BoxRec

PETER MAHER

Joe Gans said Maher was the best right hand puncher he saw.

Jack Johnson said the same.


Maher (left) against Bob Fitzsimmons 1896

PETER MAHER WITH MICKEY WALKER (1931)

Walker never seen that right hand...

I did a thread on this man some time ago, I think I entitled it as "The Uncrowned Champion", as Maher was handed over the title when Corbett "retired", only to have the claim be taken away from him when Corbett returned, only to lose to Fitzsimmons.

Thanks for the photos.

Granberry, would love to know the source of your quotes. Corbett also held Maher to be the hardest hitter of those times as well as several others like Harry Otto and Harry Lenny.

donnellon wrote:Granberry, would love to know the source of your quotes. Corbett also held Maher to be the hardest hitter of those times as well as several others like Harry Otto and Harry Lenny.

Gans--newspaper interview discussing straight punching

Johnson--Ring magazine long interview discussing how earlier heavyweights would do vs current champion Joe Louis

Look at the number of first round knockouts in Maher's record.

Thanks, Granberry.
Maher did several barn-storming tours a la John L of The USA and Ireland and the numbers KO'd by him on these tours probably run into the hundreds.

Any more photos from that era Gran ?

Fitz in black trunks with back to camera---same fight

Granberry, ever notice the problem with the two Fitz-Maher photo's?
Clue; George Siler.
PS I quoted Harry Otto on Maher's punching power, my error, it should be Otto Flotto.

donnellon wrote:Granberry, ever notice the problem with the two Fitz-Maher photo's?
Clue; George Siler.
PS I quoted Harry Otto on Maher's punching power, my error, it should be Otto Flotto.

Maybe Siler took off his vest.

Were there other fights in the same location?

One fight only, minute and a bit, unlikely to take off the vest as it was cold and heading for rain and the action was very hectic. Bit of a mystery. There is another picture from the fight which shows Siler with no vest but...maybe he has...something in his right hand!
Damn I dont know how to post that photo.

donnellon wrote:One fight only, minute and a bit, unlikely to take off the vest as it was cold and heading for rain and the action was very hectic. Bit of a mystery. There is another picture from the fight which shows Siler with no vest but...maybe he has...something in his right hand!
Damn I dont know how to post that photo.

What things ARE the same? (consistent)

The black trunks of the fighter with his back to the camera.

The squatters on the hill.

Audience around the ring?

What things are different?

The vest/no vest of the referee.

Are the rest of the referee's clothes identical to the first photo?
Pants, shirt, suspenders, etc ?

What is NOT determinable?

Is the face of the fighter facing the camera at all possible to be recognized as compared to the first photo?

What about the face of the referee as compared to the first photo?

Are the physical builds of the fighters consistent with their actual builds (arms legs, etc.) in the other photo?

Are any members of the audience recognizable from one picture to the other?

What is the difference in the location of the camera in each picture?

Ref and boxers look same as in your first photo, both in dress and looks.
The crowd looks similar eg the guy with the towel is the same.
See the link below for more detailed arguement on the photo.
www.antekprizering.com/fitzsimmonsmahermistake.html
The link below might give you a view of the photo that I cant post. Let us know your opinions.
www.boxing-memorabilia.com/pics13.htm

I was just about to go into detail as to why those two photos arent Fitz-Maher but that link describes it perfectly.

Here's a long range picture of the fight scene:

donnellon wrote:Ref and boxers look same as in your first photo, both in dress and looks.
The crowd looks similar eg the guy with the towel is the same.
See the link below for more detailed arguement on the photo.
www.antekprizering.com/fitzsimmonsmahermistake.html
The link below might give you a view of the photo that I cant post. Let us know your opinions.
www.boxing-memorabilia.com/pics13.htm

Donnellon,

Nobody answered my questions about

IS IT Siler (facially)?

IS IT Maher (facially) ?

Re the photo.

The planting of the feet and spreading of the legs rings true, with the two fighters in there to do one thing—take out the opponent.

The real Fitz’ back, upper arms, and legs DID look like the black trunk figure in all three photos.
That certainly appears to be Fitz, balding head and very flexible at the waist.

There have to be many other papers which covered the same fight.

What about more local newspapers?

For some reason I mistrust New England papers (Boston, NY) reporting on this far away fight.

I know the incompetent NEW YORK TIMES report says Gans knocked out Erne in THREE rounds to win the title.
And that fight took place in New York.


At this point nothing is conclusive.

I will say that, to me, the photos of the fighters and what they are doing do ring true.

That is not Fitzsimmons-Maher for the simple fact that there is no canvas enclosure which is mentioned in every reliable account of the fight. The long view that Ray posted is authentic and it even shows Enoch Rector's stand set up to film the event with two cameras.

Granberry, it looks like Siler, could be Maher(should he look bigger?) and IMO looks like Fitz.
The link in the earlier post above deals with the counter claim as regards the ring surround, etc and I felt for a long time that the picture was not of the Maher-Fitz fight.
However, like Granberry i have come to suspect that some of the eye-witness reporters never set foot at the fight. Less than 200 were at ringside and while I have read many reports of the fight, all were by outside newspapers. There wasn't many local papers in that neck of the desert!
The fighters and referee look authentic but the questions remain like the one about the enclosure etc. One thing I read from a contempory source is that there was a photographer at the fight other than the Kinescope people.

donnellon wrote:Granberry, it looks like Siler, could be Maher(should he look bigger?) and IMO looks like Fitz.
The link in the earlier post above deals with the counter claim as regards the ring surround, etc and I felt for a long time that the picture was not of the Maher-Fitz fight.
However, like Granberry i have come to suspect that some of the eye-witness reporters never set foot at the fight. Less than 200 were at ringside and while I have read many reports of the fight, all were by outside newspapers. There wasn't many local papers in that neck of the desert!
The fighters and referee look authentic but the questions remain like the one about the enclosure etc. One thing I read from a contempory source is that there was a photographer at the fight other than the Kinescope people.

Every daily newspaper relies on wire reports. Wire reports are not invariably inaccurate.

raylawpc wrote: Wire reports are not invariably inaccurate.

Sounds like a sentence from the US tax code.

klompton wrote:I was just about to go into detail as to why those two photos arent Fitz-Maher but that link describes it perfectly.

Klompton, nothing will convince some of the knuckleheads here...

Interesting thread here with most posters very knowledgeable about an obscure photograph of a fight 112years ago.
Every reference to the fight I can find has Maher wearing dark shorts and this coupled to the difficulty of getting a photo shot that excluds the 10 foot high surround leads me to believe that this is not a scene from the Fitz-Maher fight. Also Maher does not look that much like Maher, if you know what I mean.
Fitz and Siler look the biz though as do the spectators at ringside. A real mystery to me.

Granberry, Raylaw THE ANSWER. Follow this link;
http://www.antekprizering.com/smithaustralianlewis.html