Earliest recorded heavyweight champ?

[Cannibal]

Who is the earliest recorded world heavyweight champion? I'm working on a personal project and would like to know. I've gotten as far as Marvin Hart in 1905 but that was for a vacant title and don't know where to go backwards fromt here.

[Ric]

Under Queensberry Rules:
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/achamp.htm

[Cannibal]

So following the true lineage through the years from John. L. Sullivan onwards shows that the real world title is currently vacant and a fight between Klitsckho and Byrd is needed to crown a new one.

[states]

I'm not exactly a regular contributer to this site, but I do read it every day, because (without sounding patronising) I find that I learn from the posters here, given that I'm a boxing fan, but by no means an expert.

So, with this in mind, could someone please explain to me how the linear champion is decided after a champion has retired without losing the belt? If it's something really obvious, I apologise, but It's something I've wondered about.

[Ric]

Ideally, there is an elimination tournament among the top contenders.

[Cannibal]

I suppose you could argue that the IBO and WBC are each 50% of the genuine title because those are the belts Lennox Lewis retired with and he was the last true champ but I don't know what the story is with the IBO, they haven't crowned a new champ since Lewis retired.

So that leaves a couple of options, you can either elevate Vitali as the majority holder with 50% of the belt to true champion status, wait for a new IBO champ to be crowned and wait for a unification bout or elevate another contender into the running like Chris Byrd who became IBF champion because Lennox Lewis dropped that title rather than face Byrd and he also has a win over Vitali.

[dondada]

Cannibal - if you ever manage to come up with an answer on true lineage you should post it on here as we would all be interested.

It's so fractured and corrupted (literally and metaphorically) these days that you should only really go on moral judgements.

All the belts are shite.

[Cannibal]

My initial project idea was to team up with two others and set up an alternative boxing history site. Where me and two others who I trust go through the history of dodgy decisions and rescore them which will make alternative new records and lineage. Sort of like our own version on the Ring magazine title but you can only win it if we award you the decision.

Not much point to the site other than the curiosity of what might of been and the excuse to watch all the old fights again.

[neil r]

if you ever manage to come up with an answer on true lineage you should post it on here as we would all be interested.

No No No please dont. please no lists, be it linear champs, greatest fighters (who youve never seen), p4p lists, top ten heavyweights or the most bizarre on of late ( which has thankfully disappeared) p4p trainers!!

lists are useless and pointless. go collect train numbers if you need to do lists!!

i hate lists!! they're really just a cry for help!!

[glittermonkey]

if you ever manage to come up with an answer on true lineage you should post it on here as we would all be interested.

No No No please dont. please no lists, be it linear champs, greatest fighters (who youve never seen), p4p lists, top ten heavyweights or the most bizarre on of late ( which has thankfully disappeared) p4p trainers!!

lists are useless and pointless. go collect train numbers if you need to do lists!!

i hate lists!! they're really just a cry for help!!

Come on, it's all just a little bit of fun, so what if it's a little low-brow. We can't all sit around and discuss Cronin, or the insane ravings of Joanna Southcott, and how their musings relate to todays pitiful heavyweight scene, all the time. If we did, that might be considered rather dull by others.

I think there's more than enough room for all tastes here. I don't see how there could be any harm in p4p lists at all. It was just a format for discussing who everyone felt to be the best trainers. Don't let it get to you.

[dondada]

if you ever manage to come up with an answer on true lineage you should post it on here as we would all be interested.

No No No please dont. please no lists, be it linear champs, greatest fighters (who youve never seen), p4p lists, top ten heavyweights or the most bizarre on of late ( which has thankfully disappeared) p4p trainers!!

lists are useless and pointless. go collect train numbers if you need to do lists!!

i hate lists!! they're really just a cry for help!!

I didn't mention anything about a list. All I said was, if the guy can break down the supposed 'linear' heavy champ, that posters would be interested. I suspect that one doesn't exist but am willing to be proved wrong.

I did say 'all' however which was wrong of me. I can only speak for myself, of course.

But as glittermonkey says, whoever wants to post a list is welcome, I would have thought - although often rather one-dimensional, they can stimulate debate.

[stujones]

if you ever manage to come up with an answer on true lineage you should post it on here as we would all be interested.

No No No please dont. please no lists, be it linear champs, greatest fighters (who youve never seen), p4p lists, top ten heavyweights or the most bizarre on of late ( which has thankfully disappeared) p4p trainers!!

lists are useless and pointless. go collect train numbers if you need to do lists!!

i hate lists!! they're really just a cry for help!!

I didn't mention anything about a list. All I said was, if the guy can break down the supposed 'linear' heavy champ, that posters would be interested. I suspect that one doesn't exist but am willing to be proved wrong.

I did say 'all' however which was wrong of me. I can only speak for myself, of course.

But as glittermonkey says, whoever wants to post a list is welcome, I would have thought - although often rather one-dimensional, they can stimulate debate.

The true Linear title still belongs to Gene Tunney.

[stujones]

if you ever manage to come up with an answer on true lineage you should post it on here as we would all be interested.

No No No please dont. please no lists, be it linear champs, greatest fighters (who youve never seen), p4p lists, top ten heavyweights or the most bizarre on of late ( which has thankfully disappeared) p4p trainers!!

lists are useless and pointless. go collect train numbers if you need to do lists!!

i hate lists!! they're really just a cry for help!!

Come on, it's all just a little bit of fun, so what if it's a little low-brow. We can't all sit around and discuss Cronin, or the insane ravings of Joanna Southcott, and how their musings relate to todays pitiful heavyweight scene, all the time. If we did, that might be considered rather dull by others.

I think there's more than enough room for all tastes here. I don't see how there could be any harm in p4p lists at all. It was just a format for discussing who everyone felt to be the best trainers. Don't let it get to you.

Sorry Neil but I have written a history of the heavyweight devision featuring a timeline of all the champions (and years when the title changed hands). Its from 1892 (Queensbury rules) to this date and features the WBC/WBA/IBF and WBO titles.

And before you go one Neil, it was part of a school project that I just like to keep up to date.

If anyone is interested in viewing, drop me a line - its 9 pages of Word so a bit long to put up here.

[neil r]

No No No please dont. please no lists, be it linear champs, greatest fighters (who youve never seen), p4p lists, top ten heavyweights or the most bizarre on of late ( which has thankfully disappeared) p4p trainers!!

lists are useless and pointless. go collect train numbers if you need to do lists!!

i hate lists!! they're really just a cry for help!!

Come on, it's all just a little bit of fun, so what if it's a little low-brow. We can't all sit around and discuss Cronin, or the insane ravings of Joanna Southcott, and how their musings relate to todays pitiful heavyweight scene, all the time. If we did, that might be considered rather dull by others.

I think there's more than enough room for all tastes here. I don't see how there could be any harm in p4p lists at all. It was just a format for discussing who everyone felt to be the best trainers. Don't let it get to you.

Sorry Neil but I have written a history of the heavyweight devision featuring a timeline of all the champions (and years when the title changed hands). Its from 1892 (Queensbury rules) to this date and features the WBC/WBA/IBF and WBO titles.

And before you go one Neil, it was part of a school project that I just like to keep up to date.

If anyone is interested in viewing, drop me a line - its 9 pages of Word so a bit long to put up here.

sounds very admirable and compilied for a good reason. My point about compiling lists is that those who insist on making up non factual subjective lists such as p4ps, or greatest ever fighters are the ones who need help!! they are pointless and serve no purpose whatsoever.

There is a huge difference between researching or compiling history and making up lists of things which can never be agreed upon.

interestingly enough stu, i never had any intention of 'going on one'

[robert.snell1]

No No No please dont. please no lists, be it linear champs, greatest fighters (who youve never seen), p4p lists, top ten heavyweights or the most bizarre on of late ( which has thankfully disappeared) p4p trainers!!

lists are useless and pointless. go collect train numbers if you need to do lists!!

i hate lists!! they're really just a cry for help!!

Come on, it's all just a little bit of fun, so what if it's a little low-brow. We can't all sit around and discuss Cronin, or the insane ravings of Joanna Southcott, and how their musings relate to todays pitiful heavyweight scene, all the time. If we did, that might be considered rather dull by others.

I think there's more than enough room for all tastes here. I don't see how there could be any harm in p4p lists at all. It was just a format for discussing who everyone felt to be the best trainers. Don't let it get to you.

Sorry Neil but I have written a history of the heavyweight devision featuring a timeline of all the champions (and years when the title changed hands). Its from 1892 (Queensbury rules) to this date and features the WBC/WBA/IBF and WBO titles.

And before you go one Neil, it was part of a school project that I just like to keep up to date.

If anyone is interested in viewing, drop me a line - its 9 pages of Word so a bit long to put up here.

Please send me a copy when you have the time

Rob

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think the Linear title is an irrelevance these days, and no champions are FORCED to fight the best available competition.

Nowhere is this better illustrated in the case where Shannon Briggs was the linear champ after 'beating' Foreman.

Moorer wins a belt from a jaded Holyfield, who has already beaten Foreman, Foreman beats Moorer, squeezes by Axel Shultz in a fight he should have lost, and then get's jobbed against Briggs.

I doubt anyone was under any illusions that Briggs was really the best available heavyweight in the world?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Who is the earliest recorded world heavyweight champion? I'm working on a personal project and would like to know. I've gotten as far as Marvin Hart in 1905 but that was for a vacant title and don't know where to go backwards fromt here.

Jake Kilrain is the first man to wear a belt.

[wouter]

Jake Kilrain is the first man to wear a belt.

And who was the first to wear trousers?