Why was Hart lineal, but Maher not?

That's a damn good question and I have no idea. On the internet it just says he lost the disputed WHW title to Fitzsimmons...
There must have been some other flavor of the month running around back then that the newspaper outlets favored

 

A “retired” Corbett framed that the winner of Maher vs Steve O’Donnell would become the new HW Champ - and Corbett entered the ring after the bout and declared Maher as the new Champ.

Problem was Fitz had already beaten Maher but Corbett and Fitz weren’t too friendly and their previous attempt to fight one another had fallen through.

After Fitz beat Maher again, Corbett “unretired” to eventually face Fitz. However Corbett was ultimately viewed as being still the Champ and to be defending the title against Fitz, Corbett’s “retirement “ come “hiatus” notwithstanding.

So, that retroactively overrode Maher’s previous claim to the title - since the lineal Champ resurfaced allowing Fitz to actually beat the man who beat the man…..if Corbett stayed retired I would imagine that Maher’s brief lineal time in the sun would’ve been maintained.

 

Great info Pugguy - thank you.

 

Another great question, CT.
And one of which I've not got a bloody clue!!

 

True - I knew hadn’t dealt with that part - the crux of your question. Hehe. Bit pressed for time to properly crunch it through right now, but…..

Maybe best to identify some differences? - not that they necessarily provide sufficient rationale to justify the inclusion of Hart and preclusion of Maher - but I’ll just throw ‘em in anyway.

Corbett originally tried to fight Fitz but it fell through. Jeffries refused to fight Johnson, deemed the winner of Hart v Root as Champ and then rode off into the sunset.

After “retiring” and anointing Maher as Champ, Corbett fought again vs Fitz after “just” a few years of supposed retirement. Jeffries didn’t fight again for over 5 years.

When Corbett fought Fitz, if we accepted Fitz as Lineal Champ - then the title was only 2 degrees removed from Corbett - (Maher > Fitz) but Corbett reinstated himself as Champ.

When Jeffries fought Johnson the title was 3 degrees removed (Hart > Burns > Johnson) since Big Jim dropped tools. Jeffries fought Johnson as challenger - so he didn’t reinstate himself so his prior successor still held.

That’s all I can squeeze in at the moment.

 

At the time, that's how some people saw it. When Jeffries announced his comeback in 1909 he wasn't talking about challenging Johnson, he was talking about reclaiming the title and defending it against Johnson.

https://pasteboard.co/Dx9j7EUuMPjD.jpg

 

I think we should recognise Maher as the champion. What makes Corbett situation different than Jeffries?

 

Arbitrary tradition.

Paddy Duffy is mostly in the Welterweight lineage because of his early death soon after he made his claim, but it's much weaker than claims that get overlooked like Jem Carney.

 

You could certainly make an argument for excluding Hart from the lineage. He was never universally recognised as champion in his own time. A lot of people thought Philadelphia Jack O'Brien had a better claim after his win against Fitzsimmons.

 

Corbett relinquished the title when he retired in November 1895, and in my view only had the right to reclaim it if nobody had established a new lineage in his absence.

I don't consider Maher to have become champion by beating O'Donnell. As it was said at the time in one newspaper:

"As to Corbett's action in awarding the championship to Maher, I don't think it's right. If Corbett has retired, he has forfeited the championship. Maher and Fitz should fight for it, the winner to be the champion. Maher cannot honestly claim the title until he has defeated Fitzsimmons".

When Maher fought Fitz in February 1896 this was a #1 vs. #2 fight, which is generally seen as the way to start a new lineage. I would therefore recognise Fitz as the new champion from this point.

Assuming his fight against Sharkey in December 1896 is treated as a fix and ignored, Fitz's fight against Corbett in March 1897 should therefore be viewed as his first successful defence of the title, rather than when he won it.

Of course, Fitz retired after the Corbett fight, but then returned to the ring less than 3 months later, meaning he was still champion until he lost it to Jeffries.

When it comes to Jeffries, he relinquished the title when he retired in May 1905. Fitzsimmons claimed the title with the following logic:

"“If Jeffries should die, then the title would revert back to me, wouldn’t it? Then, if he has retired the same rule should hold good. I am going to claim the heavy-weight championship now against all comers.”

A newspaper of the time said this:

“There is no denying the fact that Fitz has as strong a claim as has any other fighter to the heavy-weight championship title, still he will not be accepted as such until he battles for and wins the title. With the old and well-known heavies out of the running Fitzsimmons certainly looms up the best, as class is sadly lacking among the younger crop of that division. Of these Marvin Hart, because of his win over Jack Johnson, appears the most formidable, and a battle between him and the grand old man of the ring would give us a new heavy-weight champion.”

In July 1905, Marvin Hart beat Joe Root and claimed the title.

Former champion John L Sullivan was quoted as follows:

"Marvin Hart claiming the title of heavyweight champion of the world makes me smile. Hart is a good fighter, but he couldn’t become champion by whipping Root, a second-rate played-out pugilist, who never has been considered a heavyweight. Why didn’t he fight Ruhlin or Fitzsimmons, or Corbett, or some other big man? Hart may become champion some day, but he’ll have to do something better than he has done."

Most at the time didn't see Hart vs. Root as being a #1 vs. #2 fight, so I don't consider Hart as champion from that point. The other contender Fitz lost to Jack O'Brien in December 1905, meaning Hart and O'Brien were the top 2 fighters. O'Brien claimed the title with this logic:

“When the championship honours were given up by Jeffries they naturally went back to Fitz, who had lost them to the Californian. When Fitz agreed to meet me, I was fortunate enough to beat him. That makes me the champion. Of that there can be no doubt."

No doubt? Hardly. We were still waiting for a new champion as this point.

Marvin Hart then lost to Tommy Burns in February 1906. Burns took on Hart's claim, so at this point the 2 contenders are Burns and O'Brien.

The 2 men met in November 1906, and this fight should have decided the championship. Unfortunately, they drew. As a newspaper at the time put it:

“Jeffries’ successor is not yet elected.”

In May 1907, the matter was finally decided. A rematch between Burns and O'Brien resulted in a decision win for Tommy Burns, who was the new heavyweight champion.

 

Excellent info.

I like Fitz’s take in the event of Jeffries death. The Boilermaker’s Last Will and Testament: “And to Fitz, I bequeath back the HW Title……”. Now that would be truly “inheriting” the title.

As far as infrastructure and regulation went (or lack thereof), it really was the Wild West in Boxing.

I might be wrong but it seems Maher’s claim was in more dispute - Fitz was meant to fight Corbett but it fell through and Fitz had already beaten Maher previously.

So the big 3 clear and away were Corbett, Fitz and Maher - Corbett didn’t like Fitz and O’Donnell was the patsy for Maher. It should’ve been Maher v Fitz in the first instance which at least occurred just one fight later. A credit to Maher I guess.

When Fitz beat Maher, Corbett couldn’t handle it so he reinstated himself (HWs had very affording, self awarded, “cooling off” periods back in the day).

Eligibility might not have been as clear cut when Jeffries retired. Hart had decisioned Jeffries # 1 challenger, Johnson, albeit it crooked. So maybe Hart seemed okay as one combatant but perhaps there were arguments re Jack Root.

Both nominations were dodgy but perhaps Hart v Root was the lesser of two weevils with less controversy associated with same?

Anyway, removing Maher from the picture, you lose 3 Title Fights - vs O’Donnell, Fitz and Fitz vs Sharkey.

Remove Hart, you lose a whole lot more, Hart vs Root and Burns, then Burns 14 defences and Johnson’s 1 defence. You would also have Jeffries being the first to defend against a black man - an honour he totally does not deserve - that’s Burns’ irrevocable historical place.

From Jeffries’ retirement to comeback, it seems so much more water flowed under the bridge not just in terms of years, but in respect of title activity also. Hart’s claim might’ve been a joke but Burns’ and his reign were not so Tiny Tommy and doesn’t deserved to be vaporised.

Hart’s just a lucky sap insofar as being a necessary linchpin for maintaining Burns’ rightful place.

One final common feature to Corbett and Jeffries - they both retired without facing their most pressing challenger - Jeffries did so after Hart “beat” Johnson. However, when those challengers became Top Dog, that made it sufficient for them to finally face the guys they should’ve faced before retiring.

Tbh, I’ve talked myself into Maher being recognised - a decent man whose record was rather impressive - better than Hart. No harm no foul that he holds the title from O’Donnell to Fitz - I mean Fitz ultimately won 3 titles in 3 different divisions, and he would get at least one successful title defence as a bonus (v Corbett) - so….let Peter have his ONE title for however long it lasted!!!!

The question now is: what exactly do we have to do have Maher properly recognised and duly honoured in the record books?

Something like a Go Fund Peter page, a petition, some sort of new legislation like Johnson’s retroactive pardon….I dunno?