Should Hart be considered a Heavyweight Champion?

First topic message reminder :

Have recently been wading through Adam Pollack’s excellent series of books on the early heavyweight champions and have been pondering the curious case of Marvin Hart for some time and thought I would get people’s thoughts on Hart with particular reference to whether Hart deserves to be considered a genuine heavyweight champion.

As most of us will know Hart was the guy commonly acknowledged as heavyweight champion when Jim Jeffries retired as undefeated heavyweight champion. This retirement caused a little confusion at the time because in the history of the gloved era the belt had always been won and lost in the ring, Corbett beat Sullivan, Fitzsimmons beat Corbett and Jeffries beat Fitzsimmons. However when Jeffries retired the title became vacant. A sporting club was quick off the mark and matched Hart with Jack Root. The club, whose name escapes me currently pulled off a masterstroke at this point in appointing Jeffries as referee for the match, assuming, not without validity that the sight of the universally respected former champion raising the hand of victor would give said victor credibility as the symbolic sight of Jeffries passing the torch would not be lost on the fight fraternity.

In terms of the match up Hart and Root were certainly as strong a claimant to be contesting the title, whilst both had dropped the odd decision along the way the same is true of most of the other claimants such as Jack O’Brien with Hart even holding a win, albeit controversial over Jack Johnson, so in terms of the actual match up both guys had as much right to be fighting for the title as anyone else, with the possible exception of Johnson, although the colour line in place at the time meant he was never likely to be given the call to contest the title.

However despite all this acceptance of Hart as a legitimate champion was not particularly forthcoming, many questioned the rights of the club to simply match two fighters for the title and declare it for the title, many even argued that for as long as Jeffries was alive he was champion, although given he had chose to retire this seems a somewhat untenable position. Some even argued that as the last guy to hold the title Fitzsimmons deserved to be considered champion once again, although as Fitz was 40+ and had shown massive signs of regression in recent battles with the likes of Gardner this again seems a fairly shaky stance.

From what I can understand, whilst nobody appears to have been overly keen to accept Hart as the champion most experts seem to have agreed on the stance that if Hart was to go on to defend the title a few times and prove himself a better fighter than the likes of the aforementioned O’Brien most would acknowledge his right to call himself champion. However this is where further confusion is added to the mix as in his first defence Hart lost to Tommy Burns. To make matters even worse Burns was a middleweight having his first fight at the weight and was coming off a loss at that weight to the excellent Mike “Twin” Sullivan, although it should probably be acknowledged Tommy was struggling desperately to make middleweight which does go some way to explain his unusually flat performance in that one, although it certainly did nothing to solidify Hart’s legitimacy, particularly as Tommy beat him by the proverbial country mile.

So that is the situation regarding Hart’s reign and title claims. He won the fight in a match that people questioned whether it was a genuine title fight and failed to defend it once. Given all this do people think Hart has a genuine claim to be considered a heavyweight champion. Personally I am not sure, think whoever had been matched for the title would have always struggled for recognition such was the gap Jeffries left but in losing his title straight out of the gate Hart’s already tenuous claims become even more questionable.

I've got terrible dé ja vu, here...

I had de ja vu when you took my Duran-Dejesus line out of context for a cheap laugh..

Next time those teenage girls start sticking the boot into you...I might join in the fun...

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:The first champ was the one who fought all the top guys black or white imo. I dont think champs who only fought white boxers are true champs how can they know if they are the best for sure??

And again, Hart beat Johnson, who was black and, at the time, top contender for the title.

Hart went on to win the title, lost it to Tommy Burns first time out, and Burns eventually lost it to Jack Johnson, who proceeded to avoid the best black fighters throughout his entire reign.

Then I would say yes he was a champ but he was not very good he lost it straight away but so maybe we can say he was a proper champ but not very good.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I had de ja vu when you took my Duran-Dejesus line out of context for a cheap laugh..

Next time those teenage girls start sticking the boot into you...I might join in the fun...

Now now, big lad. I did no such thing, simply stated that Duran only won because of the 130 degree heat! I left your 'De Jesus was a better boxer than Duran' line untouched...As hard as that was!

Waingro wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:The first champ was the one who fought all the top guys black or white imo. I dont think champs who only fought white boxers are true champs how can they know if they are the best for sure??

And again, Hart beat Johnson, who was black and, at the time, top contender for the title.

Hart went on to win the title, lost it to Tommy Burns first time out, and Burns eventually lost it to Jack Johnson, who proceeded to avoid the best black fighters throughout his entire reign.

Then I would say yes he was a champ but he was not very good he lost it straight away but so maybe we can say he was a proper champ but not very good.

I agree.

He was a better boxer....Never said he was a better fighter...

and he was ahead when the heat took effect....I guess cruz beats mcguigan in the royal albert hall huh??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He was a better boxer....Never said he was a better fighter...

and he was ahead when the heat took effect....I guess cruz beats mcguigan in the royal albert hall huh??

Particularly as Ireland and Puerto Rico share a very similar climate too, huh? The heat was the same for Duran.

The heat was stifling...

Bernard Taylor said the heat in the Kings hall was the worst he'd ever faced...

Read the KO write up...sometime..

Don't need to, as I'm not the one desperately trying to discredit a Duran achievement....again.

Sorry for me going off topic, Rowley, Windy, Waingro and all. Back to Marvin Hart...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I had de ja vu when you took my Duran-Dejesus line out of context for a cheap laugh..

Next time those teenage girls start sticking the boot into you...I might join in the fun...

Better fighter/better boxer, Duran was both.

I am willing to fight any man in the world, bar Jim Jeffries, and just say for me I think Jeff is in a class by himself. I do not draw the colour line. If Jack Johnson, Jack o'Brien or any other fighter in the world wants to meet me I will be ready to talk business in a couple of weeks. - Tommy Burns

Not desperately doing anything..certainly not sucking up to some of the others like others are..

Calling someone a better fighter is discrediting him ....okay..

As for Burns he was very shrewd the way h built a Johnson fight up.....Always regarded Jeffries higher than Johnson and I wonder if this was because he was a negro....

Or because he was sore at the defeat.....

Jeffries had his butt handed to him by Sharkey and Fitz before the stoppage apparently....whick kind of goes against Burns is summation..

Truss having read pretty much all of Pollack's series what does come through is quite how highly Jeffries was regarded in his day, as my previous Burns quote illustrates. Should be added quotes such as this are very much the norm rather than the exception, which is a lot of the reason I often argue Jeff is one of the more under rated heavy weight champions.

Johnson is an interesting fighter because whilst there are countless quotes about him it is so hard to get a decent read on how he was seen at the time because the prejudice in the day was so all pervading you obviously have to take a lot of quotes with a pinch of salt. However as I have said previously on this thread aggresion and gameness were valued at that time probably more than any other weapon in a fighters arsenal and there does seem to be a perception that in this score Jack was somewhat lacking with many going as far as to say he had a yellow streak, although the prejudice of the day does perhaps account for such a harsh analysis.

Im not sure rowley, popularity of a fighter tends to lead to them being overrated I think, rather than underrated. The more popular a fighter is, the more likely he is to be overrated by the public in that era. Even going off Jeffries record, its obviously very good but it doesnt strike me as warranting the reputation he had. Its also hard to measure because boxing was in its infancy then and the previous champions up to that point had been an ageing bareknuckle master and two light heavyweights essentially. Jeffries was a collossus in his era but there has been 100 years since then and many collossuses since. Being one of the first had its advantages.

Re the actual topic of thread, if some are to dismiss Hart as a bona fide champion for the reasons stated then surely we have to do the same for Ken Norton.

DAVE667 wrote:Re the actual topic of thread, if some are to dismiss Hart as a bona fide champion for the reasons stated then surely we have to do the same for Ken Norton.

I think I actually do Dave.

manos de piedra wrote:Im not sure rowley, popularity of a fighter tends to lead to them being overrated I think, rather than underrated. The more popular a fighter is, the more likely he is to be overrated by the public in that era. Even going off Jeffries record, its obviously very good but it doesnt strike me as warranting the reputation he had. Its also hard to measure because boxing was in its infancy then and the previous champions up to that point had been an ageing bareknuckle master and two light heavyweights essentially. Jeffries was a collossus in his era but there has been 100 years since then and many collossuses since. Being one of the first had its advantages.

Good point mate I think you are right this happened a long time ago boxing has changed and made improvements these guys were the best of their day no doubts but would they be able to last with quality fighters like Lewis and Tyson? I dont think they would tbh. If Lewis or Tyson were around back then they could have been big stars but they also might not have been allowed fight for the title lol so it shows how you cant be a true champ if you only fight white boxers

No, not this time, I refuse, someone else's turn.

Count me out, also.

That is a wind-up, surely.

Waingro wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Im not sure rowley, popularity of a fighter tends to lead to them being overrated I think, rather than underrated. The more popular a fighter is, the more likely he is to be overrated by the public in that era. Even going off Jeffries record, its obviously very good but it doesnt strike me as warranting the reputation he had. Its also hard to measure because boxing was in its infancy then and the previous champions up to that point had been an ageing bareknuckle master and two light heavyweights essentially. Jeffries was a collossus in his era but there has been 100 years since then and many collossuses since. Being one of the first had its advantages.

Good point mate I think you are right this happened a long time ago boxing has changed and made improvements these guys were the best of their day no doubts but would they be able to last with quality fighters like Lewis and Tyson? I dont think they would tbh. If Lewis or Tyson were around back then they could have been big stars but they also might not have been allowed fight for the title lol so it shows how you cant be a true champ if you only fight white boxers

Thats not really what I am saying Waingro, thats a slightly different point. Im talking about how boxing perceptions are influenced and can be changed and the impact it has on how boxers are rated historically. Jeffries was one of the first heavyweight champions and a fine athlete, was immensely popular and respected. Therefore at the time he was held in high regard and he also had the benefit of having no real predecessors to be compared against. Consider Jeffries had come along 30/40/50 years later? Would he be as highly regarded, especially if he had an Ali or a Louis predating him to be compared to? The era's change, often quite drastically so trying to balance it out to get a fair or level playing field for fighters is very difficult. Jeffries acheivement were great for his own era and he was regarded very highly as such. Would these acheivements be as highly regarded or his talents as admired at another point in history is debateable and arguably they would not when you consider his biggest wins were over guys who werent really heavyweights and his talents were better suited to long haul fights of endurance.

Whether he was better or worse than Tyson or Lewis is a different matter and again pretty subjective.