sure that should matter though.
     
  10. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,728
    29,078
    Jun 2, 2006
    I think Corbett playing silly buggers ,procrastinating whether he was retired or not.The original plan was for his stable mate Steve O Donnell to succeed him. Maher ruined that and when Fitz took out Maher it really left Corbett between the rock and the hard place.Corbett mustering what grace he could got into the ring after Maher had beaten O Donnell and proclaimed him champ.Maher said," to the divil with your title, Ill fight you for it!"
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  11. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,566
    46,164
    Feb 11, 2005
    All fine and well until you realize the discussion is moot. Tom Sharkey was the legit champ as of 11-18-97, taking the title from Goddard. Jeffries got the title the next year, defeating Sharkey.
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  12. mattdonnellon

    mattdonnellon Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,617
    1,884
    Dec 2, 2006
    Root and Hart had reasonable claims to be up there as the top contenders, Maher too but O'Donnell less so. However if one recognize Fitz's claim, then Sharkey has a claim for when he defeated Fitz. He then drew with Maher and Choynski before losing to Jeffries. This is "bad" revisionism however as in reality everybody accepted Corbett as champ when he unretired.
     
    mcvey and BitPlayerVesti like this.