Should Hart be considered a Heavyweight Champion?

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.

Yes, I do. Especially with the hindsight of seeing how often titles become vacant and boxers have to be matched for a belt.

I don't see the problem, personally. It was an unprecedented situation, particularly following such a giant of the division, and Hart just did what he had to do. He was matched for the title and won it fair and square, what went before and came afterwards shouldn't have too great a bearing on it.

He should be recognised as a Heavyweight Champion, no question about it for me.

In the ring with Martin Hart?

The genius of PBF wrote:In the ring with Martin Hart?

Combination of that and in the Ring with Tommy Burns, in my defence did acknowledge I was reading Pollacks books at the start so cannot be accused of plagarism

Good article, yes I think so to answer your question, it depends on your outlook would you consider that Shannon Briggs has a claim on the lineal belt ?

Briggs title claim is prety solis from a historical poit of view.

A good few lineal champions who have been witten in stone as part of the line have poor claims in my eye.

Hart is one of them although ironically he might have justified the claim based on who he beat.

The circumstances of Hart winning the title are dubious as mentioned, it's a good question and a good article.

I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, jeff.

Little doubt that, with the exception of Johnson, there was nobody good enough , or charismatic enough, to fill the void left by Jeffries but little doubt, either, that Hart was among the ' best of the rest.'

The loss of his title first time out is only relevant because, as you point out, the man who took it from him was no bona fide heavyweight but, even then, we must remember that Corbett couldn't claim much of a reign, either, and he was unseated by a middle. A great middle, granted, but Corbett was also a great heavy. Hart wasn't.

A weak champion, no doubt, but I believe Hart deserves his little place in history.

Yes I agree Human Windwill its without doubt What salvaged Harts title claim was the fact that he lost to Tommy Burns who went on to travel the world fighting the top champions of Britain, Australia etc. Since Burns was recognised as champion Hart was accepted retrospectivley.

To the original poster Rowley? I haven't the read book, does it go it too much detail about Harts style? From the bits and bobs I've read throughout the years I've heard Hart was like a swarming tough as nails chap, bit like a Smokin Joe, thanks.

Tcribb, all Pollack's books go into exhaustive detail about their style's of fighting, does appear Hart was just pure aggression, by no means a stylist but apparently had half decent power and incredible recuperative abilities. If you look at his record most of his losses at light heavy came across six rounds which does seem to support this, does appear he mainly outlasted opponents rather than did anything particularly cute in the ring.

Thanks Rowley appreciate it, talking about his record I've always had the opinion Aside from the Johnson stuff, Hart was better than he is commonly given credit for. Root, Gardner, O'Brien, Ferguson and Ruhlin were all good men, prime or near that Marvin matched.

His record is pretty good , footage would be priceless,the man gets dismissed all too easily today.

Tend to agree Cribb, as you rightly say the guys he was matching up with at light heavy were very much the cream of the crop and whilst he dropped a few decisions over the shorter distance he was rarely, if ever humiliated in those matches, also have to bear in mind he was often taking on the top men at that weight with as little as a fortnight between fights.

Even in the Johnson fight it is commonly held that it was a daylight robbery but even this is a bit harsh, whilst Johnson was obviously the better fighter fights were very often scored on aggresion back then and the round by round does suggest Hart was the clear leader on that respect.

I think it's simply impossible to deny Hart's claim as a Heavyweight champion to be honest, albeit he remains arguably the poorest of the lot. Ultimately, it's not his fault that his title fight was for a vacant crown; it may have been an unusual situation at the time, but God only knows how many vacant titles have been snapped up since. I don't think we should mark him down on that, for starters.

Another point I'd like to pick up on is that he lost the title to a natural Middleweight. Well yes, that's true, he did. However, I think we should also remember that Hart was, in all reality, nothing more than a Light-Heavyweight himself. Not sure we should crucify him too much for being ousted by Burns (an underrated Heavyweight champion in my opinion, anyway) if we're not going to be so scathing on Corbett, who also contrived to lose to a natural 160 lb man. Of course, Fitzsimmons was one of the great Middleweights of any era, but as Windy has pointed out Corbett's loss is no more excusable in relative terms as he was a considerably finer Heavyweight than Hart was.

That he never managed to successfully defend the crown simply shows that he was one of the poorer champions, but doesn't change the fact that he was one, at the end of the day. He'd shown a lot more pedigree before his title shot (decent results against Johnson, Ruhlin and Gardner) than many others who have contested the title had done before or have done since.

He deserves his place in history, for my money.

Yes of course he should he fought and won the vacant title, it has happened many times since without questions being asked over the validity of the champion and often involving less deserving fighters than Hart.

What is the alternative really? To go straight from Jeffries to Johnson and consider the title undefended until Jeffries came back and lost to Johnson?

Think therein lies the problem Manos, for all people seemed loath to acknowledge Hart few if any seemed willing to offer much better alternatives, saying for as long as Jeffries is around he is champ is just silly, is like us now still calling Lewis champion as he did not lose the title in the ring.

rowley wrote:Think therein lies the problem Manos, for all people seemed loath to acknowledge Hart few if any seemed willing to offer much better alternatives, saying for as long as Jeffries is around he is champ is just silly, is like us now still calling Lewis champion as he did not lose the title in the ring.

Lewis did lose his title in the ring though, he was well behind on points when Klitschko headbutted his fist.

Yeah I could see the problem going from a strong champion like Jeffries, to a weak champion like Hart. In many ways it does undermine Hart and makes his status hard to take seriously. But obviously there needed to be a better solution than simply letting the title die with Jeffries. If Harts credentials at the time were as good as anyones then allowing him fight for a vacant title would be ok with me, given the colour line was in place. Perhaps the issue with the public was as much down to Harts percieved weakness rather than an unwillingness to accept a title to be vacated.

The historian, Jorgensen, undertook the mammoth task, a few years ago, of calculating via computer a retrospective heavyweight ranking system from Sullivan through Lennox Lewis.

These were his rankings for years ending 1903 and 1904 :

Year end 1903


1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
2.BOB FITZSIMMONS
3.JACK JOHNSON
4.GEORGE GARDNER
5.TOMMY RYAN
6.GUS RUHLIN
7.JACK ROOT
8.SAM MCVEY
9.SANDY FERGUSON
10.JAMES J CORBETT
10.MARVIN HART


Year end 1904


1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
2.JACK JOHNSON
3.TOMMY RYAN
4.BOB FITZSIMMONS
5.JACK ROOT
6.PH JACK O'BRIEN
7.MARVIN HART
8.SANDY FERGUSON
9.KID MCCOY
10.JOHN WILLE

I'd reckon that Hart's credentials were reasonable, if not exactly glittering.

I think it's something we have to accept Jeff, I haven't read Pollacks book like your good self, but I've read snippets that Pollacks book has some pretty strong historical evidence to support Marvins case.


Ultimately i guess the most parsimonious solution is to accept it, since it was accepted at the time.

I do think that some equally solid title claims have fallen by the wayside though.

Great article as per Jeff

Great to see you back among us, Jimmy.

Shall you be staying a little longer, this time?

Interesting stuff Windy, however think obviously we have to take Jeffries out of the equation, unfortunately given the times we are dealing with have to do likewise for Johnson and McVey. Would also argue just for the purposes of moving forwards rather than backwards it would probably make sense to do likewise with Corbett and Fitzsimmons. If we do that it far from makes Hart a clearly obvious choice to contest the title it becomes less ridiculous.

Sullivan and Corbett had only tenious claims to be world champion too, John L failing to beat Mitchell or fight Jackson, Slavin or Goddard.

I've always had Had the theory Jeffries was the 1st linear champion

rowley wrote:Interesting stuff Windy, however think obviously we have to take Jeffries out of the equation, unfortunately given the times we are dealing with have to do likewise for Johnson and McVey. Would also argue just for the purposes of moving forwards rather than backwards it would probably make sense to do likewise with Corbett and Fitzsimmons. If we do that it far from makes Hart a clearly obvious choice to contest the title it becomes less ridiculous.

Exactly how I see it, jeff.

He might not have been numero uno but he was certainly in the chasing pack. tcribb's points about Sully and Corbett are also interesting, to me, though they do address the issue from a slightly different angle.

Thanks very much Windy it's great to read some great posts as usual from you guys.

Unfortunately circumstances have it I can only make only the odd fleeting appearance now and again, however I often do read the discussions when I get a chance.

hope everyone is fine and healthy

Likewise you, mate.

Always a pleasure when you join us.

Good to see you back Jimmy hope you are keeping well, as I have done on several occasions would heartily recommend all of Pollacks books, am about half way through the Tommy Burns one at the minute and it is up to the usual standard, can only hope he continues the series and we get Johnson next.

I guess you have kind of a point Cribb, however I think the lineage from Sullivan is pretty solid.

Beat the gloved American champion (Goss).

Beat the bareknuckle American champion (Ryan)

At this stage many people saw the American title as representing the true linage, because Jem Mace had unified the British and American titles before moving to the states. After he vacated Allen and Goss fought for his vacant title claim.

Sullivan then beat Mitchell who represented the residual British portion of the title claim, in a gloved bout.

He swept up a couple of other miscelaneous title claims as well.

It is complicated though.

The only thing that was criticised at the time, was the fact that he did not beat the British champion in a barekuckle bout. That formed the basis for the Killrain title claim, which Sullivan eventualy settled.

Thanks for the kind words Jeff & Windy I'm keeping fine, hope all is well with yourselves.

Having read Pollacks book on Jeffries I certainly aim to get through his full catalogue of books Jeff, might have to wait for the retirement days first though

Jimmy Stuart wrote:Thanks for the kind words Jeff & Windy I'm keeping fine, hope all is well with yourselves.

Having read Pollacks book on Jeffries I certainly aim to get through his full catalogue of books Jeff, might have to wait for the retirement days first though

They are neither cheap or light reading I will concede, however the last time I spoke to him he was a little undecided on whether to do a Johnson book so will admit my continued promotion of the books is motivated by a healthy dose of self interest.

Afternoon Jimmy, to echo windy and rowley it's good to see you contributing.

Thank you very much Fists likewise to yourself mate.

Well Jeff the details Pollack find is fascinating, I shall look forward to reading the restof his library, Johnson would be interesting, Unforgvable Blackness was great, however the small footers and side posts were little over the top in the end.

When I read this article it made me think of Peter Maher and Sailor Tom Sharkey's claim to the title.

Maher won the vacant title after Corbett retired. Fitz took the title from Maher who then lost it to The Sailor in the infamous Wyatt Earp refereed fight.

Corbett's subsequent return to the ring rendered Maher's, Fitzsimmon's and Sharkey's claim to the title null and void.


Their claim has some similarities with Hart, except in those days Corbett's claim to the title remained during his short retirement.


There was obviously a very different view to things back then.

He has to be in because taking him out would ruin my mojo when doing my party trick of naming the lineal heavyweight champions. The names of Hart, Burns, Johannson and Briggs are what make the ladies swoon at my feet.

superflyweight wrote:He has to be in because taking him out would ruin my mojo when doing my party trick of naming the lineal heavyweight champions. The names of Hart, Burns, Johannson and Briggs are what make the ladies swoon at my feet.

In that case he is in Superfly, wish you had said earlier, could have put this one to bed.

I wrote this on the old 606...plagiarism rowley huh??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I wrote this on the old 606...plagiarism rowley huh??

Caught me out Truss, better put my Lewis is Canadian thread on hold.

I'm enjoying the article and the replies rowley...Just remember my Hart article being pooed pooed...Nothing to do with the author of it I'm sure!!

Always said Hart should be hoovered out of heavy history....however apparently he was very proud of his "achievement" and it's written on his tombstone....Heavyweight champ...So he respected the honor..

Excellent article by the way!!

rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:He has to be in because taking him out would ruin my mojo when doing my party trick of naming the lineal heavyweight champions. The names of Hart, Burns, Johannson and Briggs are what make the ladies swoon at my feet.

In that case he is in Superfly, wish you had said earlier, could have put this one to bed.

Who is your lineal now Fly?

Obviously - it stops in 2004 with Lennox's retirement. However - did Vitali beat the number 2 in the division or at least the number 3? No. So Vitali retires and we have an interregnum. Wlad has beaten Chagaev (divisional no3) and Haye (divisional no3) so are you going to give him the lineal? Or did Vitali's demolition of Peter count as a "Marvin_Hart_circumstance?"

To be honest oxy I like it to finish when Jeffries retired, makes it easier to remember.

rowley wrote:To be honest oxy I like it to finish when Jeffries retired, makes it easier to remember.

*Like.

That's facebook speak, jeff, if you're too young for such tomfoolery.

Glad you explained it mate was trying to work out where the spelling mistake was, I'll have you know you I do actually have a facebook account.

I only do surnames, oxy, so Klitschco is the current lineal.

Thought you already had one Jeff!!! Just become friends with Ryan Rhodes on his and I noticed a Rowley already on there!!!

I think it depends when you are champ in the early days black fighters were not allowed to fight for titles so imo if you were a champ back then and did not fight black fighters then you are not a true champ. Look at how many heavyweight champions have been black and how many top quality fighters they have had how can you say you are the best if you dont fight them??

Waingro wrote:I think it depends when you are champ in the early days black fighters were not allowed to fight for titles so imo if you were a champ back then and did not fight black fighters then you are not a true champ. Look at how many heavyweight champions have been black and how many top quality fighters they have had how can you say you are the best if you dont fight them??

So for you the first HW champ is Corbett - after all he fought Percy Jackson first.

Waingro wrote:I think it depends when you are champ in the early days black fighters were not allowed to fight for titles so imo if you were a champ back then and did not fight black fighters then you are not a true champ. Look at how many heavyweight champions have been black and how many top quality fighters they have had how can you say you are the best if you dont fight them??

Waingro, you really need to study up.

Marvin Hart qualified for a shot at the title by beating Jack Johnson, who was black.

The decision was controversial, and Johnson probably wouldn't have been allowed to fight for the title even if he had been given the win, but that's hardly the fault of Marvin Hart.

HumanWindmill wrote:Marvin Hart qualified for a shot at the title by beating Jack Johnson, who was black.

The decision was controversial, and Johnson probably wouldn't have been allowed to fight for the title even if he had been given the win, but that's hardly the fault of Marvin Hart.

And Sullivan was "the man" beforehand, anyway. Even if he did draw the colour line - the man at his peak must have been incredible.

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??

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.

I'll be honest kid you seem to rush straight in... on subjects you know very little about...

It's not an endearing trait..