Jimmy Ellis -A "Real" Champion?

[Ambling Alp]

I have gone back and forth as to whether Jimmy Ellis should be considered a "Real" Champion. (As opposed to beltholder/champion like say Ernie Terrell, John Ruiz,or I guess the now almost countless WBS champions of the last decade or so.)

Main reasons against:
-The fighter he succeeded didn't lose the title, didn't retire, and wasn't stripped because he wouldn't defend the title. ( For the love of God, lets not twist this into another Ali thread)

-Ellis only won the WBA title.

-To a lesser extent it bothers me that the #1 contender (Joe Frazier) didn't compete in the WBA tournament, though that wasn't Ellis' fault.

On the other hand, Ellis did have to win 3 fights against pretty good fighters to win an 8 man tournament; others have done less to win it.

The WBC didn't even have a tournament; which makes the WBA tournament mean a little more.

If you don't consider the Ellis champion, then Frazier didn't win the title until beat Ali, which seems a little silly.

Anyway, just wanted to know what other people think.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You already know what I think, but I believe Ellis cannot be denied. Perhaps you can put an asterisk next to his name, but he's the linear champion. Okay, he didn't beat Ali. Well, Hart didn't beat Jeffries, & Schmeling didn't defeat Tunney. There are several other examples at Heavyweight alone. We won't see a thread questioning their linear status, &, to that end, there shouldn't be one questioning Ellis.

Ali was stripped. You can argue about the legitimacy of that stripping, but the fact is it took place, & we can't pretend it didn't happen, any more than we can actively pretend bad decisions didn't happen. Ali was the linear champ --- not Frazier or anyone else took his belt, & Frazier chose not to compete in a tournament to crown a new, linear champ. As Alp stated, Ellis cannot be blamed for this.

He was one of the weaker champs, for mine. His title credentials are even weaker. However, he has a spot in the lineage. There've been worse.

[dempseyfire]

To me it's rather simple. Ellis was a title claimant but can't be called a linear champ since Frazier's absence means the tournament winner hadn't fought the other top HW in the world. That's what makes the linear champ in a champ's retirement . .the two best guys fighting each other.

The Frazier-Ellis winner was the legit champ, as Ali could not yet fight/had been put in indefinite retirement

[purple.obi]

I've been interested in Jimmy Ellis, his match with Floyd Patterson and Ellis's two Frazier go rounds. I bought Smokin' Joe's autobiography, and I think his second match with Ellis is barely if at all mentioned, the '75 rematch. Anyway, I finally got to see some poor quality video of Frazier-Ellis II, and what was available, was great match. Yeah, I agree, the first Frazier-Ellis decided at least a new champ until Ali came back.

[Robinson]

Ellis vs Frazier II was held in Melbourne, on a footy oval. Bob Foster was
the ref.

I have the fight...not bad, not as quick as the first one, both guys are a
little off and just lacking. It seems a bit more even going from memory.

I dont mind Ellis and I think he gets over looked too often, he has some
good wins, and we all know about his losses. It was not his fault re- the Ali
politics and I suppose he should be considered the champion as much as
Marvin Hart was.

It is easy to sit back and say such and such is a linear champion, but the
fighters that have to navigate this landscape often do it as best as they
can...some hide amongst the politics, but others do what they can.

One thing for sure re all the linear titles is that for the champ it was
less complicated, they got more recognition and they never had to worry
about BS sanctioning fee's/

[The Great John L]

He won a legitimate tournament with nearly all of the top HWs at the time; arguably a more difficult task than merely beating many of the actual ""linear" champions. Of course he should be considered a "real" champion. To even think that he would be lumped in with guys who held titles in eras where as many as 5 or 6 claimed the "championship" is ridiculous.

[Goodnight, Irene]

He won a legitimate tournament with nearly all of the top HWs at the time; arguably a more difficult task than merely beating many of the actual ""linear" champions. Of course he should be considered a "real" champion. To even think that he would be lumped in with guys who held titles in eras where as many as 5 or 6 claimed the "championship" is ridiculous.

Good post. Looks like Ellis' championship credentials have split opinions on this thread.

[Ambling Alp]

As mentioned before, I am on fence about this.

A question I have for those who do consider Ellis a "real" Champion is this:
Do you also consider Ernie Terrell to be a "real" champion?

[The Great John L]

Well, lets see, Terrell didn't win a tournament made up of 8 of the top HWs in the world that was setup specifically to replace Ali, who was stripped of his title. I clearlt see a difference between the two situations.

[dempseyfire]

He won a legitimate tournament with nearly all of the top HWs at the time; arguably a more difficult task than merely beating many of the actual ""linear" champions. Of course he should be considered a "real" champion. To even think that he would be lumped in with guys who held titles in eras where as many as 5 or 6 claimed the "championship" is ridiculous.

I agree his championship is definitely more legit than the legion of ABC champs that came about starting in the 1980s, but without fighting the other clear top HW in the world in Frazier, he couldn't be called a linear or 'undisputed' champ.

[The Great John L]

He won a legitimate tournament with nearly all of the top HWs at the time; arguably a more difficult task than merely beating many of the actual ""linear" champions. Of course he should be considered a "real" champion. To even think that he would be lumped in with guys who held titles in eras where as many as 5 or 6 claimed the "championship" is ridiculous.

I agree his championship is definitely more legit than the legion of ABC champs that came about starting in the 1980s, but without fighting the other clear top HW in the world in Frazier, he couldn't be called a linear or 'undisputed' champ.

If memory severs me correct, Frazier's mgmt chose not to be involved in the tournament. If we say that Ellis wasn't the "real" champ because he didn't beat Frazier then that raises questions about many of the HW champs, including Johnson, Willard, Dempsey and Holmes all of whom arguably didn't fight the best guys around at the time. Ellis is as real as any of the other HW champs in history.

What about Holmes? Was he ever the "real" HW champ? Tate won Ali's title, while Holmes merely beat the guy handed a title without ever winning it in the ring. He then never made any effort to go after the legitimate title that was passed to Tate after he won a legitimate tournament of 4 of the top 10 HWs of the time.

And how about Patterson? Care to discuss how he won his "championship"?

For criss sakes, Ellis beat Martin, Ringo and Quarry to get his championship, while someone like Schmeling won his "championship" while laying on his back. I don't mean to be degrading to any of these great fighters, but I take exception to the little regard given to Ellis who did everything that was asked of him.

[dempseyfire]

He won a legitimate tournament with nearly all of the top HWs at the time; arguably a more difficult task than merely beating many of the actual ""linear" champions. Of course he should be considered a "real" champion. To even think that he would be lumped in with guys who held titles in eras where as many as 5 or 6 claimed the "championship" is ridiculous.

I agree his championship is definitely more legit than the legion of ABC champs that came about starting in the 1980s, but without fighting the other clear top HW in the world in Frazier, he couldn't be called a linear or 'undisputed' champ.

If memory severs me correct, Frazier's mgmt chose not to be involved in the tournament. If we say that Ellis wasn't the "real" champ because he didn't beat Frazier then that raises questions about many of the HW champs, including Johnson, Willard, Dempsey and Holmes all of whom arguably didn't fight the best guys around at the time. Ellis is as real as any of the other HW champs in history.

What about Holmes? Was he ever the "real" HW champ? Tate won Ali's title, while Holmes merely beat the guy handed a title without ever winning it in the ring. He then never made any effort to go after the legitimate title that was passed to Tate after he won a legitimate tournament of 4 of the top 10 HWs of the time.

And how about Patterson? Care to discuss how he won his "championship"?

For criss sakes, Ellis beat Martin, Ringo and Quarry to get his championship, while someone like Schmeling won his "championship" while laying on his back. I don't mean to be degrading to any of these great fighters, but I take exception to the little regard given to Ellis who did everything that was asked of him.

Johnson, Willard, and Dempsey all beat the man who had beaten the man. They were the universally recognized champions despite critiques over who they defended against.

The Schmeling and Patterson examples actually back up my point. Patterson fought Moore who was the recognized number 2 challenger. I don't see an argument for any other HWs having a claim to be in the top 2 at that date (1956)
Schmeling and Sharkey emerged from a similar HW tourny after Tunney retired, but unlike the 68 tournament there wasn't a glaring omission of one of the top 3 heavyweights in the world.

Perhaps Tate would've had an argument with Holmes, but that argument got flushed down the toilet when Tate got KO'd by previous Holmes knockout victim Mike Weaver. Just like if Frazier had been beaten by Quarry, Ellis wouldn't have needed to fight Joe then. But Frazier kept winning.

Of course Ellis did everything asked of him, but he knew he didn't have a solidified claim to the HW championship of the world until he fought Frazier. They did fight in 1970, and that fight gave us the first undisputed champ after Ali gave up the belt. It's not calling his title 'fake' . . .I just don't see the argument of putting his championship up there with that of the other linear champs, regardless of whether you think some were inferior to him or not.

[The Great John L]

Johnson, Willard, and Dempsey all beat the man who had beaten the man. They were the universally recognized champions despite critiques over who they defended against.

In the case of Ellis, the "man" was no longer fighting.

The Schmeling and Patterson examples actually back up my point. Patterson fought Moore who was the recognized number 2 challenger. I don't see an argument for any other HWs having a claim to be in the top 2 at that date (1956)
Schmeling and Sharkey emerged from a similar HW tourny after Tunney retired, but unlike the 68 tournament there wasn't a glaring omission of one of the top 3 heavyweights in the world.

One of the "top 3 HWs in the world" elected not to participate. So what? He won a tournament with the other 8 top guys who did see fit to participate in the tournament.

Perhaps Tate would've had an argument with Holmes, but that argument got flushed down the toilet when Tate got KO'd by previous Holmes knockout victim Mike Weaver.

With all due respect, you "liner title" guys make very little sense. What difference does it make who beat Weaver prior to him beating "the man" who legitimately followed Ali? Tate held the "real" title and lost it to Weaver. If Holmes wanted the "real" title then he should have fought a rematch with Weaver, who gave him hell in their first fight. Either you recognize the "real" title or not. You seem to want to pick and choose when the situation suits your guy.

Just like if Frazier had been beaten by Quarry, Ellis wouldn't have needed to fight Joe then. But Frazier kept winning.

Frazier could have been in the tournament, but opted out and instead fought the capable Buster Mathis. He chose not to fight for the "real" title. He won the "real" title when he beat Ellis, who held the belt held previously by "the man", who was no longer fighting. Certainly Ellis winning "the" tournament with Ringo, Patterson and Quarry established him as "champ". If you can only be "Champ" when you have vanquished all comers, then there have been very few "real" champs indeed.

Of course Ellis did everything asked of him, but he knew he didn't have a solidified claim to the HW championship of the world until he fought Frazier. They did fight in 1970, and that fight gave us the first undisputed champ after Ali gave up the belt. It's not calling his title 'fake' . . .I just don't see the argument of putting his championship up there with that of the other linear champs, regardless of whether you think some were inferior to him or not.

Inferior has nothing to do with it. Schmeling was hardly "undisputed" when he won the title on his back. And Holmes never unified the titles, especially damning considering the fact that the one he didn't hold was the "real" one. Ellis won the "real" title that was involuntarily vacated by Ali, and Frazier chose not to fight for that title. He beat a solid crop of fighters and proved more than a number of the other "real" "linear" champs. Was Hart a "linear" champ, or Burns for that matter? I'm sorry, but that whole term is bogus. You win the title in the ring, and if you are saying that that requires beating all legitimate threats, then there probably have only been maybe 2 or 3 guys who could legitimately be called champ.

Frazier's management held him out of the tournament most likely because they probably didn't think he was quite ready. Ellis beat everybody else and was the champion of the world outside of NY and a few other states. So let's just lump him in with Seldon and Botha because in retrospect we know that Frazier was the best guy out there.

Revisionist history at it's best.

[raylawpc]

Johnson, Willard, and Dempsey all beat the man who had beaten the man. They were the universally recognized champions despite critiques over who they defended against.

In the case of Ellis, the "man" was no longer fighting.

The Schmeling and Patterson examples actually back up my point. Patterson fought Moore who was the recognized number 2 challenger. I don't see an argument for any other HWs having a claim to be in the top 2 at that date (1956)
Schmeling and Sharkey emerged from a similar HW tourny after Tunney retired, but unlike the 68 tournament there wasn't a glaring omission of one of the top 3 heavyweights in the world.

One of the "top 3 HWs in the world" elected not to participate. So what? He won a tournament with the other 8 top guys who did see fit to participate in the tournament.

Perhaps Tate would've had an argument with Holmes, but that argument got flushed down the toilet when Tate got KO'd by previous Holmes knockout victim Mike Weaver.

With all due respect, you "liner title" guys make very little sense. What difference does it make who beat Weaver prior to him beating "the man" who legitimately followed Ali? Tate held the "real" title and lost it to Weaver. If Holmes wanted the "real" title then he should have fought a rematch with Weaver, who gave him hell in their first fight. Either you recognize the "real" title or not. You seem to want to pick and choose when the situation suits your guy.

Just like if Frazier had been beaten by Quarry, Ellis wouldn't have needed to fight Joe then. But Frazier kept winning.

Frazier could have been in the tournament, but opted out and instead fought the capable Buster Mathis. He chose not to fight for the "real" title. He won the "real" title when he beat Ellis, who held the belt held previously by "the man", who was no longer fighting. Certainly Ellis winning "the" tournament with Ringo, Patterson and Quarry established him as "champ". If you can only be "Champ" when you have vanquished all comers, then there have been very few "real" champs indeed.

Of course Ellis did everything asked of him, but he knew he didn't have a solidified claim to the HW championship of the world until he fought Frazier. They did fight in 1970, and that fight gave us the first undisputed champ after Ali gave up the belt. It's not calling his title 'fake' . . .I just don't see the argument of putting his championship up there with that of the other linear champs, regardless of whether you think some were inferior to him or not.

Inferior has nothing to do with it. Schmeling was hardly "undisputed" when he won the title on his back. And Holmes never unified the titles, especially damning considering the fact that the one he didn't hold was the "real" one. Ellis won the "real" title that was involuntarily vacated by Ali, and Frazier chose not to fight for that title. He beat a solid crop of fighters and proved more than a number of the other "real" "linear" champs. Was Hart a "linear" champ, or Burns for that matter? I'm sorry, but that whole term is bogus. You win the title in the ring, and if you are saying that that requires beating all legitimate threats, then there probably have only been maybe 2 or 3 guys who could legitimately be called champ.

Frazier's management held him out of the tournament most likely because they probably didn't think he was quite ready. Ellis beat everybody else and was the champion of the world outside of NY and a few other states. So let's just lump him in with Seldon and Botha because in retrospect we know that Frazier was the best guy out there.

Revisionist history at it's best.

Having actually been alive and nearly an adult in 1968, I recall one reason why Durham kept Frazier out of the tournament was because the tournament winner was contractually obliged to fight for a particular promoter for two years after winning the tournament, and for pre-determined purses. Durham felt that Frazier could do better on the open market.

[dempseyfire]

Johnson, Willard, and Dempsey all beat the man who had beaten the man. They were the universally recognized champions despite critiques over who they defended against.

In the case of Ellis, the "man" was no longer fighting.

The Schmeling and Patterson examples actually back up my point. Patterson fought Moore who was the recognized number 2 challenger. I don't see an argument for any other HWs having a claim to be in the top 2 at that date (1956)
Schmeling and Sharkey emerged from a similar HW tourny after Tunney retired, but unlike the 68 tournament there wasn't a glaring omission of one of the top 3 heavyweights in the world.

One of the "top 3 HWs in the world" elected not to participate. So what? He won a tournament with the other 8 top guys who did see fit to participate in the tournament.

Perhaps Tate would've had an argument with Holmes, but that argument got flushed down the toilet when Tate got KO'd by previous Holmes knockout victim Mike Weaver.

With all due respect, you "liner title" guys make very little sense. What difference does it make who beat Weaver prior to him beating "the man" who legitimately followed Ali? Tate held the "real" title and lost it to Weaver. If Holmes wanted the "real" title then he should have fought a rematch with Weaver, who gave him hell in their first fight. Either you recognize the "real" title or not. You seem to want to pick and choose when the situation suits your guy.

Just like if Frazier had been beaten by Quarry, Ellis wouldn't have needed to fight Joe then. But Frazier kept winning.

Frazier could have been in the tournament, but opted out and instead fought the capable Buster Mathis. He chose not to fight for the "real" title. He won the "real" title when he beat Ellis, who held the belt held previously by "the man", who was no longer fighting. Certainly Ellis winning "the" tournament with Ringo, Patterson and Quarry established him as "champ". If you can only be "Champ" when you have vanquished all comers, then there have been very few "real" champs indeed.

Of course Ellis did everything asked of him, but he knew he didn't have a solidified claim to the HW championship of the world until he fought Frazier. They did fight in 1970, and that fight gave us the first undisputed champ after Ali gave up the belt. It's not calling his title 'fake' . . .I just don't see the argument of putting his championship up there with that of the other linear champs, regardless of whether you think some were inferior to him or not.

Inferior has nothing to do with it. Schmeling was hardly "undisputed" when he won the title on his back. And Holmes never unified the titles, especially damning considering the fact that the one he didn't hold was the "real" one. Ellis won the "real" title that was involuntarily vacated by Ali, and Frazier chose not to fight for that title. He beat a solid crop of fighters and proved more than a number of the other "real" "linear" champs. Was Hart a "linear" champ, or Burns for that matter? I'm sorry, but that whole term is bogus. You win the title in the ring, and if you are saying that that requires beating all legitimate threats, then there probably have only been maybe 2 or 3 guys who could legitimately be called champ.

Frazier's management held him out of the tournament most likely because they probably didn't think he was quite ready. Ellis beat everybody else and was the champion of the world outside of NY and a few other states. So let's just lump him in with Seldon and Botha because in retrospect we know that Frazier was the best guy out there.

Revisionist history at it's best.

It's not revisionist at all. When the recognized champ retires . . .the next two best guys fight for the vacant crown. Pretty simple concept. It happened in 1930. It happened in 1956. It DIDN'T happen in 1968. You seem to place much more emphasis on the actual 'belt' than I do . . .so what if Tate won the belt Ali had . . he didn't beat Ali . . so he's no more right to being called the 'real' champ than Holmes, and Holmes had beaten the next two top HWs in the world at the time of ALi's retirement . . Norton and Shavers (NOT Leon Spinks). Did Vitali Klitschko become the 'champ' by winning Lennox's WBC belt and beating fat Sanders?? No. The best fight the best to fill a vacant championship . . that doesn't mean fighting everyone, but it should be the NEXT TWO BEST MEN after the champ retires. With Frazier around, Ellis is only a title holder. It's not like Frazier was 'ducking' anyone . . his management chose to not place him in the tournament b/c they didn't like the ensuing contractual obligations as Ray pointed out. Pretty soon thereafter, Frazier fought Ellis . . .boom . . .the winner is the champ.

[The Great John L]

It's not revisionist at all. When the recognized champ retires . . .the next two best guys fight for the vacant crown. Pretty simple concept. It happened in 1930. It happened in 1956. It DIDN'T happen in 1968. You seem to place much more emphasis on the actual 'belt' than I do . . .so what if Tate won the belt Ali had . . he didn't beat Ali . . so he's no more right to being called the 'real' champ than Holmes, and Holmes had beaten the next two top HWs in the world at the time of ALi's retirement . . Norton and Shavers (NOT Leon Spinks). Did Vitali Klitschko become the 'champ' by winning Lennox's WBC belt and beating fat Sanders?? No. The best fight the best to fill a vacant championship . . that doesn't mean fighting everyone, but it should be the NEXT TWO BEST MEN after the champ retires. With Frazier around, Ellis is only a title holder. It's not like Frazier was 'ducking' anyone . . his management chose to not place him in the tournament b/c they didn't like the ensuing contractual obligations as Ray pointed out. Pretty soon thereafter, Frazier fought Ellis . . .boom . . .the winner is the champ.

The two best men fought in 1930 and 1956? Who says they were the two best? You may only know that in hindsight. Thats kind of like saying that the BCS champion is the undisputed NCAA football champion. Nearly every sane person on the face of the planet would always select a tournament of the top guys in order to determine the best. No one really knows who the best is until they prove it in the ring.

Ellis won arguably the most comprehensive professional boxing tournament ever held to fill a vacant title. It wasn't merely a group of so called experts selecting who they thought were "the two best" best, but they selected all of the top HWs, except for Frazier, who chose to fight a MUCH easier single eliminator with the very capable but unimposing Buster Mathis.

Marvin Hart beat Jack Root, who I believe was merely selected by Jeffries to fight for his title. Does he deserve to be called the "champion?

Tommy Burns then beat Hart. Was he a champion?

Schmeling beat ONE GUY in a hand selected fight for a vacant title, while writhing on the canvas.

Patterson also beat ONE GUY in a hand selected fight for a vacant title.

Ellis won a torunament of 8 of the top 10 HWs active at the time, which any reasonable person would say is more difficult than beating merely one guy. In one tournament he fought a variety of styles and nearly cleaned out the division, except for the guy who opted out of the tournament. Whether Frazier opted out because his management didn't like the contract offered isn't really relevant. He opted out and had his chance at Ellis's title less than two years later after he got some additional experience.

You say that I'm putting more emphasis on the title is merely trying to twist the conversation, since I really couldn't care less about a "linear" title which is merely a fantasy as I have stated many times. Ellis was champion because he probably earned it more than just about any other HW in history by winning the most comprehensive HW championship tournament in history.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree with much with both sides of the argument. I just wanted to make a couple of points:

-Why I brought up Ernie Terrell. The WBA stripped Ali of the title. They matched Terrell up against one the other top contenders (Eddie Machen) for the title. For those that argue that it doesn't matter if the stripping of the champion is deserved, then Terrell seems to have as good of case as Ellis; unless I suppose you take The Great John L's position that only winning one fight to win the title isn't as legitimate as winning 3 like Ellis had to do.

- Floyd Patterson did actually have to win 2 fights to win the vacant title. It was actually a 3 man tournament between him, Moore, and Tommy Jackson. Moore got a bye. Patterson beat Jackson and then Moore.

-Schmeling didn't win a tournament per se- however several of the top heavyweights fought one another and it became clear that Sharkey and Schmeling were the best.

-It has always bothered me that Schmeling won the title on ground, hoping the referee would disqualify his opponent in a fight that he was losing. I have never understood this is rarely talked about.

[evndrbsn]

I agree with much with both sides of the argument. I just wanted to make a couple of points:

-Why I brought up Ernie Terrell. The WBA stripped Ali of the title. They matched Terrell up against one the other top contenders (Eddie Machen) for the title. For those that argue that it doesn't matter if the stripping of the champion is deserved, then Terrell seems to have as good of case as Ellis; unless I suppose you take The Great John L's position that only winning one fight to win the title isn't as legitimate as winning 3 like Ellis had to do.

- Floyd Patterson did actually have to win 2 fights to win the vacant title. It was actually a 3 man tournament between him, Moore, and Tommy Jackson. Moore got a bye. Patterson beat Jackson and then Moore.

-Schmeling didn't win a tournament per se- however several of the top heavyweights fought one another and it became clear that Sharkey and Schmeling were the best.

-It has always bothered me that Schmeling won the title on ground, hoping the referee would disqualify his opponent in a fight that he was losing. I have never understood this is rarely talked about.

Schmeling choosing to win on a foul came back to haunt him, as he lost from what I hear was a debatable decision in the return bout. I have highlights on tape but never watched them. Anyone have a better perspective on who won the rematch?

And on Ellis, of course he was a real champion. As real as anyone like Vitali Klitschko, who first won a vacant title over Corrie Sanders (I don't consider the WBO, they only recently got worldwide recognition this decade and we don't need another organization to confuse the ranks) then beat Sam Peter (former interim champ), who won the "full" title from Oleg Maskaev. Don't forget, Maskaev won the belt from Rahman, who in turn had won the interim title with a win over Monte Barrett.

Considering today's heavyweight landscape, I don't see why a fine boxer like Jimmy Ellis should be considered anything other than, in the very least, a legitimate title holder. As real as Larry Holmes was, as another poster pointed out.

[Djanders]

In the past, I have always been undecided about Ellis. After reading this thread, I am definitely leaning toward recognizing him as a legitimate Heavyweight Champion. Interesting thread!

[raylawpc]

Ellis was what he was . . . the World Boxing Association heavyweight champion from 1968 to 1970.

He is certainly as legit as any of the alphabet soup champions of the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

[Ambling Alp]

I don't think hardly anyone questions that. However, some of us think there is a difference between "Real Champions" and beltholders. The question is what is Ellis?

[raylawpc]

That's my point - it is what it is. It's nothing more and nothing less.

If, as Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"Beauty, like supreme dominion
Is but supported by opinion,"

so the idea of a "real" champion is but supported by opinion. In the case of Joe Louis that opinion was (virtually) undisputed. In the case of Peter Maher in 1895, it was mostly ignored. And in Jimmy Ellis' case, it was somewhere in between.

[dempseyfire]

It's not revisionist at all. When the recognized champ retires . . .the next two best guys fight for the vacant crown. Pretty simple concept. It happened in 1930. It happened in 1956. It DIDN'T happen in 1968. You seem to place much more emphasis on the actual 'belt' than I do . . .so what if Tate won the belt Ali had . . he didn't beat Ali . . so he's no more right to being called the 'real' champ than Holmes, and Holmes had beaten the next two top HWs in the world at the time of ALi's retirement . . Norton and Shavers (NOT Leon Spinks). Did Vitali Klitschko become the 'champ' by winning Lennox's WBC belt and beating fat Sanders?? No. The best fight the best to fill a vacant championship . . that doesn't mean fighting everyone, but it should be the NEXT TWO BEST MEN after the champ retires. With Frazier around, Ellis is only a title holder. It's not like Frazier was 'ducking' anyone . . his management chose to not place him in the tournament b/c they didn't like the ensuing contractual obligations as Ray pointed out. Pretty soon thereafter, Frazier fought Ellis . . .boom . . .the winner is the champ.

The two best men fought in 1930 and 1956? Who says they were the two best? You may only know that in hindsight. Thats kind of like saying that the BCS champion is the undisputed NCAA football champion. Nearly every sane person on the face of the planet would always select a tournament of the top guys in order to determine the best. No one really knows who the best is until they prove it in the ring.

Ellis won arguably the most comprehensive professional boxing tournament ever held to fill a vacant title. It wasn't merely a group of so called experts selecting who they thought were "the two best" best, but they selected all of the top HWs, except for Frazier, who chose to fight a MUCH easier single eliminator with the very capable but unimposing Buster Mathis.

Marvin Hart beat Jack Root, who I believe was merely selected by Jeffries to fight for his title. Does he deserve to be called the "champion?

Tommy Burns then beat Hart. Was he a champion?

Schmeling beat ONE GUY in a hand selected fight for a vacant title, while writhing on the canvas.

Patterson also beat ONE GUY in a hand selected fight for a vacant title.

Ellis won a torunament of 8 of the top 10 HWs active at the time, which any reasonable person would say is more difficult than beating merely one guy. In one tournament he fought a variety of styles and nearly cleaned out the division, except for the guy who opted out of the tournament. Whether Frazier opted out because his management didn't like the contract offered isn't really relevant. He opted out and had his chance at Ellis's title less than two years later after he got some additional experience.

You say that I'm putting more emphasis on the title is merely trying to twist the conversation, since I really couldn't care less about a "linear" title which is merely a fantasy as I have stated many times. Ellis was champion because he probably earned it more than just about any other HW in history by winning the most comprehensive HW championship tournament in history.

Rickard organized a mini elimination tournament after Rickard retired . . .Schmeling and Sharkey were the guys who got to the top of it. The difference from 1968 is that there was no glaring omission of a guy like Frazier.

Who deserved to fight for the vacant crown in 56 more than Patterson and Moore? It's not simply hindsight if they got it right the first time.
They didn't include 'all' the top HWs. It didn't have Mathis or Frazier (and don't tell me Mathis was less deserving of a slot than Thad Spencer . . in fact, you could argue Chuvalo should have been placed over Spencer and Martin) You could say they went by the rankings . . and who determined the rankings . . .a panel of 'experts'!!! And I'm not convinced in the slightest that Mathis himself wouldn't have beaten Ellis . . .Jimmy has a bad style matchup there.

Look, I like Ellis as a fighter, but to say he "probably earned the title more than just about any other HW in history" by beating Martin, Bonavena, and Quarry is ridiculous. Frazier by mid-1969 had beaten Quarry, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Machen, and Mathis, and never lost . . .I don't see how in the absence of Ali, you can crown a HW champ without fighting Frazier. I don't get the logic. Beating 3 top contenders in a row, which is what Ellis did, doesn't do it. Liston had beaten even more top contenders before fighting Patterson.

[overhand_right]

He was one of the weaker champs, for mine. His title credentials are even weaker. However, he has a spot in the lineage. There've been worse.

He's not one of the weaker champs for me. Bonavena, Martin, Quarry, Patterson. . . Those are some great scalps. Took a peak Smokin Joe to relieve him of his belt. He's a dangerous top class fighter. Better names on his resume than any Klitschko.

[Robinson]

Or any of some of the earlier HW's.