2nd worst lineal champion ever, next to Leon Spinks. I can hear an argument for him over Rahman tho. He is nowhere to be found on my top 50 H2H Heavyweights or top 50 greatest Heavyweights
I think he was an ok contender. A crap heavyweight champion, and I think his place in the lineage is dubious. Underrated by some who totally write him off. I think some give him too much credit for the Johnson win, which I think was largely just a really bad performance by Johnson.
Good fighter but bad champion. Definitely better than people who call him nobody, he has some nice wins other than Jack Johnson but he was just a decent contender and never the best in the world.
He has an awful reputation but do a little research and it turns out that he was a tough and game brawler that had a decent record. 20 ko's from 28 wins means he could punch a bit.
It appears that Marvin Hart was quite good for a very short time before he went downhill very quickly. - Chuck Johnston
I get the idea that he was a bit better than he is seen as today. I doubt that he would go down in your estimation, as a result of an intensive study of his career. If you disagree with me, then that is very bad for Jack Johnson. He is probably slightly better head to head, than he is in terms of resume, and he would almost certainly have had success in some other eras!
Hart's claim to fame is winning an extremely dubious and suspicious decision in a fight where Jack Johnson apparently fought an extremely lax fight and still beat him up and handily outboxed him. Except for his fights against a late career Gus Ruhlin, all of his worthwhile accomplishments came against men would be light-heavyweights or super middleweights at best, today. Some would be middleweights or junior-middles. He was a crude fighter who had stamina and durability, and strength and power (at least relative to the little guys he fought). He was seen as such an unimpressive heavyweight contender that nobody complained when Jeffries retired rather than wasting his time fighting Hart. There is no reason to believe that Hart would have been effective at heavyweight in any other era.
Some historians think that Hart might have legitimately won that fight. If that is the case, then that is a bit of a game changer. Nobody else beat Johnson, for a number of years either side of that! That criticism could be made of a lot of champions throughout the 20th century! That says more about how highly rated/over rated Jeffries was, than how lowly rated Hart was. A lot of people thought exactly the same thing about Jack Johnson at the time! There I would have to disagree. Weak eras are ten a penny. Hart actually had to beat a dominant champion to get his title shot! Who is to say that he couldn't insert himself into an era, where the title changed hands regularly, and end up on top with the right breaks?
Let's put an end to this nonsense. Johnson battered Hart's face to a pulp without sustaining any real damage himself. He handily outboxed Hart throughout the fight. Many reputable people called the decision an abominable robbery. The best argument in favor of the decision is basically that although Hart was beaten up and soundly outboxed, it was within the ref's discretion to award Hart the decision because of his ineffective aggression. Think about that. There's absolutely no game changer there whatsoever. To different degrees, yes, and it raises questions about how they would fare head-to-head in eras dominated by much bigger men too. And it's not a criticism--it's an observation. This seems like a baseless assertion. And Hart's was one of the weakest of the weak. It was a still-transitional era full of tiny, unimpressive heavyweights with questionable skills and techniques. Those "heavyweights" would make the notoriously weak era of the 1930s look like the 70s or 90s! See above (first paragraph) and my previous post on Hart.
Is the time period between Jeffries and Johnson considered the weakest era of the division? Just curious
He hit a streak of good results and was dead game. He does deserve credit for the Johnson victory as both fighters were aware that aggression and forcing the fight were a premium factor in the outcome. Johnson sat on his lead and let Hart dictate the action. Would he wim the exact same fight today under today's criteria? No. But give him credit. He pulled a trick many, many other fighters, some All Time Greats, were unable to pull. And he looked fearsome in his adult diaper.
Sure, but how many guys can say they were good enough to hold that belt for 30 seconds. We can say that he couldn't beat modern guys in that division but he beat who he needed to and who was available band he fought, and he beat the biggest bad @ss of the day by the rules of the day. Not bad for a Kentucky hillbilly.
