BoxRec

donnellon wrote:Fitz was indeed the outstanding challanger but in the public eyes his reputation was tarnished as a result of the failure of the Corbett-Fitz to become a reality in 1895.

How was Fitz's reputation tarnished by the fight not happening? From everything I've read, it was Corbett's that was tarnished.

Ambling Alp wrote:I think that Marvin Hart has more of a claim to being a champion. Of course some people don't consider Hart. However, when he fought Root, you could atleast argue that the top two fighters (atleast white fighters :( ) were fighting for the title.

Although this is the popular perception, it's often forgotten that Hart had beaten Jack Johnson just a few months earlier (and in Johnson's adopted backyard of California). So technically speaking, Hart really was the top fighter, white or black (even if not necessarily the best).

Root's credentials shouldn't be so easily dismissed, either.

Supposedly, the decision in the Hart-Johnson fight was pretty bad. I think this was mentioned in a thread a while back. Anyway, most people think Johnson deserved the decision. I myself am always reluctant to bring up a bad decision that I didn't see myself, but I have read this in so many places that I think that it is probably true.

I think that Johnson probably was the #1 heavyweight at the time of Jeffries retirement. No one really stood out. I think that Hart and Root were arguably the two best white fighters. There is no perfect way to determine a new champion for a vacant title. However, giving the title to the winner of Hart and Root was legitimate. You can atleast make a legitimate arguement for doing it that way. Therefore I consider Marvin Hart to be a legitimate heavyweight champion.

Here is the San Francisco Call account of the Johnson-Hart fight (3-29-1905) p. 10, 14:

Did donnellon write a book on PETER MAHER ?

Couldn't tell that from most of the posts on this thread.

Grin.
Maher stood one quarter of an inch under six feet.

donnellon wrote:Grin.
Maher stood one quarter of an inch under six feet.

donnellon,

For me, Maher was a significant fighter from the last decade of the 1800's.

He was also considered highly in the succeeding decades after his career was over: I have come across a number of photos of Maher at an older age with then current top level fighters.

I also know he was thought by great fighters like Gans and Jack Johnson to be a great, great right hand puncher.

But I actually know little of his career--When he came to the US----What were his significant fights---etc

WHY did they regard him so highly?

granberry wrote:Did donnellon write a book on PETER MAHER ?

Couldn't tell that from most of the posts on this thread.

The posts were about the Jack Root/Marivn Hart fight and Maher's claim to the title. Do try to keep up.

And you wouldn't know most threads on the classic forum were about boxing from reading your childish, ad hominem drivel that pollutes them.

granberry wrote:

donnellon wrote:Grin.
Maher stood one quarter of an inch under six feet.

donnellon,

For me, Maher was a significant fighter from the last decade of the 1800's.

He was also considered highly in the succeeding decades after his career was over: I have come across a number of photos of Maher at an older age with then current top level fighters.

I also know he was thought by great fighters like Gans and Jack Johnson to be a great, great right hand puncher.

But I actually know little of his career--When he came to the US----What were his significant fights---etc

WHY did they regard him so highly?

Why don't you purchase a copy of the book this fellow is spruiking?

From the Trafford Publishing Website: US $29.28, C $29.28, EUR 20.00, £15.12

You can order the book on-line.

http://www.trafford.com/07-2554

The book "The Irish champion" gives the different opinions on Maher's claim at the time. Choynski, Dan Stuart, Jim Hall, Sam Fitzpatrick, Phil Dwyer, Pat Sheedy, Kid Lavinge, Billy Edwards, Arthur Lumnley and others are quoted. There was of course by no means universal acceptance of his claim but it was certainly debated and taken seriously.
Leo Miletich, in his excellent book, "Dan Stuart's Fistic Carnival" covers the first abortive attempt at a Corbett-Fitz fight in great detail and put forward the theory that Fitz and his manager Martin Julian allowed themselves to get arrested, thus preventing the fight in order to save face as the were near broke and didn't have anything like the required stakemoney. They also were believed to have scuppered the Florida AC attempt to put on the fight. The Fitz camp no doubt had another side to the story but to the mass of the greater public Corbett was seen as the one who wanted to fight, regardless where the real truth lay.Adam Pollack in his well researched book "In the ring with Bob Fitzsimmons" appears to come down on the side of those that believed that despite both fighters been willing, they never stood a chance because of the forces of the law massed against the fight.
A final point on the Hart-Root affair, I have allways felt they were legitimate top contenders and Hart's claim was diluted with the passing of time and hurt by his losing the title so quickly to Burns and also Jeffries subsequent reversal of his retirement decision. Hart's claim is not now helped by his drawing of the color bar(as Fitz and Jeffries did-But not Maher) but at the time this was generally regarded as acceptable.

donnellon,

For those of us actually interested in Maher, tell us a bit about your work on this book and what you hope to accomplish by it.

granberry wrote:donnellon,

For those of us actually interested in Maher, tell us a bit about your work on this book and what you hope to accomplish by it.

I thought i knew boxing and its history reasonably well but 5 years ago I checked out Maher's career and was surprised how little I knew about him. The more I read up on him the more amazed how highly his peers and contempories rated him. I wondered why so i dug a little deeper and this book is the result of 4 years of that digging. Most of the book is based on contempory accounts of his fights etc.
What do i hope to accomplish by it? I suppose to rectify this lack of knowledge of a top fighter of the turn of the twentieth century who had a pretty turbulent career and life.

donnellon wrote:

granberry wrote:donnellon,

For those of us actually interested in Maher, tell us a bit about your work on this book and what you hope to accomplish by it.

I thought i knew boxing and its history reasonably well but 5 years ago I checked out Maher's career and was surprised how little I knew about him. The more I read up on him the more amazed how highly his peers and contempories rated him. I wondered why so i dug a little deeper and this book is the result of 4 years of that digging. Most of the book is based on contempory accounts of his fights etc.
What do i hope to accomplish by it? I suppose to rectify this lack of knowledge of a top fighter of the turn of the twentieth century who had a pretty turbulent career and life.

Gans was not easy with praise but he rated Maher at the top as a hitter.

granberry wrote:coillins is SO interested in Peter Maher.

collins was so interested in Maher that he trashed the last boxrec thread on Maher with continuous non-sequitor, non-boxing, homosexual posts.

Now he appears here with continuous ad hominem posts.

We all know collins and his various aliases are sick, but what is his fascination with trashing any and all threads dealing with Peter Maher?

Yes, yes, very droll. But have you ordered the book yet?

I'm thinking of getting a copy to read on the patio over a few pink gins before tiffin, but I would like an independent report from an unbiased expert and I immediately thought of you.

LOL

From the Trafford Publishing Website: US $29.28, C $29.28, EUR 20.00, £15.12

You can order the book on-line.

http://www.trafford.com/07-2554

granberry wrote:Donnellon,

Collins and his crew DO NOT want you to discuss Peter Maher on this thread you started to announce that your new book on Maher is coming out.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to them that you NOT discuss anything about Maher on boxrec.

Meanwhile, slow thinking ‘tax lawyer’ raylawc, brought to boxrec by collins, fills up your Peter Maher thread with post after post on Jim Jeffries and Marvin Hart.

Believe it, donnellon.

These creeps DO NOT want you to discuss Peter Maher or your new book on Maher on the boxrec thread you started to announce your book is coming out.

This thread is proof of what a useless, sicko site boxreek is.

And yet you contininue to post here... Did your parole officer advise you that looking at sites such as this would take your mind off of the young lads who have not yet reached the age of majority; the very lads that got you in trouble in the first place?

LOL

Come on you two, and I mean Collins and Granberry. (Collins, you keep taunting egging him on.) Don't you see that you have poisoned yet another thread by your juvenile bickering? Your contributions to these threads are outweighed by this crap. Please be on notice that you both have been warned: DO NOT bicker in these threads! Keep it to your Granberry thread, and stop pissing on other people's threads. Stick to the topic at hand. A third warning will likely result in you both being banned from the BoxRec forum. I and others have had enough!!

It's not only this thread, but many others (Jimmy Young, Greatest KOs, The Ring's 80 Greatest, Tyson & D'Amato, and too many others). I'm tired of trying to delete all those bickering posts by you both. Why not just IGNORE each other and stop this CRAP?