Tommy Burns and the HW lineal championship

[APerno]

This is off the top of my head, with no research included; feel free to correct

Was Tommy Burns HW champion of the world?

YES Burns was champion because . . .

. . . he defeated Marvin Hart, who was either the current HW champ (via his victory over Root) or because Hart was by popular acclaim one of the chosen fighters for the Burns-Hart elimination bout

. . . he (Burns) defended the title numerous times; there seems to be no evidence of him ducking anyone; he crossed the ’color line’ and gave Johnson a shot at the title

. . . most HW Championship lists today include him (Burns)

(but not Hart; this seems a duplicity to me; both the Hart-Root elimination matchup and the Burns-Hart elimination matchup supposedly got their currency via a Jim Jeffries’ nod of approval. – (This is a maybe, there seems to be some dispute regarding Jeffries involvement with both fights,) but if this is correct, then why accept one and not the other? I.e. Should Hart be on the list?)

NO Burns wasn’t champion because . . .

. . . neither the winner of the Hart-Root matchup or the Burns-Hart matchup ever received universal acceptance (press/fans)

. . . the Jack Johnson ‘problem’ had white America finding cause to ignore Burns’ claim and convince themselves that Jeffries was the ‘true champion’ resulting in an unspoken disendowment of Burns’ reign

. . .only after defeating Jefferies (not Burns) did Johnson finally gain universal acceptance as HW champion

. . . Americans found him (Burns) easy to ignore, he was Canadian, and later on, often fought overseas; he had no ‘mega fight’ in the States that I am aware of

So three questions:

1. Was Tommy Burns HW Champion?
2. Why is Burns on the list and not Hart?
3. Is contemporaneous acknowledgement of a champion mandatory or can its absence be trumped by historical interpretation? - Which is what seems to have happened.

[BitPlayer]

You know in the bare knucle days there were cases where after the champion retired, the new champion was sorta just declared I think f=becuase things like giving the champion their hardest fight. I think it was along those lines that Fitz claimed the title when Jeffries retired, though it wasn't recognised. If you did recognise that, as well as his claim for beating Maher, then he'd have been the first 3 time world heavyweight champion.

I certainly think Burns should be considered a champion. Hart probably should be too, even if in hindsight it wasn't the highest quality match up.

[Ambling Alp II]

Virtually everyone considers Burns a champion. I don't know of any credible source that doesn't. Hart should be as well, more often not he seems to considered a champion.
As for mega fights in the United States, The fights against O'Brien were a big deal. Also, the first fight against Squires was at the time a big deal as well.

[Tuan_Jim]

Marvin Hart won the vacant title, refereed by none other than Jim Jeffries (if i recall). Tommy Burns beat Marvin Hart. Every heavyweight history I've read since I was a little boy included Marvin Hart and Tommy Burns. The OP is right when he says he did no research.

[APerno]

The Burns-O'Brien draw 11/28/1906 - This article doesn't have much about the fight - more about the argument over Burns trunks/groin protector. - Have found nothing on the second fight - yet.

[Kalan]

That's the linage... That's why Jack Johnson chased Burns around the world -- for one reason.. He knew he was a better fighter and deserved to be Heavyweight Champion and Burns didn't.. He knew Burns was a faker and four flusher -- so he spoke to reporters and media people, challenging Burns, questioning his fistic skills, and waited for Burns for hours, outside hotels, restaurants, and other public places -- reporters in hand.

Kind of like Antonio Tarver, showing up at Roy Jones's news conferences, using a loud microphone -- and telling Roy he was a fake champion who was due to get knocked out if he fought a real fighter... Tarver finally got the reaction he wanted -- Roy Jones' signature on a contract.

[Ambling Alp II]

Marvin Hart won the vacant title, refereed by none other than Jim Jeffries (if i recall). Tommy Burns beat Marvin Hart. Every heavyweight history I've read since I was a little boy included Marvin Hart and Tommy Burns. The OP is right when he says he did no research.

I remember as a kid at home in our Encyclopedia, Hart was not listed. I believe I have seen a couple of other places that did not mention him. However most of the time he has been listed from what I have seen. Burns always has been.

[APerno]

Marvin Hart won the vacant title, refereed by none other than Jim Jeffries (if i recall). Tommy Burns beat Marvin Hart. Every heavyweight history I've read since I was a little boy included Marvin Hart and Tommy Burns. The OP is right when he says he did no research.

No need to insult - the Hart-Burns fight-off is always mentioned - but is Hart ID as the Champion or is the fight ID as an elimination bout is the question. - again no need to add an insult why not just make your point?

[APerno]

Here is Hart being declared champion, at least by one local paper out of Reno (as reprinted in the NY Times). - Funny, it mentions Jefries declaration that this was a championship bout, but of course we know Jeffries pulled back this statement a few days later.

[APerno]

In the above article (O'Brien and Burns Draw) it speaks of Burns' 'apparatus' (groin protector) being in dispute - considering that the NYSAC didn't see fit to make protective belts legal until 1930 (in reaction to Sharkey-Schmeling I and Carnera-Godfrey) it seems O'Brien had the better argument; Burns had better sense.