a competitive tilt, to be sure. The great Kentuckian slayer, fistic majesty in full diaper apparel, vanquisher of Jack Johnson meeting the diminutive Francis Bruno over 12 round sof heavyweight pugilistic encounter. Who between these evenly matched foes would emerge the victor? (wiping perspiration from mine brow) "Too close to call!" says I.
We don't know how he fought but it's safe to say that on harts best night Johnson could not do a damn thing with him. He must have been either a tough, defiant stayer or a clever Fox that one time because nothing else really stands out on Harts career. Maybe illnesses prevented Hart becoming the fighter he could have been, who knows? I am going with Bruno here so long as Frank is led to believe Hart was not that good. Bruno was a great over 6 rounds but good fighters taking him past that point were always in with a chance.
Bruno would get KO'd. He simply could not withstand the relentless nonstop two-fisted attack from a guy who could take it and keep coming, who also had the condition to keep it up round after round.
There is no film on Hart. But I did see film on Jack Root. The guy Hart beat to claim the title vacated by Jeffries. To be honest Root looks good! Perhaps Hart was a little under appreciated because he followed Jeffries.
Hart? I think you were actually describing Alfredo the tomato Evangelistica. The man was just a ball of fire I tell ya.
I think this is a very big call. It surprises me a little. I do agree that he might have a chance if he lasts into the later rounds, but it is pretty unlikely. I know Hart had a really good run of form in 1904-1905 when he beat the likes of Ruhlin, Johnson and Root. But i think that it is telling that he not only lost his title to Burns in somewhat of an upset, he was never good enough to demand a rematch which his form, but more importantly, he could never fight his way back into contention to fight Johnson, even though he would ahve been the logical great white hope and received a potential pay day. You had to be a good fighter in those days to reach as far as he did, but i dont think he was any better in his own time than Frank was in his. With the exception of the Johnson win, Frank probably beat a better quality of fighter and more of them, and those fighters who it took to beat Bruno were certainly a lot better than some of those who beat and drew with Hart. Stylistically it is hard to find comparative opponents, but if the power of Burns and Choynski caused Hart problems, you would think that the power of Bruno would as well.
He outpointed Sandy Ferguson, who was around the same size as Bruno. We should not dismiss his chances here.
Ferguson beat the **** out of Hart, he had him on the floor and nearly out but was robbed, the referee justified his decision by saying," Hart did most of the leading",sound familiar?
No, we certainly shouldn't - this is heavyweight boxing, so anything could happen. But at the same time, we shouldn't dismiss Bruno's chances either! Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can just write Bruno off by flatly stating, that he would get ko'd because "He simply could not withstand the relentless nonstop two-fisted attack from a guy who could take it and keep coming"... especially when we have no record of that guy ever having knocked out anyone even close to Bruno's size!
I would not call Bruno a durable or confident fighter. In fact he tended to run out if steam in the later rounds. I like Bruno early and Hart late. If the match was 15 rounds or more Hart could certainly win it.
Look, putting aside the fight with Johnson which he clearly lost on points but was awarded for grit, Bruno is a completely different match up ... Frank was a much bigger puncher than Jack and I se Bruno getting him out of there early ...